Tools Of Self-determination For A New Afrikan Reality

[Ɔkyeame Kwame]

TOOLS OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR A NEW AFRIKAN REALITY
Image Part One

BY OWEN 'ALIK SHAHADAH
8/7/2005

Words play a critical role in articulating our reality within an Indo-European linguistic framework. We must, as long as we speak non-African languages, find ways to control word usage when it speaks to our condition through a process of assimilating and normalizing words that serve in our interest. It is ignorant to ignore the significance of making a universal Pan-Africanist lexicon, which is adopted across the board. And just like as there is a body which, monitors, controls the English language we need such a body for serving our linguistic interest.

The needs for these conscious changes are rooted in seemingly subtle nuances, which have powerful ramifications. Thus these complicated dynamics behind word usage lie solely in a battle of self-interest. Many times we find ourselves trapped with popular anti-African sentiments such as “Africans enslaved other Africans,” “Egyptians weren't black,” etc. We are trapped fighting battles from a strategic disadvantage because the terms and definitions we employ serve solely in a Eurocentric reality that have been sculpted to destroy our historical foundation; while promoting theirs. Part one of this article explores the foundation and background to the fascinating world of language, perception and definitions while the second part will stimulate, support and synthesize further examination into this new Afrikan reality.

African vs. Black

How does one arrive at the term “black Africans,” are there green Africans? Would you speak of “yellow Chinese,” or “brown Indians”? If 95% of Africans are “Black” (capital B, if it must be used) then the minority should bear the adjective--not the majority. It is disrespectful to describe Africans with a label based solely on a colour, especially when it does not accurately reflect the physical appearance of most Africans. This is made even more offensive when the etymological root of that label (black) is derived from the word Negro, and is used in place of the word African as a racial or cultural identity. It is strange that despite all the genetic research and advance human anthropology we are still clinging to primitive 18th century post-Darwin model of race, which sole aim was/is to segregate and de-culturalize and enslave. The concept of a “black Africa” is a Eurocentric term based upon their ignorant primitive regressive deductions. Arabs and Greeks referred to Africans as "black" but this was not a racial label, and moreover Africans themselves did not adopt it. Like the Phoenician who were called the "red people" but no Phoenician would have referred to themselves in this way.

The word “Black” (and even worst "black" lowercase) has no historical or cultural association. It does not fully articulate the history and geo-political reality of African people. Black as a political (or colloquial) term was fashioned as a reactionary concept in the 60's and 70's against White supremacy, but it was never meant as an epithet for African people, but moreover a transitory term to move a people away from Coloured and Negro. As a political term it was fiery and trendy but never was it an official racial classification of peoples who have a 120,000 year old history. Indians are from India, Chinese from China. There is no country called Blackia or Blackistan. Hence, the ancestry-nationality model is more respectful and accurate: African-American, African-British, African-Brazilian, and African-Caribbean.

The mass usage of “black” by people of African decent is poor justification for the flagrant usage of the word. Because if that argument is to hold-up it would be justified to start using the term Black person again, due to the self-destructive resurgence of this word among African-American people.

Sub-Saharan Africa
The notion of some invisible border, which divides the North of African from the South, is rooted in racism, which in part assumes that a little sand is an obstacle for African people. This barrier of sand hence confines/confined Africans to the bottom of this make-believe location, which exist neither politically or physically. The Sahara is a broad desert belt, which encompasses countries like Mali, Sudan, and Mauritania, and hence they are neither “sub” nor “North Africa.” In addition, many African communities historically have travelled freely across this European barrier set for Africans. Mansa Musa famous Hajj travelled through North Africa in the 13th century so why do we assume Africans would be confined to this nonsensical designation called sub-Saharan Africa. Again, Eurocentric dialectics is at play in the insatiable need to categorize and define things solely on superficial limited physical observation. This is a mindset, which they cannot escape, and the only way they can process reality. Hence, sharp definitions, physical quantities are pre-emphasised in their mental navigation of the world around. Interestingly, most non-European cultures embody a more spiritual approach to reality, which is expressed in language, culture, and perception of the World.

Sub-Saharan Africa sets-up the premises for the confiscation of any “civilisation” which happen to occur in African territory. These malicious definitions have been inherited by the victims of European imperialism and normalise into African language and reality. Sub-Saharan Africa is a byword for primitive African: a place, which has escaped advancement. Hence, we see statements like “no written languages exist in Sub-Saharan Africa.” “Egypt is not a Sub-Saharan African civilisation.” Sub-Sahara serves as an exclusion, which moves, jumps and slides around to suit European negative generalization of Africa. Hence, they would exclude Sudan and Ethiopia, Mali and Niger from sub-Saharan African if it suits their argument. Europeans place an emphasis on written script, and subsequent definitions of “advance” and “primitive” are rooted in this pre-concept. It can be said however that most of the world has, historically an oral tradition. However, both formulas for preserving history and communication can be found in Africa: oral and written. Traditionally Europeans in their historical attempts to exclude Africa from civilization have hit upon an obstacle when Amharic exists in Ethiopia. To solve this apparent contradiction the argument moves to, “it was introduced from another people.” At no point in time can Africans be allowed to be seen to have fostered anything, which Europe labels as artefacts of civilization. So either the invisible border comes into play or civilisations are assigned to North Africa (“non-Black”) or alternatively, gifts given to Africans from external non-African sources.


