22 replies to this topic

[mhungu]

Chinweizu Chinweizu
Aug 14th, 2009

Kwame Nkrumah was famous for advocating a Government for the entire continent of Africa; for what he projected as the United States of Africa, and sometimes referred to as the Union Government of Africa or a Union of African States. His slogan was “Africa Must Unite”. That was his public position until he died in 1972.
However, it was reported by no less a figure than Amilcar Cabral that Nkrumah was thinking of modifying his position before he died in exile. It is significant that, before he died, Nkrumah told Cabral: “Cabral, I tell you one thing, our problem of African unity is very important, really, but now if I had to begin again, my approach would be different.” (Cabral, Return to the Source: 91)
Since we have no record of actual changes in Nkrumah’s approach, we must hold that his unmodified position was his last position on the matter. So Nkrumah lived and died a continentalist; an advocate of the United States of Africa.
With Nyerere, it is different. There is the evidence of his own words that he was a continentalist in 1963, just like Nkrumah; and that in 1977, two years before he died, he retreated in public from continentalist Pan-Africanism to sub-Sahara Pan-Africanism.
1. 1963: Nyerere, recollecting in 1998, said: “Kwame and I met in 1963 and discussed African Unity. We differed on how to achieve a United States of Africa. But we both agreed on a United States of Africa as necessary.” Ikaweba Bunting’s (1998) ‘The Heart of Africa. Interview with Julius Nyerere on Anti-Colonialism’ quoted in “African unity: Feeling with Nkrumah, thinking with Nyerere”, Chambi Chachage (2009-04-09)
2. On his 75th birthday speech in 1997, Nyerere stressed the following points:
a “North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.”
b “Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. . . . African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own. . .”
c “The small countries in Africa [south of the Sahara] must . . . Come together. . . . If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater cooperation.”
“Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice. Hamna! (You don’t have it)”
Nyerere gave a wise elder’s parting advice to Black Africa to be self-reliant and go it alone; to not rely on the Arabs or the Europeans or the Americans or the Japanese or the Indians or on any other people whatsoever, as none of them have it in their self-interest to help develop Black Africa. That we are on our own means that Black Africa should organize itself, by itself and for itself.
In other words, because of our separate and unique situation in the world, Black Africans should, in effect, extricate ourselves from the problem and confusion Nkrumah created 40 years earlier by joining us in an embrace with the Arabs of North Africa in his quest for continental unification.
An implication of Nyerere’s advice is for us Black Africans to withdraw from the Afro-Arab AU, US of Africa, etc. And organize our own Blacks-only collective outfit to solve our peculiar problems.
In 1963, Nyerere, just like Nkrumah, regarded the entire continent of Africa as a single geo-political unit, and the North African Arabs together with the south of the Sahara blacks as one single constituency.
But in 1997, Nyerere made it clear that he considered the south of Sahara Africa, black Africa, a distinct geo-political unit, quite separate in its identity and its destiny from Arab North Africa.
In that 1997 speech, Nyerere repeatedly emphasized that he was speaking about Africa south of the Sahara, and not of the entire continent. And his reason for considering the North African Arabs as a people apart, a people with a different identity and destiny is this:
” North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they’ll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.”
What, we may ask, led him to change his view? His reason, as stated in 1997, is purely geo-political and based on the likely realities of the 21st century. It has nothing to do with whether Arabs love or hate blacks;
nothing to do with past historical relations between Arabs and Black Africans. So, even those who think that Arabs are our “brothers” and best friends, have to consider Nyerere’s final position on the matter of Afro-Arab unity or alliance.
Even if, indeed, they are our “brothers” and best friends, it is in our enlightened geo-political self-interest not to cling to them in the 21st century. Their history, their circumstance, their aspirations and their destiny are different from ours.
It is significant that Nyerere’s argument for our separately taking care of our own business is not based on the history of our relations with the Arabs. There are some Black Africans who feel that because of the Afro-Arab anti-imperialist alliance in the second half of the 20th century, an alliance whereby Arabs gave help to Black Africa during the liberation struggles, we should, in gratitude, treat the Arabs as part of ourselves, or at least as our permanent friends and allies.
Nyerere knew about the Arab help better than anybody else since he coordinated that help in his position as Chairman of the OAU Liberation Committee.
But despite all that, Nyerere is indicating that our interest in the 21st century demands that we give up that idea of relying on or identifying with the Arabs. We must recognize no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only our permanent interests. And our interest in the 21st century, Nyerere urged, is distinct from the interest of the North African Arabs.
We must accept that fact and draw the necessary conclusions and act on them. Whatever help the Arabs gave to the anti-colonial struggles in Black Africa, it does not require that we ignore the reality of the divergence of interests in the 21st century.
Nyerere is pointing out a key aspect of our reality that must be made the foundation of our behaviour: There is a time to be on one’s own. And that time for Black Africa is the 21st century.
We are blessed with the fact that Nyerere lived long enough, and spoke his mind towards the end, so that we don’t have to speculate on where he would have ended up on this issue.
With the wisdom of experience and at the end of a long life, he arrived at the conclusion that we must go our own way and self-reliantly. And that, I think, is what we should do if we are sane.
But Is Nyerere Likely to Be Heeded?
Certainly not by the get another life crazies whose inferiority complex makes them pathologically terrified of Blacks-only associations. To understand why Nkrumahists and other Continentalists are unlikely to accept Nyerere’s advice, we need to appreciate the psychological yearning that continentalism satisfies. Continentalism is the political counterpart of social integrationism, and both belong to the same complex of pathologies as skin bleaching and hair straightening: all are desperate attempts to desert the now powerless black race and join the now more powerful white race.
Continentalists, like all compulsive integrationists, are psychological victims of the white supremacist dogma that blacks cannot achieve anything without white guidance. As Amos Wilson explained, they have been intimidated by Eurocentric history; by the inflated European achievements.
All this talk about the great achievements of the Europeans, of the great white race, has intimidated them. And they subconsciously say to themselves: “Hey we’d better hang in with these white people because if we lose them we’re going back into barbarism and primitiveness. Blacks can’t be on their own!”
Subconsciously, they are driven to seek white company, and to fear and flee from any blacks-only group.
Lacking self-confidence and lacking confidence in the black race, they are pathologically grasping at any white straw to keep themselves from drowning.
If Europeans are not available, then they go for the next best thing: the white Arabs. Hence their craving for continentalism. Their negrophobic subconscious is insistently telling them “Without whites we can’t take care of our own business. We can’t be on our own. We can’t go it alone.
We’ll mess it up.” That’s the negrophobic message they get from their get another lifeized subconscious; the message that drives them to cling desperately to whites. That is the mindset that will prevent Continentalists from taking Nyerere’s advice about Black Africans being on their own.

