The Black race will be exterminated if it does not build a black superpower in Africa by the end of this century.

----------------------------------------------------

The African Nation?

By Chinweizu

Is there an African nation? Where is it? Are there African nations? If so, where are they?

I submit that the African nation does not exist and has never existed. There is the African race, but it is not a nation. There are many African nations, but these are what we have learned to defame by calling them tribes. These so-called tribes were the true nations in pre-colonial Africa. What nowadays are called African nations, are not nations at all; each is just a country under the jurisdiction of a state. It is fashionable to call them nation-states, but that is at best a courtesy.

Why is it important to determine whether or not Black Africa is a nation? Pretending that Black Africa is a nation when it is not would be as delusional as leaning on a walking stick without noticing that it is made of ice. When things get warm the ice will melt and you’ll be leaning on air. Alternatively, if a builder lacks cement blocks and, in desperation decides to call heaps of beach sand by the name cement blocks, he will soon find that he can’t lay the heaps course on course like he could actual blocks. For lack of the factors that make a population cohere into a nation, the African nation, being a pseudo nation, would disintegrate under pressure, just like an ice stick in warm weather. For example, suppose you had an army of the so-called African nation. And half your army were Black Muslims each of whom said in his heart: “I am a Muslim and I worship Allah and I follow the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I have no relationship with you, except that your skin is black. The lightest Arab is closer to me than you. If there were to be war between Muslims of any shade of color and the darkest of black people, I will be on the side of Muslims.” If a Black African army is filled with such people, what chance has it of defending Black Africa from the Arabs? Such is the danger of fashionably pretending that there is an African nation when, in fact, it doesn’t yet exist. We should all take to heart Nyerere’s warning: “It is no part of transforming dream into reality to pretend that things are not what they are.” –[Nyerere, “Dilemma of the Pan-Africanist” in Langley ed., Ideologies, .p. 347]

Now back to the question: Is Africa a nation? In attempting to answer this question scientifically, rather than sentimentally, we would be helped by starting from the following statements from three different disciplines: Cultural anthropology, Historiography and Biology.

Lets hear first from cultural anthropology through Cheikh Anta Diop:

“The cultural identity of a people [is] centered on three components—linguistic, historical, and psychic.”

--Diop, in Great African Thinkers, p. 268

Also according to Diop, the psychic factor is the domain of poets, singers, storytellers. Note the example of the brothers Grimm who, by collecting German folk tales in their Grimm’s Fairy Tales, laid the psychic foundation of German national identity; also note the role of the epic Kalevala in fostering national identity in Finland; also the role of the Mahabharata epic in fostering Indian national consciousness, and the role of the William Tell legend in the national identity of Switzerland. Similarly, the Old Testament has been an indispensable anchor for Jewish identity; for the Japanese, the Nihon gi or Chronicles of Japan, which was compiled in 720 AD and the Kojiki or Records of Ancient Matters, which was compiled in 712 AD, with their collections of myths, legends, historical accounts, songs, customs, divination and magical practices of ancient Japan, have provided the psychic bedrock of Japanese national identity.

Let’s next hear from historiography through Jaques Barzun:

“What makes a nation? A large part of the answer to that question is: common historical memories; . . . a common language, a core of historical memories with heroes and villains; . . .a nation is forged into unity by successive wars and the passage of time. . . . It takes a national war to weld the parts together by giving individuals and groups memories of a struggle in common. Needless to add, nationalism can arise only when a nation in this full sense has come into being.”

–[Jacques Barzun, Dawn to Decadence, pp. 775, 776,695, 435

Finally, let’s hear from ethology, the biological science of animal behavior, through Robert Ardrey:

“A biological nation is a social group …which holds as an exclusive possession a continuous area of space, which isolates itself from others of its kind through outward antagonism, and which through joint defense of its social territory achieves leadership, co-operation and a capacity for concerted action. It does not matter too much whether such a nation be composed of twenty-five individuals or of two hundred and fifty million. It does not matter too much whether we are considering the true lemur, the howling monkey, the smooth-billed ani, the Bushman band, the Greek city-state, or the United States of America. The social principle remains the same.

--Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, pp. 210-211

What Diop, Robert Ardrey, and Jacques Barzun together tell us is that a nation is made by shared language, historical memory of struggles carried out together, and a shared body of myths, legends, epics, songs etc., and demonstrates it nationhood by outward antagonism and the defense of its common territory.

It doesn’t take much reflection to grasp the fact that by these criteria, there is no African nation as yet, and there never has been. The African nation, though talked about in some Pan-Africanist circles, remains only an aspiration. The languages are diverse; there is no shared body of myths, legends, epics, songs etc; and the historical consciousness has never been fostered.

Unsurprisingly, we do not behave like a nation. We do not defend our joint territory. If there was an African nation already in existence today, it would have manifested its nationhood by collectively defending the portions of the common Black African territory that have been under attack by Arabs for the past half century, as in Mauritania and Sudan. In particular, an all-Black-African army would have gone to defend the people of Darfur from Arab attack since the ethnic cleansing began there. But the rest of Black Africa has left the Mauritanians and Afro Sudanese to their fate, as if they were aliens, and their fate did not concern the rest of us.

The behavioral test of territorial defense aside, the contrast between India, China, Arabia on the one hand and black Africa on the other, should highlight the fact that Africa is not and has never been one nation. India was politically unified in the 4^th century BC and had shared a common culture for centuries even before that; China was politically unified in the 3^rd century BC and has shared a common history and culture ever since. The Arabs became a nation through Mohammed when they finally, and for the first time, shared the same religion and political leadership, and then dispersed, in a burst of imperial aggression, from the Arabian peninsula and spread to occupy the lands from the Persian Gulf westward to the Atlantic coast of Morocco. Thus, the Arabs became a nation 14 centuries ago and have shared a common historical consciousness ever since then. In contrast, it was only in the 20^th century, with the European conquest and colonization of all of Africa, that Black Africans first began to think of themselves as one. And they have yet to be unified politically or culturally, let alone in religion.

----------------

Every one of these Black African countries of today is not a nation but a noyau, i.e. “a collection of individuals held together by mutual animosity, who could not survive had they no friends to hate”. Every one of the Black African countries today is populated by people of many pre-colonial nations and is like a refugee camp into which the populations of many genuine nations have been herded by force.

What would it take to make nations out of these colonial concentration camps that the Europeans carved out in the late 19^th century during their scramble to conquer Africa? And what would it take to make the African race into a nation? Lessons could be learnt from Ashanti, Zulu, India, China. A shared struggle against our Arab enemies would be a good start for a common historical consciousness.

But is it much use trying to turn Black Africa into a nation this late in time? I don’t think so. The tasks before us in this 21^st century can be accomplished without Black Africa becoming a nation. Fostering Black African unity through various methods is more feasible and desirable. It would be much easier to turn SADC and ECOWAS into nations, into modern superpowers, than to start doing what India and China did three millennia ago by conquest.

Copyright © Chinweizu

Robot  # 1 | 10.01.2009 05:15

The Black Power Pan-Africanist Perspective The Black race will be exterminated if it does not build a black superpower in Africa by the end of this century. ----------------------------------------------------://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/images/stories/Authors/chinweizu02. The African Nation? By Chinweizu Is there an African nation? Where is it? Are there African nations? If so, where are they? I submit that the African nation does not exist and has never existed. There is the African race, but it is not a nation. There are many African nations, but these are what we have learned to defame by calling them tribes. These so-called tribes were the true nations in pre-colonial Africa. What nowada...Read the full article.

Ajuzie  # 2 | 10.01.2009 08:04

Thank you Sir,

Ajuzie  # 3 | 10.01.2009 08:18

May God bless you for your enlightenment in this village.

