It is clear that unless our individual and individualistic broomstick-like countries see the wisdom in coming together to integrate and benefit from the power of a strong united African government, our economies will continue to be toyed with by foreign interests and greedy speculators, to the continuing detriment of the welfare of our people"
Personally, after spending one semester studying at the University of Ghana, including a great deal of time at the W.E.B. Du Bois Cultural Centre and Library, where his body is entombed, I can only say that I wish it were so, but I'm skeptical.
I'm a big fan of Pan-African thought, believing as I do that a host of Africa's problems are related to issues of tribalism (imagine nationalism run amok, on a much smaller, but no less deadly, scale. Silly, isn't it? Especially from the perspective of a white guy from the U.S.) and the border conflicts that result from the decisions made at the 1884-85 Berlin Conference, where Africa was pretty much cut up and traded between the European powers.
The problem, at least as far as the map is concerned, is that no one in power now is willing to give up an inch of territory, even if the old lines make no sense. Oh well, I guess the killing will continue, to detriment of all.
And btw, if you're concerned at all about the genocide in Darfur, please sign up and donate to SaveDarfur.org One day, your kids may ask you what you did to help stop the brutal treatment of the Darfurians. What are you going to to say? The least you could do is send a free email to our President. Believe it or not, increasing those numbers matter. Money matters even more!
7 comments:
Hopefully the efficacy of regional organizations such as the African Union can be strengthened in the coming years. Such organizations are the best chance of addressing intra-African crises such as the war and attendant slaughter in Darfur. The idea of pan-African government, however, is nonsense. As noted above, the artificial states created by colonial powers have been spectacularly unsuccesful in providing freedom, stability, unity or security for their citizens. The idea of "Africa" as a cohesive unit is even more artificial, which is why a movement for pan-African governance would solve nothing.
All national ideas are artificial to some degree. What makes us a United States, rather than a loose confederation of 50 states, with different populations, values, ethnic backgrounds, economies, etc?
Certainly the same ideal isn't inconceivable to a large number of Africans who articulate such a philosophy, including a great number of Africa's first generation of anti-colonial freedom fighters.
My point is, it's all a construct. If people can develop a national, rather tribal identity, than certainly it's possible, after many wars and some literature, to develop continental-wide identities, no?
I don't think the comparison to the United States is quite valid. The US has a long history of existing as one nation, not in its current form I'll grant you, but the idea of the United States has been there since near the outset. Furthermore, in its original incarnation the United States was made up of a people with a cohesive culture and experience, mostly of the same ethnic and national group, speaking the same language and holding, broadly, the same values (kill the British).
Further phases of the nation's expansion and cohesion were predicated on the eradication of the American Indian cultures and nations, whose incorporation into the American nation would probably have been impossible. Expansion states within the union were settled by colonists from the same white ethnic culture as that of the original 13 states.
True, the United States has developed an extraordinarily successful transcendent national identity. But this phenomenon is based on large-scale immigration and an ethic of broad assimilation - come here, be treated like shit for a generation or two, work hard, make money, learn English and you can pretty much be one of us. Notice too that with the possible exception of Australia, this success has not been replicated anywhere in the world. America did not create a "continental-wide" identity from pre-existing cultures originating on American land. It created a "continental-wide" identity by expanding to fill the entire width of the continent.
The trouble in Africa is precisely that people are incapable of creating a national rather than tribal identity. So, again, why would they be more successful at creating a continental identity, especially when "African" experiences and cultures are so diverse? Yes, these are all constructs, but some constructs have more stable foundations than others.
Two points...
I wasn't suggesting creating a pan-African identity would be easy or as successful as creating a national identity has been in the U.S.
I was merely suggesting that the national identity I enjoy today probably would not have existed 150 years ago at the height of the Civil War, when this New Jerseyan would have been united with New Englanders and some New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians against the collective force of South Carolinians, Virginians, etc.
If we can move from that to where we are today in a mere century and a half, than certainly the same is possible for other people. Although I agree with you that having a common language, and perhaps most importantly, a common enemy, certainly helps.
You say, "The trouble in Africa is precisely that people are incapable of creating a national rather than tribal identity." That's simply false. The experiences of Ghanaians and South Africans (I'm reading a bio of Mandela right now) seems to belie your point. People I met in Ghana, in addition to being proud members of the Ashanti, Fanti, Ewe, Ga or other tribes, are also proud of their national identity. Seems to me, if one can be a proud Italian-American or what have you, then certainly an African can be a proud Xhosa-South African, or insert tribe-national affiliation of your choice here.
Are some constructs more stable than others? Sure. But when people learn that their experiences aren't that different despite their national identities -- lots of war, famine and AIDS, regardless if you're Ugandan or Congolese -- I think it would become easier to value a pan-African identity, in addition to, not in place of, a tribal and national one.
The United States has had once civil war in its history and over a hundred years of constitutional peace since then. And to go back to my point about the unique dynamics of the American experiment, that civil war was fought over the status of the one group of people in the American polity who did not come to the country voluntarily.
Compare this to the experience of modern post-colonial African nations. Their borders and the resulting ethnic mixes are - almost without exception - entirely arbitrary divisions, constructed for the benefit of past colonial masters and often with the direct intention of dividing and ruling. Why should the idea of "Sudan" or "Nigeria" be more powerful or successful than the far more ancient tribal and regional identities that preceded them?
