Skip to main content

Just to be clear, I'm using this definition of pan-Africanism:

quote:
Pan-Africanism literally means 'all Africanism'. It is a sociopolitical world-view, as well as a movement, which seeks to unify and uplift both native Africans and those of the African diaspora, as part of a "global African community".

As originally conceived by Trinidadian Henry Sylvester Williams, pan-Africanism referred to the unity of all continental Black African cultures and countries. The concept soon expanded, however, to include all Black African-descended people worldwide, who had been dispersed to the United States of America, the Caribean, Latin America and even parts of the Middle East and South Asia through the trans-Atlantic and Islamic/East African slave trades and, later, immigration.


Pan-Africanism seems to imply solidarity between all Negro peoples (I say Negro instead of African b/c there are other, non-Black ethnic groups in the continent who aren't included, and some "Black" people like Malays and Malaitans are not of African heritage). Yet there is such a wide diversity of ethnic groups, religions, and philosphical systems associated with Black Africans/Negroes (and their descendents). Expecting unity through racial group alone doesn't take into consideration the impact of religion. For example, will a northern Ethiopian of the Islaic faith have more in common with Eritrean Christains, or Arab Muslims? This idea that rcae will outweigh everything else seems to be the major flaw. What do you think?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
there is no such thing as a Negro first of all and there is no black people or any people for that matter anywhere that didnt originate in Africa. you can talk about the blacks in the Pacific, in Asia or even Austrailia, all people of the earth came from Africans.


You're right; all of modern Homo sapiens developed and dispered from the African continent. However, I assumed that in context of my first post, it would be clear that I was speaking only of people whose recent genetic heritage (last 30k years or so) is from Subsaharan Africa.

So, with these terms more clearly defined, what do you think?
Perhaps this is a bit off-topic (I'm trying to wrap my mind around your question). But it seems to me that there are going to be tensions and underlying differences in almost any group designation.

For example, it's not so clear what African American identity is. But it nevertheless serves as a useful construct IMO. The same thing with Jewish identity. Jews are a people who have been scattered all over the world and have many underlying cultural (and even racial) tensions - as say between Sephardic Jews and Ashkanazim. But yet it means something to be a Jew.

IMHO, if anything else "Pan-Africanism", even if it's not really possible at present, is an interesting unifying concept which may help to bring about the very unity that it names.

Perhaps a more interesting question: "Is Pan-Africanism desireable?" or "Does Pan-Africanism serve a useful purpose?"
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
Just to be clear, I'm using this definition of pan-Africanism:

quote:
Pan-Africanism literally means 'all Africanism'. It is a sociopolitical world-view, as well as a movement, which seeks to unify and uplift both native Africans and those of the African diaspora, as part of a "global African community".

As originally conceived by Trinidadian Henry Sylvester Williams, pan-Africanism referred to the unity of all continental Black African cultures and countries. The concept soon expanded, however, to include all Black African-descended people worldwide, who had been dispersed to the United States of America, the Caribean, Latin America and even parts of the Middle East and South Asia through the trans-Atlantic and Islamic/East African slave trades and, later, immigration.


Pan-Africanism seems to imply solidarity between all Negro peoples (I say Negro instead of African b/c there are other, non-Black ethnic groups in the continent who aren't included, and some "Black" people like Malays and Malaitans are not of African heritage). Yet there is such a wide diversity of ethnic groups, religions, and philosphical systems associated with Black Africans/Negroes (and their descendents). Expecting unity through racial group alone doesn't take into consideration the impact of religion. For example, will a northern Ethiopian of the Islaic faith have more in common with Eritrean Christains, or Arab Muslims? This idea that rcae will outweigh everything else seems to be the major flaw. What do you think?


two thoughts

one

Pan-Africanism could come to be in two different manners. One would be to unite "religions" and "belief systems" and all come together to be one happy family.
The other would be more like a business agreement, where we do not necissarily have to come to one accord instantly or even at all.

two

I think one thing that does seem to be true to me, it could be a misconception, is that Africans can be satisfied with life without feeling like everyone on earth agrees with them and the way they think. I also think we are more capable of understanding threats without being overwhelmed with fear. With that said and the knowledge that Africa is the Largest Inhabitable contanent in the world I think we could all return home and be united as a people and still have our differences. It's really all about preferences and allowing others to have there own.
quote:
For example, will a northern Ethiopian of the Islaic faith have more in common with Eritrean Christains, or Arab Muslims? This idea that rcae will outweigh everything else seems to be the major flaw. What do you think?