DeepThought  # 4 | 10.01.2009 09:37

In particular, an all-Black-African army would have gone to defend the people of Darfur from Arab attack since the ethnic cleansing began there. Cruel as it may sound, the truth is you can only defend those who want to defend themselves and who are worthy of being defended. I don't know if its true, but some Southern Sudanese I've interacted with have told me that the Dafurians refuse to identify themselves as Black, rather, claiming to be Arab. If that be the case, maybe its best we should leave them to come to their senses. Those who survive (if any) will then know they're not Arabs. And if none survive, they would have served as an example to those who think they can indulge in shabby thinking without suffering any consequences. Finally: I don't really agree with this idea of a single Black African super power. "Superpowers" are trouble. Power can't but help corrupt and super power always corrupts superbly. This kind of power generally emerge only through wars, strife and much blood shed.Why make the same mistake the Western world in particular and much of the rest of the world has been making? O.K, we understand that war and competition is part of the socio-political identity of man , but why elevate it to the pinacle? Why should Black Africa take a cue about from bad examples and imitate the degeneracy of others? There is a time and place to compete and there is a time and place to cooperate.People can even compete and cooperate at the same time. What the EU is attempting to do in Europe now after centuries of stupidity makes senses, that is to forge a political union of strong equals without any one European super power dictating to others. They are finally showing superior intellect by knowing when to cooperate or by engaging in "friendly competiton". If we must emulate, probably best solution would be to have a multitiude of viable/strong African powers. In short, let Black African States, Nations or Countries cooperate with each in building one common African super power, rather than disasterously competing with each other to become the one sole superpower --- This is a law of life Nature is not foolish. It has a way of culling those who don't "want" to survive. Anything, that doesn't adapt itself to the rules of life will in one way or the other , sooner or latter be forced to leave the scene, be it an animal, a race or whatever. ---

Shoko Loko Bangoshe  # 5 | 10.01.2009 12:00

I enjoyed this article, because it pondered a question that I've been thinking of for a while. What exactly is the basis for forming a nation? Everyday, you have people come out on NVS to say that Nigeria should be split into 3, 6, 9 or 2,000 pieces - but nobody every provides a reason why they pick one number over the other. Is it on the basis of ethnicity? If so, should there not be 400 or so pieces? Is it on the basis of the optimal population that can sustain a nation? If so, how do we decide what this optimal population is? Is it on the basis of race? If so, why not merge with other African nations? Is it on the basis of how the Rivers Niger and Benue divide us? Is it on the basis of what other people have said? Personally, like Chinweizu, I think that the idea of pursuing an African nation is a distraction from the ultimate goal of bettering the lives of Africans. As I have said elsewhere, I believe that people who share like goals should work in concert to achieve those goals, even if they are separated by geographical space - modern day technology means that goals can still be achieved in spite of space.

DeepThought  # 6 | 10.01.2009 13:09

IF Nigeria or any other country for that matter is to be reconstituted into parts, the no. of parts doesn't matter. Size is also not that important. If any fracturing starts, though there are outcomes which some will prefer, we have to understand that there may not really be any predetermined outcomes. On what basis would fragmentation occur? Very simple: Consensus. A referendum or as many referenda. It doesn't matter to me whether Nigeria splits into 1 , 2 or millions of parts, or even remains as it is, so long as the people who make up Nigeria or whatever actually come to an understanding of each other and agree to be Nigerians or whateve FIRST. That is, they put their collective interest FIRST above their individual ethnic , religious or other identities. Any grou that doesn't want to do this should be free to seek their own destiny seperately , taking thier chances elsewhere as they choose. @Shoko, You've just answered your own question.: I believe that people who share like goals should work in concert to achieve those goals ------- I should add: What exactly is the basis for forming a nation? I think the article provide some clues. -... It can be summarized up as shared experiences or common values. This is not saying much as it may be possible for even different races to have shared experiences and values in some cases. Meaning with enough passage of time, anything is possible as we see in the U.S. AAs are actually slowly but surely becoming in reality members of the American nation. It is not impossible for Nigeria and Ghana to become one nation. (Maybe in another XX years if you are patient enough) Anyway, in this day and age, I think it should be by consensus.

Shoko Loko Bangoshe  # 7 | 10.01.2009 13:18

=DeepThought;311207>Very simple: Consensus. A referendum or as many referenda. It doesn't matter to me whether Nigeria splits into 1 , 2 or millions of parts, or even remains as it is, so long as the people who make up Nigeria or whatever actually come to an understanding of each other and agree to be Nigerians or whateve FIRST. That is, they put their collective interest FIRST above their individual ethnic , religious or other identities. This is the problem. The degree to which our various identities assert themselves varies according to how we feel about those identities at any given time, and I don't think this is easily controlled. For example, Nkala might decide today to join the Republic of Ifa Worshippers because he was feeling in a particularly religious mood, but perhaps the next day he might feel like joining the Republic of Nkakala because he felt more ethnic. But I think that this is better than any other method of determining the basis for a nation - at least, it allows the people to decide rather than having them be subject to a decision imposed from above.

