What would it take for REAL Pan-Africanism to become mainstream again?
- Thread starter yardman
- Start date
Don't be silly.
Think about it..only time we've come together is when we have a clear enemy and are forced to band together.
These days people can choose to go solo, but in an ethnic war where its every group for themselves we'd have no choice but to band together.
No global world wide "race war" is ever happening, it is highly unrealistic. And if what you're saying is the case than all of Africa should have united against European colonization. People are much more complicated than what you believe.
Now Africa developing and a developed Africa offering economic partnership with those of the diaspora. Now that is possible. We ALMOST seen this with Haiti possibly joining the AU...
Times were different back then and information didnt travel as it does now. People probably thought they were the only ones being colonized.
Its not that Africans dont want Haiti in the AU..it's the Americans and EU that dont want Haiti in the AU. The AU was most likely warned against giving Haiti membership because it lies in the Western Hemisphere and they wont allow that to happen because of future Geo political implications. I.e., Jamaica, Bardbados and Trindad demanding AU membership etc. Think..
MajorVitaman
Superstar
I honestly think a legit form of Pan-Africanism is realistic. Of course not every African Diaspora will see everything eye to eye. There's billions of us. But if we get key people and nations to follow through on something like the AU initially inviting Haiti. Even though they failed the conversation has been brought up and can set up ideas for the future.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
I think pan-africanism as a political movement is dead for the moment. African countries are too tied up in Western influence, who MIGHT push for more regional economic integration but def not for political integration. And individual presidents have too much at stake to push for more regionalism/panafricanism. Lest we forget that nationalism is a reality in Africa too (SA's treatment of african immigrants, the issues between the two Congos, Chad, etc).
On the other hand, and this might sound cliché, I think it might arise from the bottom-up. A lot of young Africans and people of the Black Diaspora are extremely connected and already live a form of "cultural pan-africanism" imo. Maybe even more so than Europe. People are working/studying all over the place, connecting with other diaspora. Some might hate it, but the use of English and French creates a de facto community within which it is easy to communicate. It's nothing for a Senegalese to discuss with a Haitian. It's more complicated for a French to discuss with a Spaniard.
Maybe all of this will percolate in the political spheres, but I think it can only come from the bottom up. This current generation (in Africa, Europe, and the Americas) I think has what it takes : education, know-how, language skills, "knowledge" of the world, and VERY IMPORTANT IMO know the realities of the Western world and are less "star-struck" than the older generations were. I think the only thing I would hope from politics is easing up visas between African countries and developping good infrastructure to travel the continent (it's sometimes easier to come to Paris than to go from one African country to another). The rest could very much happen through civil society, and politics will catch up on that.
What I most certainly know is that Black people/Diaspora have a unique chance imo : we're deep in three continents, two of which basically (still) rule the world (Europe and America) and the other seen as the future (Africa). And we don't haev any real reason to resent one another, contrary to White people between themselves for example.
On the other hand, and this might sound cliché, I think it might arise from the bottom-up. A lot of young Africans and people of the Black Diaspora are extremely connected and already live a form of "cultural pan-africanism" imo. Maybe even more so than Europe. People are working/studying all over the place, connecting with other diaspora. Some might hate it, but the use of English and French creates a de facto community within which it is easy to communicate. It's nothing for a Senegalese to discuss with a Haitian. It's more complicated for a French to discuss with a Spaniard.
Maybe all of this will percolate in the political spheres, but I think it can only come from the bottom up. This current generation (in Africa, Europe, and the Americas) I think has what it takes : education, know-how, language skills, "knowledge" of the world, and VERY IMPORTANT IMO know the realities of the Western world and are less "star-struck" than the older generations were. I think the only thing I would hope from politics is easing up visas between African countries and developping good infrastructure to travel the continent (it's sometimes easier to come to Paris than to go from one African country to another). The rest could very much happen through civil society, and politics will catch up on that.
What I most certainly know is that Black people/Diaspora have a unique chance imo : we're deep in three continents, two of which basically (still) rule the world (Europe and America) and the other seen as the future (Africa). And we don't haev any real reason to resent one another, contrary to White people between themselves for example.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
When will we see the resurgence of pan-Europeanism? Or pan-asianism?
