This is kind of a reaction to the topic by uhuru. Being a european, I'm pretty much used to people viewing Africa like it's one country. Now there's black people like uhuru who want to go 'back to africa'. I think it's strange that you also view africa as being a single country, or do africans see it this way as well? enlighten me.
0
Pan africanism?
Started by ProZak, Dec 13 2002 01:34 AM
12 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
- 95 posts
African Hip Hop Regular
- LocationShadow Zone
Posted 16 December 2002 - 06:23 PM
When Uhuru said Africa, as an African, i knew that he was not going to Africa as a country but i assumed that he is from one country so, it did not matter really, we know he is going to one specific country...
#3 Guest_Uhuru_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 January 2003 - 07:16 PM
Prozak When i am speaking of africa I mean ALL AFRICA, the continent.
And when i say I wanna go back to africa i dont mean a single country, i mean the continent, i do know the geography and am studying the tribal issus, and as against as i am to europeans viewing africa as one, I WANT us to be ONE, not just refered to as one nation, one country but truly BE ONE. U know? that might not make much sense to you, but anyway.
And when i say I wanna go back to africa i dont mean a single country, i mean the continent, i do know the geography and am studying the tribal issus, and as against as i am to europeans viewing africa as one, I WANT us to be ONE, not just refered to as one nation, one country but truly BE ONE. U know? that might not make much sense to you, but anyway.
#4 Guest__*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 January 2003 - 06:20 AM
uhuru there's no tribe in africa... that's one of those racists terms invented to view ethnicity in the 19th century.. tribalism ended in Africa since the middle age... :evil: :evil:
#5
-
- Members
- 87 posts
African Hip Hop Regular
- LocationAmsterdam
Posted 07 January 2003 - 02:01 AM
it makes sense, but why just africa? If you're setting your goals that high anyway....
#6 Guest_Maestro_da_morning_Dew_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 January 2003 - 11:30 AM
This is just to add something to the discussion started by uhuru and a response to Prozak.
Countries do not exist in traditional African culture and consciousness, they were all products of colonialism or a reaction to the colonial occupation of Africa. African culture is not that keen on differentiation and compartmentalization, so uhurus generalistic assertions are indeed inline with our traditional cultural orientation. The truth is that these divisions based on countries, franco/Anglophone, complexion, class and discrimination is alien to African culture.
one love
Countries do not exist in traditional African culture and consciousness, they were all products of colonialism or a reaction to the colonial occupation of Africa. African culture is not that keen on differentiation and compartmentalization, so uhurus generalistic assertions are indeed inline with our traditional cultural orientation. The truth is that these divisions based on countries, franco/Anglophone, complexion, class and discrimination is alien to African culture.
one love
#7
-
- Members
- 87 posts
African Hip Hop Regular
- LocationAmsterdam
Posted 12 January 2003 - 06:34 PM
it used to be, but isn't colonialism still a part of modern african culture? I mean, peoples who have been under anothers rule for a longer perio always tend to incorporate aspects of the opressors culture into their own. You can't just 'remove' elements from a culture because cultures are somithing formed over decades and centuries. I believe a big difference between former colonies and 'traditional' countries is that, for example, the countries in Europe formed 'organically', as in that after centuries of warfare and occupation, every country reflects certain cultural elements, whereas in africa, borders were imposed by europeans, artificially deviding people who shared the same culture and putting them together with others.
And only people who have a strong identity and a dedication to their own people can later work together. This is not the situation in modern day africa, people are probably more concerned with their own culture than with the country they live in.(this is just an idea I formed from things I've seen on the news and read about, so correct me if I'm wrong) In europe this problem still exists, but to a much lesser extent, because most peoples have their own governement and can decide about their own politics(although this is also changing, immigration laws and attitudes are creating an ethnic underclass).
Emancipation is the key to living together. You can compare it to the opression of women here in europe for as long as the culture existed. Only by first taking pride in who they were could they finally achieve that european culture is less a male dominated society. Still, old traditions die hard and it wil probably take a couple more decades before the problem is a thing of the past.
In this light it would seem to be impossible for africa as a whole to unite, before the different peoples living their have strongly established themselves. And don't ask me how, the only way these things can happen is by trail and error.
And only people who have a strong identity and a dedication to their own people can later work together. This is not the situation in modern day africa, people are probably more concerned with their own culture than with the country they live in.(this is just an idea I formed from things I've seen on the news and read about, so correct me if I'm wrong) In europe this problem still exists, but to a much lesser extent, because most peoples have their own governement and can decide about their own politics(although this is also changing, immigration laws and attitudes are creating an ethnic underclass).
Emancipation is the key to living together. You can compare it to the opression of women here in europe for as long as the culture existed. Only by first taking pride in who they were could they finally achieve that european culture is less a male dominated society. Still, old traditions die hard and it wil probably take a couple more decades before the problem is a thing of the past.
In this light it would seem to be impossible for africa as a whole to unite, before the different peoples living their have strongly established themselves. And don't ask me how, the only way these things can happen is by trail and error.