In the context of organizing to defeat white supremacy, Africans regardless of relgion or geographic boundaries better organize along the lines of race. Our survival depends on it.
Excellent question, UppityNegress! tfro

But, I think just the fact that your opening statement and question couldn't be agreed on upon contextual and conceptual basis pretty much knocks a "Pan-African" alliance out of the box. Too many different .... everythings to come together and embrace each other unconditionally.

I would love to see the concept brought to life. But even the optimist in me is not encouraged that it could actually work. But, I wouldn't advocate that people stop trying ... because a lot of good could come from the attempt.

If nothing else, to get us to stop fighting each other would be a major accomplishment.
quote:
For example, it's not so clear what African American identity is.
---HonestBrother

And...since 'Pan-Africanism' begins 'at home', why isn't that clear.

What is 'unclear' about African American identity?

Shouldn't 'Pan-Africansim' be more than simply 'black'.

Maybe 'Pan-Africanism' cannot be more than simply 'black'

Considering that when 'UppityNegress' listed locations of the African Diaspora, she omitted all the nations of Europe, questions of such identity exist for others as well.

And then there is the issue of who constitutes the African Diaspora.

The original description includes immigrants in addition to those 'out of African against their will'.

I would be one of those questioning lumping the voluntary with the involuntary.

I don't think 'Pan-Africanism' will ever be more than a loose association around the world.

For instance, I have no concept of the descendants of all those millions(?) of people taken to Europe, against their will, as a part of The Atlantic Slave Trade.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
However, I assumed that in context of my first post, it would be clear that I was speaking only of people whose recent genetic heritage (last 30k years or so) is from Subsaharan Africa.

This is a very interesting discussion. But, I have to ask...

Why Subsaharan Africa? Mediteranian Africa doesn't count as Africa? Confused
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
However, I assumed that in context of my first post, it would be clear that I was speaking only of people whose recent genetic heritage (last 30k years or so) is from Subsaharan Africa.

This is a very interesting discussion. But, I have to ask...

Why Subsaharan Africa? Mediteranian Africa doesn't count as Africa? Confused


I think that perhaps there is the issue of Arab cultural dominance that motivated the distinction. Morocco, for example, is an Arab country. So are Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, and Egypt. The people racially look like Middle Easterners.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
The people racially look like Middle Easterners.

I would contend that "Middle Easteners" is not a race. IMO, they are Black, because they are of very close African decent, if not straight African decent. Their genetic code, as well as their culture, is much closer to ours than to that of caucasians or asians.

I know... This leads us to a much larger question. How does one define race? Or African?
I think People need to read about Pan Africanism, understand how it started who was ivolved and who is involved today. To say something that is already been in motion for about a century its to downplay the great work so many panafrican have done. I would consider giants like Sekou Ture , Kwame Nkruma, Patrice Lamumba as well as so many others were panafricanist in their ideology. We must understand what happend doing the independence years and understand the relationship between the PanAfricanist who often were the vanguard of the liberation struggle and the Colonial Puppets used to counterset any agenda to unify the African continent.
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
I think People need to read about Pan Africanism, understand how it started who was ivolved and who is involved today. To say something that is already been in motion for about a century its to downplay the great work so many panafrican have done. I would consider giants like Sekou Ture , Kwame Nkruma, Patrice Lamumba as well as so many others were panafricanist in their ideology. We must understand what happend doing the independence years and understand the relationship between the PanAfricanist who often were the vanguard of the liberation struggle and the Colonial Puppets used to counterset any agenda to unify the African continent.



Without implying intent in your post, isuch noting should include the seminal input of W.E.B. DuBois and the later key involvement of John Henrik Clarke who leveraged the doctorate of Chienk Anta Diop from The Sorbonne.

Both were African American-Americans.

DuBois were was mentor to Kwame Nkrumah.

If I have my history right.


PEACE

Jim Chester
well there were many africans from America, as well as the rest of the Diaspora, of course WEB was instrumental and I might add one of the foremost panafricanist of his time, as well as CLR James, George Patmore, JA Rogers, Malcom X was a Panafricanist in his own right as well as Marcus Garvey, the Great John Henrike Clark, Dr. Ben, Wade Nobels, AS well as cats like Dr Amos Wilson and so on, I dont know if WEB was Nkrumas mentor, but i do know while at Lincoln University and a part of the Harlem History club we was in the company of Dr Clarke as well as the late great Ivan Van Sertima, so there is a whole host of examples of Panafircanism at work
quote:
Pan-Africanism could come to be in two different manners. One would be to unite "religions" and "belief systems" and all come together to be one happy family.


If that's the case, the what's the point of Pan-Africanism? Shouldn't people just form closer alliances based of religions and philosophy then?
quote:
The other would be more like a business agreement, where we do not necissarily have to come to one accord instantly or even at all.

