Here in Ghana, those who have Pan-Kmtyw sentiments in regards to the continent tend to feel the need to negate their own ethnic identity/culture to move away from "tribalism". Those who have pride in their culture/history/language seem to have little to say in the way of a Global (or continental or national for that matter) solidarity with other Kmtyw people on the basis of being Kmtyw.
The interesting thing is that in the u.s. these two concepts seem to co-exist (like because I have a love for Kmtyw people throughout the Global Kmtyw world I'm Pan-Kmtyw and I'm also interested in practicing an Kmtyw cultural/spiritual system because of that same love" or something to that general effect.
So here's the interactive part: does cultural specificity in reKmtywization entail running back towards the fragments that helped get us in our current position or "tribalism 2.0" as continental Kmtyws may express it? Can Pan-Kmtywism (a transcendent view of the Global Kmtyw Family) exist on the continent without one negating one's particular cultural, ethnically specific heritage?
Kmtyws here and abroad spend too much time asking the brother/sister in the hole with them questions.
Maybe all of them should look up and see who pushed their asses down in the hole in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxm1cU5Ewbw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxm1cU5Ewbw)
Pan-Kmtywism existed in Ayiti (1791) without people needing to negate their own particular cultural, ethnically specific heritage. In fact, one might argue that that approach (as exemplified by Ayitian Vodun) led to their victory over the krakkkers...
Brother Akhu, thank you for your comments this evening. I wanted to respond to something you wrote earlier. I thought that this was the thread, but it isn't. However, I am going to respond to both in the same way. Any movement that doesn't have Kmtyw culture at the core will not secure Afrakan people's liberation. Our demeaning sojourn here in amerika should plenty proof to that.
QuoteAkhu;51325 wrote: Pan-Kmtywism existed in Ayiti (1791) without people needing to negate their own particular cultural, ethnically specific heritage. In fact, one might argue that that approach (as exemplified by Ayitian Vodun) led to their victory over the krakkkers...
Is it easier for Cultural Nationalism not to equate to "tribalism" when Kmtyws in the diaspora are removed from the particular long-standing fragments that they have here on the continent. Like in the diaspora, working together on the basis of us all being Black/Kmtyw is embraced at least as a concept due to having the fragment identity forceably removed through enslavement. Generally, here, working together on the basis of "we're all Black/Kmtyw" is treated like something foreign. What is considered "indigenous" is I'm X fragment and you're Y fragment therefore we don't see eye to eye on Z.
Those on the Continent might benefit from studying what we've been doing for the past few centuries...maybe get some lessons from history.
QuoteAkhu;51336 wrote: Those on the Continent might benefit from studying what we've been doing for the past few centuries...maybe get some lessons from history.
Is it possible to get that lesson without being removed from one's cultural/ethnic/identity fragment? From Kwame Nkrumah's time to now, most of the continental Kmtyws that I know who have a global Kmtyw view tend to be those who have gone abroad and came to realize that their little fragmented identity that they had back home doesn't mean anything in the external context or in the world outside. They come to find out, to paraphrase Baba Ọmọ́wálé, "they don't bust you in the head cause you're a mason or an elk, they do it because you're Black (and because they're white)". That's when they realize the battle lines are such that all Kmtyws are the target and not just their cultural fragment. With that understanding, they work towards focusing less on the fragment and the fragment's associated culture and more on the collective. I can agree, but I think both sides need to study each other because there's very little mutual understanding of the foolishness on both sides or the wisdom gained on both sides, if any.