Believe that living or originating on/from a large landmass necessitates some random notions of brotherhood and unity, brehs
Pan-Europeanism exists to an extent, as embodied by the European Union. For all its issues and problems, it has helped avoid wars in Western (and later Central) Europe for over half a century, something that never happened before on the continent.
But the real point is that Pan-Africanism cannot be compare to Pan-Europeanism, because the nation-states in Europe, which are older than the ones in Africa, are the result of, precisely, centuries of war between kingdoms. So on one side while cultural pan-europeanism had always existed (people were travelling from one kingdom to another all the time, Europe is small), politicans have almost always tried to achieve political pan-europeanism through wars. Hence resentment between countries. The EU is the first peaceful "pan-europeanism" project. That's a big difference with pan-africanism, which was a peaceful strategy to unite after foreign domination (the colonies). That is why, to some extent, many Europeans have some level of reluctance towards the EU, because pan-Europeanism has often been linked with some sort of domination (and indeed, the EU is politically dominated by Germany). On the other hand, leaders of pan-Africanism basically wanted to circumvent the "nation-states" (which are anything but nation-states) inherited by colonization in order to truly unite.
On the other Pan-Arabism was a very real political project for example, based on geographical, linguistic and religious proximity, in opposition to Western domination and in link with arab nationalism. But Nasser's death and the shifting of the "center" of the Arab world towards Saudi Arabia killed those ideas.
For selfish reasons, I don't want Pan-Africanism to become mainstream again
...its ingenuity will become tamper once leeches integrate themselves in our lore
WE need to keep our movement in-house, and let CaCs/Others find their own pathway
...its ingenuity will become tamper once leeches integrate themselves in our lore
WE need to keep our movement in-house, and let CaCs/Others find their own pathway
There is a massive, massive difference between the EU and pan-Africanism as an idea.
Pan-Africanism is a stupid fantasy, born of the desire for us all to unite under one "Black race" created by a grouping of people who didn't even have the remotest clue how deeply different Black peoples are from one another. The EU exists as a force not based in a "racial ideology" but on geopolitical, socioeconomic, and general safety concerns.
You're right though.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
Yeah, I mean in my post I said "For all its issues and problems", so I take into account the issues. But the current issues have created a form of myopia that has people disregarding the HUGE achievements of the EU. 70 years ago WW2 was destroying the continent. You had dictatorships in Spain in Portugal...40 years ago. 30 years ago you needed a visa to go from Paris to Madrid. Everyone takes for granted what has been achieved, precisely because it is achieved. EU is bickering now over a couple hundred thousand refugees and % points of deficit. I'd rather have those issues than wars every 30 years. So, as I said, for all its issues and problems, the EU has achieved it primary goal : avoid new wars in Europe. (Few people actually know that was the primary goal).
What I meant speaking about Asia vs Africa is that Asia, while also being colonized, was imo less impacted by European standards : most Asian countries existed in some similar form before, during and after European colonization, while in Africa it's entire countries that were created out of nothing, with no regard for previous nations/kingdoms/population situation. Thus, the "national" feeling is less strong in a lot of African countries (or at least, that was the case post 1960). So it was easier for pan-africanists to say "Screw these boundaries, lest build something new together". More difficult in Asia imo. Also the language factor is very important : either English, French, Arab and Portuguese are languages spoken by a lot of africans, so it's easier for that "cultural pan-africanism" i'm talking about to arise. And it's a reality, I see it every day in Paris, and saw it back in Bangui. On the other hand, Asian countries, to my knowledge, all use more their own languages and don't have these "regional" languages (hell, most countries have their own alphabet). So what I'm trying to say is that Asia appears more splintered to me than Africa, of course Africa is far from being united but history has led to it being more unified imo. Lest we forget also that during the french colony, countries were grouped into AEF (Afrique Equatoriale Française) and AOF (Afrique Occidentale Française), so the civil servants and the elite were sent to work/study (or fight wars) together in other countries of in France : they were much more in contact which each other even before 1960. And they were also all going through the same kind of struggle. I don't think that was the case in Asia. So that "cultural pan-africanism" goes a long way.
Maybe my reasoning isn't really clear but there's a reason that pan-africanism as a political concept emerged in Africa and not in Asia (something similar emerged in South America and in the Arab world, and both have similar internal stories and share a dominant language) and I think this is a couple of them