We must recognize no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only our permanent interests. These are great leader for the like they do not produce the kind anymore, Nkrumah had the idea but wrong method Nyerere refine the method in accordance to the idea which is the sole alliance of sub sahara Africa. Nyerere was not perfect man but we can learn much on the way to go with even just to study him.

[Zakiyya]

I think that we must focus, construct and review on the necessity and viability of a rising consciousness towards a WORLD African revolution that recognizes "no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only our permanent interests."

[mhungu]

I can agree we need the revolution the notion of the world africa revolution is the one I am not certain to ascribe with.The world revolution method would still see our sub sahara place as focal point, so then for both case this is the starter point for either brand of revolution choice. Interest in africa world revolution I can admit is not high on the list for me in the case of africa people world over the revolution I will support is the revolution of mind! Do you see many africa people world over do not even have the africa mind no? Foreign influence with their mind is more trouble than worth those also can lead to mixed loyalty if not for hawk sight.

[Zakiyya]

 mhungu, on 21 November 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

I can agree we need the revolution the notion of the world africa revolution is the one I am not certain to ascribe with.The world revolution method would still see our sub sahara place as focal point, so then for both case this is the starter point for either brand of revolution choice. Interest in africa world revolution I can admit is not high on the list for me in the case of africa people world over the revolution I will support is the revolution of mind! Do you see many africa people world over do not even have the africa mind no? Foreign influence with their mind is more trouble than worth those also can lead to mixed loyalty if not for hawk sight.

I am not speaking of a violent revolution but of a mental revolution.  There only needs to be 5% involved to reach critical mass and consciousness is rising at an unprecedented rate.

I don't agree that African people worldwide don't have Africa in mind.  They have to look at their origin as it's fundamental.