DeepThought  # 8 | 10.01.2009 13:30

Certain things are artificially constructed and are not set in stone. There are few things that cannot be changed. For example,Nationality, which is quite different from ethnicity is something that can quite easily be changed while the latter, is something one is born with and cannot be easily changed. For example a Canadian can become an American, an Australian can become British and vice versa. But while an Englishman can become an American, ethnically , he remains English. So what some die hard don't want to understand is that Nigeria being an artificial construct can become anything, everything and nothing. Unfortunately, these people will tell you that Nigeria was created by God (Lugard) and is indissoluble. Nothing can be further from the truth. Actually,anyone, regardless of race, ethnicity or so can also become Nigerian. Can they also opt out of being Nigerian? - Yes of course! But not anyone can easily become Yoruba, Igbo or Hausa, English, Scotish or German. These are ethnic identities which may take at least the progeny of generation or so to acquire. .... Sorry, some iethnic dentities can be quite transcedental. The German ethnic identity ordinarily transcends just the mere ethnic identity. It is both ethnic and state (ish) . Germany is a Nation-State

oranyan  # 9 | 10.01.2009 17:52

=DeepThought;311212>Certain things are artificially constructed and are not set in stone. There are few things that cannot be changed. For example,Nationality, which is quite different from ethnicity is something that can quite easily be changed while the latter, is something one is born with and cannot be easily changed. For example a Canadian can become an American, an Australian can become British and vice versa. But while an Englishman can become an American, ethnically , he remains English. So what some die hard don't want to understand is that Nigeria being an artificial construct can become anything, everything and nothing. Unfortunately, these people will tell you that Nigeria was created by God (Lugard) and is indissoluble. Nothing can be further from the truth. Actually,anyone, regardless of race, ethnicity or so can also become Nigerian. Can they also opt out of being Nigerian? - Yes of course! But not anyone can easily become Yoruba, Igbo or Hausa, English, Scotish or German. These are ethnic identities which may take at least the progeny of generation or so to acquire. .... Sorry, some iethnic dentities can be quite transcedental. The German ethnic identity ordinarily transcends just the mere ethnic identity. It is both ethnic and state (ish) . Germany is a Nation-State Thank you. And may I add that as there are ethnic identities in Africa, it is not impossible to have such as nation states. Indeed the Europe that gave us the present configuration in Africa is based largely on the ethnic nation states (German, French, even the UK). If we go by this, West Africa will have less than the current 16 countries and we will be better off for it. It is not for nothing that what was good for the goose of Europe was not deemed good for the gander in Africa.

oranyan  # 10 | 10.01.2009 17:58

=Shoko Loko Bangoshe;311181>I enjoyed this article, because it pondered a question that I've been thinking of for a while. What exactly is the basis for forming a nation? Everyday, you have people come out on NVS to say that Nigeria should be split into 3, 6, 9 or 2,000 pieces - but nobody every provides a reason why they pick one number over the other. Is it on the basis of ethnicity? If so, should there not be 400 or so pieces? Is it on the basis of the optimal population that can sustain a nation? If so, how do we decide what this optimal population is? Is it on the basis of race? If so, why not merge with other African nations? Is it on the basis of how the Rivers Niger and Benue divide us? Is it on the basis of what other people have said?Personally, like Chinweizu, I think that the idea of pursuing an African nation is a distraction from the ultimate goal of bettering the lives of Africans. As I have said elsewhere, I believe that people who share like goals should work in concert to achieve those goals, even if they are separated by geographical space - modern day technology means that goals can still be achieved in spite of space. The questions highlighted are merely begging the issue. There is no natural boundary that created Nigeria or any other African country. We all know they are the results of European military strengths at the time. Conditions for any nation state has to be worked out between us and we can then set the boundaries--politica, social,economic etc.

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---