#8 Guest_Maestro_da_morning_Dew_*
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2003 - 09:03 AM
No Prozak I disagree with you on one account, is nazism part of Dutch culture simply because the nazis occupied the Netherlands during the first half of last century or should the Jews modify their culture to - as you mentioned – ‘incorporate aspects of the oppressors culture into their own’. I want you to really pay attention to your own logic. It seems to me you are suggesting that just because somebody is kidnapped that they should develop Stockholm syndrome and that this is the logical cause of progression for the person who is kidnapped. The idea of ‘country’ or ‘nation state’ is European in origin. As you mentioned it came into being because of historical problems that were uniquely European – that has absolutely no relevance to Africa. The implication of this universalization of European ‘enlightenment’ is that it robbed us of something fundamental – the ‘organic’ evolution that you referred to – the freedom to define the forms of our individual and social life.
The problem prozak is that the West as a cultural whole live inside their own system of logic. It is difficult to drag people out of that system of logic because as Thomas Matthews the English critic said the Western soul is ‘opaque with its own purple’. Try and understand that the ‘cultural’ divisions that you mentioned only exist depending on the cosmological model of reasoning. If your orientation to reality is not individualistic like ‘ the more one does for other the more one does for self’ – unity is a given not something to pursue or ‘achieved’. But if your world is made of indivisible atoms and absolute divisions you begin to confuse unity and uniformity and then you develop the ‘empire’ logic which interprets the cloning of one cultural or cosmological model as ‘modernization’ ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘development’.
The problem prozak is that the West as a cultural whole live inside their own system of logic. It is difficult to drag people out of that system of logic because as Thomas Matthews the English critic said the Western soul is ‘opaque with its own purple’. Try and understand that the ‘cultural’ divisions that you mentioned only exist depending on the cosmological model of reasoning. If your orientation to reality is not individualistic like ‘ the more one does for other the more one does for self’ – unity is a given not something to pursue or ‘achieved’. But if your world is made of indivisible atoms and absolute divisions you begin to confuse unity and uniformity and then you develop the ‘empire’ logic which interprets the cloning of one cultural or cosmological model as ‘modernization’ ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘development’.
#9 Guest__*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 January 2003 - 01:16 AM
Allright, point taken @ the nazi statement, but you have to remember that Holland was only occupied for a short time. Even so, it changed attitudes towards racism significantly, of course it still exists, but it's viewed as a negative thing(as it should be).
So even if nothing from the opressors culture is integrated in a culture, it will still influence a culture significantly. The Jews left over after ww2 migrated en masse to Israel, a fact which has caused it's own problems, but nonetheless the jewish people were strongly influenced not just by the nazi's but by the 2 milennia they have been hunted for and discriminated. Jews actually take pride in the fact that their culture overcame so many obstacles. And although the Jewish culture is definately by origin a mediteranean one, aspecs from cultures throughout Europe have been assimilated into the culture, because Jews lived(and still do)everywhere in Europe. It is not the stockholm syndrome I'm referring to(this is, simply put, where in a hostage situation, the hostages start to like their captors). It's not so much the admiration of European culture by Africans, it is just that you can't turn the clock back and remove all the 'European' aspects from African cultures. Cetain things just tend to stick, even if the circumstances whereing these cultural traits were formed are viewed negatively in a historic perspective.
I didn't mean that colonialism should be an aspect of 'African' culture, but still most African countries(and for that matter, former colonies all over the world)are very colonialistically oriented. Exports all go to europe, as that's were the most money is. Europeans can come to Africa and live like kings, while africans living in Europe are outcast and stuffed away in slums(for the most part at least).
This is also what I meant by emancipation, Africa as a whole is still too dependent on Europe to deal with it on an equal level, which is in the end a very important factor if you want to work and live together(the unity you were talking about). Individual countries in Africa can't empower themselves in relation to other African nations because these countries are nothing more than pieces of land with no common heritage or identity.
So even if nothing from the opressors culture is integrated in a culture, it will still influence a culture significantly. The Jews left over after ww2 migrated en masse to Israel, a fact which has caused it's own problems, but nonetheless the jewish people were strongly influenced not just by the nazi's but by the 2 milennia they have been hunted for and discriminated. Jews actually take pride in the fact that their culture overcame so many obstacles. And although the Jewish culture is definately by origin a mediteranean one, aspecs from cultures throughout Europe have been assimilated into the culture, because Jews lived(and still do)everywhere in Europe. It is not the stockholm syndrome I'm referring to(this is, simply put, where in a hostage situation, the hostages start to like their captors). It's not so much the admiration of European culture by Africans, it is just that you can't turn the clock back and remove all the 'European' aspects from African cultures. Cetain things just tend to stick, even if the circumstances whereing these cultural traits were formed are viewed negatively in a historic perspective.
I didn't mean that colonialism should be an aspect of 'African' culture, but still most African countries(and for that matter, former colonies all over the world)are very colonialistically oriented. Exports all go to europe, as that's were the most money is. Europeans can come to Africa and live like kings, while africans living in Europe are outcast and stuffed away in slums(for the most part at least).