If that's the case, it's not a very strong alliance, and what would be the point? Just to sorta legally recognize, "yeah, we sorta look alike. Kewl"?

Not trying to knock what you said, just trying to get a better understanding. Thanks for the response.
quote:
Originally posted by Shango67:
Negro?

WTF?


WTF indeed. OK, this may be another one of my trademarked moments of naivete, but what's so wrong with the word Negro? I've alwasy found it to be a concise description of poeple whose genetic heritage is predominantly from Subsaharan Africa, and who recognize as such. African-American doesn't take into count the Negroes all over the globe. Black is perhaps the second best, but there are ther groups such as Australian aborigines and Pacific Islanders wh are considered "Black", yet not genetically similar.

quote:
You should study Blyden when examining the origins of Pan Africanism. Blyden coined the term, Williams organized the first Pan African conference.

Thanks for the info. I'm going to look into Blyden and Williams.

quote:
In the context of organizing to defeat white supremacy, Africans regardless of relgion or geographic boundaries better organize along the lines of race. Our survival depends on it.

I thought along those lines, but then Negroes are hardly the only ones battling white supremecy, nor do all even worry about it. For example, some Ethiopians and Sudanese are battling Arab supremecy; it's doubtless they've ever seen a white person, or that whites have even negatively effected them. So many more are battling their own corrupt kinsmen who makes their lives worse by not dispersing aid given by whites. It seems that a Negro from the Congo, who has seen been raped and seen fer family hacked to pieces in a civil war sn't even thinking about whites.
quote:
I would contend that "Middle Easteners" is not a race. IMO, they are Black, because they are of very close African decent, if not straight African decent. Their genetic code, as well as their culture, is much closer to ours than to that of caucasians or asians.



Try telling that to the Arabs of North and East Africa, who view the Black Africans as "kaffir" and animals. I don't think the northern Sudanese governemnt would agree either, seeing as how they are in a jihad for religions AND racial domination.

In some parts where there has been significant mixing, they may have more genetic siilarity (like the Tauregs), but 'Middle Easterners" (Arabs, Punjabs, Bedouin, Kurds) are pretty distinct from us and more closely related to one another. "Middle Easterners" are actually classified in the Caucasoid supergroup, along with some continental Indians and other South East Asians. If anything, new studies suggests that Aabs themselves are virtually genetically indistiguishable from Jews.....the irony.

Arab:

Berber:

Negro:
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
quote:
Pan-Africanism could come to be in two different manners. One would be to unite "religions" and "belief systems" and all come together to be one happy family.


If that's the case, the what's the point of Pan-Africanism? Shouldn't people just form closer alliances based of religions and philosophy then?


To be honest I am not surrounded by many people,brothers and sisters, who concern themselves with the wellbeing of African-Americans as a whole, although it has been a mental focus of mine for some time I have just recently began spending time reading and conversing with people to attempt to link up with similar minded individuals.

With that said I may not have a complete understanding of Pan-Africanism, I thought it was simply the re-unification of Africans, that would be the point. I feel like the African Spirit speaks to us all, unfortunately the voice is being blocked out by misconceptions and false doctorines,or interpretations of true doctorines. We are so overwhelmed with hurt and despair our idea of religion seems more focused on the fulfilment of our needs than the spirit of joy and thanksgiving it should be.


quote:
The other would be more like a business agreement, where we do not necissarily have to come to one accord instantly or even at all.

If that's the case, it's not a very strong alliance, and what would be the point? Just to sorta legally recognize, "yeah, we sorta look alike. Kewl"?

Really what I'm getting at is that even if we do not all come to one agreement or accept eachothers views the most important thing in my opinion will have been accomplished with our unity. THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN. Removing them from this society that is designed to "EAT" or consume our children. They are 'DOOMED' to become consume(r) slaves.
In the white mans world, and those nations choosing to mimic western civilizations.

In my mind the point is freedom from a foriegn system designed to use us as fuel for thier fire.

Not trying to knock what you said, just trying to get a better understanding. Thanks for the response.


I completely understand, like I said it is rather new to me to verbalize what I'm thinking usually people just tune me out, they are more concerned with what video's on MTV or comedian on BET.

Thank you for responding to my post
quote:
quote:
quote:
The other would be more like a business agreement, where we do not necissarily have to come to one accord instantly or even at all.



If that's the case, it's not a very strong alliance, and what would be the point? Just to sorta legally recognize, "yeah, we sorta look alike. Kewl"?