The experiences of Ghana and South Africa are the exception that prove the rule. Indeed in South Africa, the tensions between Zulu-identified tribes and others is a potential constitutional threat. Furthermore, the prolonged experience of white colonial rule and Mandela's extraordinary ability to promote non-violent democratic resistance and broad consensus created political and social cohesion among South Africans - shared experience and a totemic national leader. A Mandela is exceptionally rare, as just a cursory survey of other African leaders (read: despots, tyrants, thieves) will prove.
I confess I know very little about Ghana, other than it being perhaps the only successful democracy to emerge from post-colonial Africa until the end of Apartheid. So no wonder its citizens are proud of being Ghanaian, as they should be. But in most cases in Africa, the comparison to a proud Italian-American doesn't hold. Hyphenated Americans like to brandish their ethnic pride but the forces of assimilation and mixing, and the power of the American idea are so strong that in general these do not rise much above the level of affectation (which is not to suggest these aren't sincere feelings). Contrast this to Africa, where much of the war and famine you say Africans experience in common is directly attributable to rivalries between those very ethnic identities, all of them bound together in weak artificial states that easily collapse into power vacuums.
To answer your question, "Why should the idea of "Sudan" or "Nigeria" be more powerful or successful than the far more ancient tribal and regional identities that preceded them?" I don't know that it should be, or that it is, although I'd suggest that for some people, (my hunch is mainly those with government jobs putting food on the table) they identify as strongly as Nigerians or Sudanese, as they do Yoruba, Hausa, etc. (Sorry I don't know any Sudanese tribal affiliations, my bad.)
But I'm confused by what you've written. You seem to be saying that African national identities are weak, and therefore a common pan-African identity would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. I just don't see that. I think identities are a social construct and a reflection of one's education and experience. That is, if you're taught you're an African first, Angolan second and Xhosa third, or all three at once, then that's what most people will identify as, given the political, econonic, athletic etc. structures that support those identities.
If you're correct, and national identities are as weak as you seem to suggest, (I don't believe that's the case, but admittedly, my African experiences are limited to one country) then why wouldn't it be as possible to create a continental identity, insofar as one is able, given the mix of groups, African, Arab and European descendants, who inhabit the continent?
Are Pan-Africanists naive? Certainly they experienced the brutalities of colonial rule and combined with their education and experiences, developed the ideas that are today known as Pan-African, no?
Do you think that national identities are prerequisites for larger ones? You certainly know more than I do about what's happening to individuals and their identities in Europe, where the political lines are seemingly less arbitrary. Where do you see the identities of various Euro-nations in 150 years, given the interdependency of the EU?
I think we're in agreement that the national political lines in Africa are a hinderance to solving the problems facing that continent -- war, famines, dictators, etc. I wonder if all the continent-wide peacekeeping (Ethiopian soldiers now in Somalia; Nigerian soldiers going almost everywhere there's been a problem in West Africa) has any effect on how Africans view themselves in terms of national, regional, tribal or pan-African identities?
PS-I think the U.S. civil war was initially fought to perserve the Union -- from Southerners who had a far different view of the United States, and their right to withdraw from it, than Northerners did (and do a certain degree, still do.) Slavery, while always near the surface, didn't become a justification for war until Lincoln needed a convienent excuse to keep your Limey nation out of it!
PPS - I didn't mean to leave an impression that I think all Africans experience war and famine on the regular. I mean, the place is beautiful and people make the best of their bad situations. But I'd say the experience most common among Africans is bad governance. But not being African and not having lived there since 2000 (and when I was there, confining myself to Ghana and Ivory Coast,) it's hard for me to say.
Working in reverse order:
I didn't mean to give the impression that the African experience is nothing but war and famine. This would be a terrible slander. I'll refrain from cliched expressions of admiration for African cultures and peoples. Suffice it to say that I do sincerely feel said admiration.
The US civil war was fought over the status of slaves. If this had not been an issue, the question of political union versus a right to secede would never even have come up. That the North did not initially wage war to emancipate the slaves doesn't mean the war was about slavery. The South seceded so as to preserve its right to maintain slavery rather than be tied to a political union in which it would eventually have been forced to give up the institution entirely.
Do I think national identities are prerequisites for larger ones? I'm not sure. I think it's hard enough to construct a viable national identity, let alone a larger one. But sometimes a larger identity has more emotional purchase than a more artificial national one. For instance, Arab national identity has a lot more legitimacy than colonial creations like "Jordan" or "Iraq." Not all that surprising given that there is, broadly speaking, one Arab culture.
I don't know that there's one African culture, or that there can be one. I think a European consensus is possible, not so sure about a unified culture - though I think there is one in a more diffuse sense. The most important question when it comes to Europe is whether it will be able to reconcile white European Christian/post-Christian culture with Arab and Muslim culture. This is why the entry of Turkey into the EU is such an important question.
All identities are social constructs, yes. But some are more powerful, rooted and seen as more "legitimate" than others. The post-colonial states in Africa, in general, have been artificial to start with and too weak and unstable (in part because of their artificiality) to succesfully create viable national identities.
Sudanese tribal identities. The Fur tribes in Darfur ("Dar-Fur" - "land of the Fur" do not feel particularly loyal to "Sudan."
Post a Comment