This is also what I meant by emancipation, Africa as a whole is still too dependent on Europe to deal with it on an equal level, which is in the end a very important factor if you want to work and live together(the unity you were talking about). Individual countries in Africa can't empower themselves in relation to other African nations because these countries are nothing more than pieces of land with no common heritage or identity.
#10 Guest__*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 January 2003 - 01:20 AM
sorry I lost track of some things in these long posts, I see I'm partially repeating myself. Could you btw explain what exactly you mean by 'a cosmological model of reasoning'?
#11 Guest__*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 January 2003 - 08:35 AM
Yes Yes Prozak, I feel you on the 'emancipation' tip but like I said, part of that emancipation is the retrogressive realization that the 'clock' is a manufactured device and that 'time' is a human cultural phenomenon not a natural one. So if we Africans want emancipation that will include emancipation from the lunar calenda and the linear conception of time that seem to make us believe that Western culture is inevitable and therefore something we cannot 'turn' back or escape from.
This is what I mean by cosmological model of reasoning. Only when we understand that what we call reality largely depends on the way we see the universe and our purpose in it can we really put things in perspective and only then can we become emancipated. This is why for me traditional African is still relevant. Do you not see that it is the same people who will tell us to forget traditional African because it is not 'modern' that continue to refer to a contitution written in 1776 and make much noise about 'conservation'.
This is what I mean by cosmological model of reasoning. Only when we understand that what we call reality largely depends on the way we see the universe and our purpose in it can we really put things in perspective and only then can we become emancipated. This is why for me traditional African is still relevant. Do you not see that it is the same people who will tell us to forget traditional African because it is not 'modern' that continue to refer to a contitution written in 1776 and make much noise about 'conservation'.
#12
-
- Members
- 87 posts
African Hip Hop Regular
- LocationAmsterdam
Posted 17 January 2003 - 04:11 AM
i'm not saying FORGET African tradition, it's just that traditions are not all there is to a culture. But it is true that in western culture, traditions play only such a small role that they have almost become non existent. It might even be the biggest problem in western countries today.
And whatever you say, time IS a relevant factor and very natural because it is the way we call the gradual change of things. And therefore colonialism is very relevant, it is a part of history and knowing your history can give you more insight about the present, both in how things came to be and what mistakes were made so you won't make them again. Though colonialism isn't the only part of african history, it is certainly important because it is a part of very recent history, and it explains how things came to be today. What came before colonialsm isn't relevant as long as people don't know about it. That africa is actually the birthplace of mankind and has spawned great cultures (Egyptian and Zulu cultures for instance, that's all I can name for now. Now any links on african history I can check? I like to know what I'm talking about) is very important for african emancipation. I really don't see how you can ignore time as being a factor in this discussion, or any discussion for that matter.
But I get your arguement, people have to differentiate between human inerpretations of time(modernization, conservatism, etc.) and actual facts. But the only means of discovering the truth is by examining records made by people, and interpreting these records bear in mind that you yourself are also human and may be wrong. One thing that seems to me is a fact, is that history is written by the victors, even if they 'give back' what they conquer. Colonial history is mostly written by people who supported slavery and emperialism, therefore it is a very bad source for finding out the truth.
But we know for certain that the people who have power in and over africa today have colonialism to thank for it. Forgetting about this past won't make it go away.
And whatever you say, time IS a relevant factor and very natural because it is the way we call the gradual change of things. And therefore colonialism is very relevant, it is a part of history and knowing your history can give you more insight about the present, both in how things came to be and what mistakes were made so you won't make them again. Though colonialism isn't the only part of african history, it is certainly important because it is a part of very recent history, and it explains how things came to be today. What came before colonialsm isn't relevant as long as people don't know about it. That africa is actually the birthplace of mankind and has spawned great cultures (Egyptian and Zulu cultures for instance, that's all I can name for now. Now any links on african history I can check? I like to know what I'm talking about) is very important for african emancipation. I really don't see how you can ignore time as being a factor in this discussion, or any discussion for that matter.
But I get your arguement, people have to differentiate between human inerpretations of time(modernization, conservatism, etc.) and actual facts. But the only means of discovering the truth is by examining records made by people, and interpreting these records bear in mind that you yourself are also human and may be wrong. One thing that seems to me is a fact, is that history is written by the victors, even if they 'give back' what they conquer. Colonial history is mostly written by people who supported slavery and emperialism, therefore it is a very bad source for finding out the truth.
But we know for certain that the people who have power in and over africa today have colonialism to thank for it. Forgetting about this past won't make it go away.
#13
-
- Members
- 87 posts
African Hip Hop Regular
- LocationAmsterdam
Posted 17 January 2003 - 04:20 AM
In the same perspective what you said earlier is also true, cultural divisions only exist within the minds of people, it is of course a fact that we are all one race. But this kind of reasoning(whatever you may call it) is for many people very hard to grasp. You should consider that the only way to get this message through to these people is by teaching it to them from birth. And that is a very hard thing to do, for it requires many motivated individuals who share the same vision and with the power to implement it.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