Semitic
To be Semitic means to speak a Semitic language and in this regard all of Ethiopia, all of Somalia and all the Hausa are Semitic. This means the largest linguistic group in African is a Semitic one. However, if Semitic means “mixed” then the majority Semitic people are Arabs. How can Russian Jews be Semitic? Because they are racially European, culturally European, and linguistically European.


African Holocaust (Maafa)
Maafa is a Kiswahili term for "Disaster/Holocaust" or "Terrible Occurrence." Maafa or Holocaust is more inclusive and hence better describes the 500 hundred years of suffering of people of African descent through Slavery, Imperialism, Colonialism, Oppression, Invasions, and Exploitation.

Slave, vassal ship and bond servants
The system of imprisonment found in Africa prior to European enslavement was not slavery, but vassal ship or indentured servitude. Too often chattel slavery is married to the systems found in Africa, which then sets-up all kinds of nasty arguments rooted in mitigating the African Holocaust, alleviating European's responsibility, and putting Africans as the sole bearers of the sin.

If forms of Slavery are diverse, then one word for a complex multifaceted system is inadequate. If the Inuit people have more than 20, words for snow to articulate its variety, why then must we limit ourselves to one term in relation to slavery? Clearly Arab enslavement of Africans contrasted the European enslavement of Africans, and the non-free class within the Muslim Songhay Empire was different from captivity among the Oba or the Ashanti. Fundamentally, academia must advance and embrace new terminologies for these different realities. But when a disempowered people are forced to use the tools of their oppressors it is little wonder more voices don't see the anti-scholarship principle found in the abhorrent generalization of enslavement; a system so diverse that in one system you could be a king while in another you were little more than a domestic animal.

The Known World
A new term that has cropped up since Hollywood embarked on retelling European ancient history is to make reference to “the known world.” Alexander the “Great” conquered the “known world.” The question is who was this World know to? The known world might as well be the civilised World, Alexander conquered the civilised world, and the other parts he did not conquer were of no importance and relevance to history. Once again, this subtle racism emerges in the use of “we,” the Europeans, placing everyone else on the outside of “their” civilisation. African history began when they became a feature in it, prior to this time African classical civilisations were of no consequence. Again, we see this concept in the usage of World War 1, it was not a World War; it was simply a predominately-European war. The presumed arrogance is based on Europeans being the beginning middle and end of all humanity. The World that exist is the World they know about, and hence the New World is only New because it was new to them; they discovered it, now it exists. History is always and solely their narrative.

Conclusion
We must not walk on the outside of our own history in humanity and thus a challenge to systems, which remove us from this noble place within human history need to be critically and objectively re-evaluated. To continuously fight an opponent who makes the weapon we fight them with, means victory will always escape us. This is why no matter how close we come--we lose. Unlike other groups, we fail to institutionalize and control concepts and definitions relevant to our reality. We only need to look at the current anti-Islamic campaign to see the role of language usage in a battle for supremacy and mind control. Today terrorist might as well mean Muslim. They employed a strategy which started by saying Muslim and terrorist, Islam and terrorist. These words always accompanied one another. Once the marriage had been established, either word; may it be Muslim or terrorist conjured up the other, thus Muslim implied terrorist and terrorist implied Muslim. This is just a new example of the route and methodology in rerouting words to serve an objective. The Western controlling powers have the single most powerful weapon at their disposal: mass media. And thus concepts, precepts, ideas and ideologies can be communicated in the blink of an eye. Thus we must too find a way of communicating our new realities to our people and it must start with those in positions of mass interface with the public; writers, musicians, politicians, et al employing these terms. This is a key part in our path to self-determination and must not be under-estimated or over-looked if freedom and destiny are to be ours. Next week will continue our exploration into the reality behind language. Such terms as ethnicity and tribe, slave versus enslaved, traditional, indigenous and classical are all examined, highlighted, synthesized and reflected upon in the context of redefining our reality.


Copyright 2005 AFRICAN HOLOCAUST (Maafa): African History Restored. republishes freely but includes author and website. Written by Owen ‘Alik Shahadah, edited by Su