This is the kind of alliance we need, based on cold calculated self-interest. The problem is we overrate cultural trivia like religion.

umbra
there is no such thing as a NEGRO!!!! plus I think you have a very uninformed knowledge of Africa. Alot of North Africa Countries have huge indigenous african populations. True there have been a long history of Arab malice in Eastern and Western Africa, but in the grand scheme of things they basically ended up being middle men for the Transatlantic Slave trade. Now as far as Eithiopians not dealing with White Supremacy is rediculous. Ever heard of the great Eithiopian Italian Wars, Italy is poised to go into Eithiopia to this day. PanAfricanism is already in full swing and to interject all the misnomers and falsehoods into the PanAfrican ideology is sad
I'm interested in in reading more discussion on Pan-Africanism. I'm not interested more discussion of the word Negro. (Actually, I AM interested in tnat too, just not in this thread.)

Instead of Negro, can you agree to use the word "Africoid," at least in this thread? It seemed to work well for Ivan Van Sertima in "They Came Before Columbus."
quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
quote:
I would contend that "Middle Easteners" is not a race. IMO, they are Black, because they are of very close African decent, if not straight African decent. Their genetic code, as well as their culture, is much closer to ours than to that of caucasians or asians.



Try telling that to the Arabs of North and East Africa, who view the Black Africans as "kaffir" and animals.

I don't see how who they call what has any bearing on what they are. If a Black man calls me a Black man, does that mean that he is not?

quote:
I don't think the northern Sudanese governemnt would agree either, seeing as how they are in a jihad for religions AND racial domination.

Meaning no disrespect to you for mentioning this, but I care even less what the Sudanese government thinks. If we're going to take the word of governments in drawing racial lines, we might as well call ourselves "animals".

quote:
In some parts where there has been significant mixing, they may have more genetic siilarity (like the Tauregs), but 'Middle Easterners" (Arabs, Punjabs, Bedouin, Kurds) are pretty distinct from us and more closely related to one another.

This is what I was getting at. The whole area has been mixing for some time now. However, this Caucasoid influence didn't start until the Holy Crusades. Until then it was strictly Black dominance. Are you saying that thousands of years of Black dominance has been bred out in a few hundred years? That all the Blacks have been kicked out?

quote:
"Middle Easterners" are actually classified in the Caucasoid supergroup, along with some continental Indians and other South East Asians.

Who classified them this way. The pictures you put up are nice, but I have met many "Middle Easteners" of a vast range of hues, and most of them with distinctively Black features. These people couldn't possibly be classified as Caucasoid. But, there all "Middle Easterners", right?

quote:
If anything, new studies suggests that Aabs themselves are virtually genetically indistiguishable from Jews.....the irony.

I don't doubt this for a second. Before they spread out into and bred with the rest of the world, the Jews were Black, just like everyone else in that region of the world.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Instead of Negro, can you agree to use the word "Africoid," at least in this thread? It seemed to work well for Ivan Van Sertima in "They Came Before Columbus."


"Africoid"....mmmm...sounds like I'm a zoologist classifying so new and elsuive animal. Sorry if the word "Negro" offended anyone. Henceforth, Negro will be replaced with "Black African" or "Subsaharan origin" in this thread. A bit off topic, but seriously, why is "Negro" so controversial?
quote:
This is what I was getting at. The whole area has been mixing for some time now. However, this Caucasoid influence didn't start until the Holy Crusades. Until then it was strictly Black dominance. Are you saying that thousands of years of Black dominance has been bred out in a few hundred years? That all the Blacks have been kicked out?


Black Viking, this is new info to me. I was aware that countries such as Egypt have had centries, millenia even, of intemixing, and control of resources were in flux between various distinct groups. I wasn't aware areas farther east, in south East Asia ("Middle East") had a pronounced Black dominance. Where did you get the sources for this?

quote:
Before they spread out into and bred with the rest of the world, the Jews were Black, just like everyone else in that region of the world.

About the original Jews (Hebrews?) being of Black African heritage...I don't have any firm stats on that, except for one study which showed that Ethiopian Jews were actually more closely related to native Palestianian/Israeli Jews, than Sepphardic Jews (those in Spain and Northern Africa). I guess this begs the question of which group was actually the progenitor, although it's probably that they are all splinter groups from the original that no longer exists. If I fid it again, I'll post it.

quote:
Who classified them this way. The pictures you put up are nice, but I have met many "Middle Easteners" of a vast range of hues, and most of them with distinctively Black features. These people couldn't possibly be classified as Caucasoid. But, there all "Middle Easterners", right?

I understand that "Middle Easterners" come in all shades and with various features, but having dark skin or a broad nose doesn't mean you have any recent African heritage. If that were the case, the indigenous peoples of Australia, new Zealand--heck, most of the Pacific would fall under this banner.


I'm not criticising your assertations, I just want as much knowledge on the subject as possible, and would love some sources of other avenues of info to review. Thanks.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×