[mhungu]

 Zakiyya, on 22 November 2011 - 11:17 PM, said:

I am not speaking of a violent revolution but of a mental revolution.  There only needs to be 5% involved to reach critical mass and consciousness is rising at an unprecedented rate.

I don't agree that African people worldwide don't have Africa in mind.  They have to look at their origin as it's fundamental.

The revolution of the mind yes I will support for those world wide african the revolution for sub sahara as to expect will be the violent choice. Many world wide african do not have the mind first they should get the mind first. The few number world wide african with the africa mind yes, I will support those to focus on sub sahara also then we will not waste huge portion for time with less significant issue.

[mhungu]

The Teacher

Quote

Together, we, the peoples of Africa will be incomparably stronger internationally than we are now with our multiplicity of unviable states. The needs of our separate countries can be, and are being, ignored by the rich and powerful. The result is that Africa is marginalised when international decisions affecting our vital interests are made. Unity will not make us rich, but it can make it difficult for Africa and the African peoples to be disregarded and humiliated. And it will, therefore, increase the effectiveness of the decisions we make and try to implement for our development.

[pmurcus]

We do not lack the brains or will for economic emancipation, we just lack the necessary political leadership

[mhungu]

 pmurcus, on 16 October 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

We do not lack the brains or will for economic emancipation, we just lack the necessary political leadership

Iyo i abhusoluti tsiura { kana chaizvo } dzamara tino dhiri ne vatungamiri nhaurwa ino i kushanda kuitira kumanyurazuva ticha iva chete kuenda mu madenderedzwa.

[Wilbert]

 mhungu, on 20 November 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

Chinweizu Chinweizu
Aug 14th, 2009

Kwame Nkrumah was famous for advocating a Government for the entire continent of Africa; for what he projected as the United States of Africa, and sometimes referred to as the Union Government of Africa or a Union of African States. His slogan was "Africa Must Unite". That was his public position until he died in 1972.
However, it was reported by no less a figure than Amilcar Cabral that Nkrumah was thinking of modifying his position before he died in exile. It is significant that, before he died, Nkrumah told Cabral: "Cabral, I tell you one thing, our problem of African unity is very important, really, but now if I had to begin again, my approach would be different." (Cabral, Return to the Source: 91)
Since we have no record of actual changes in Nkrumah's approach, we must hold that his unmodified position was his last position on the matter. So Nkrumah lived and died a continentalist; an advocate of the United States of Africa.
With Nyerere, it is different. There is the evidence of his own words that he was a continentalist in 1963, just like Nkrumah; and that in 1977, two years before he died, he retreated in public from continentalist Pan-Africanism to sub-Sahara Pan-Africanism.
1. 1963: Nyerere, recollecting in 1998, said: "Kwame and I met in 1963 and discussed African Unity. We differed on how to achieve a United States of Africa. But we both agreed on a United States of Africa as necessary." Ikaweba Bunting's (1998) 'The Heart of Africa. Interview with Julius Nyerere on Anti-Colonialism' quoted in "African unity: Feeling with Nkrumah, thinking with Nyerere", Chambi Chachage (2009-04-09)
2. On his 75th birthday speech in 1997, Nyerere stressed the following points:
a "North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East."
b "Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. . . . African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own. . ."
c "The small countries in Africa [south of the Sahara] must . . . Come together. . . . If we can't move towards bigger nation-states, at least let's move towards greater cooperation."
"Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice. Hamna! (You don't have it)"
Nyerere gave a wise elder's parting advice to Black Africa to be self-reliant and go it alone; to not rely on the Arabs or the Europeans or the Americans or the Japanese or the Indians or on any other people whatsoever, as none of them have it in their self-interest to help develop Black Africa. That we are on our own means that Black Africa should organize itself, by itself and for itself.
In other words, because of our separate and unique situation in the world, Black Africans should, in effect, extricate ourselves from the problem and confusion Nkrumah created 40 years earlier by joining us in an embrace with the Arabs of North Africa in his quest for continental unification.
An implication of Nyerere's advice is for us Black Africans to withdraw from the Afro-Arab AU, US of Africa, etc. And organize our own Blacks-only collective outfit to solve our peculiar problems.
In 1963, Nyerere, just like Nkrumah, regarded the entire continent of Africa as a single geo-political unit, and the North African Arabs together with the south of the Sahara blacks as one single constituency.
But in 1997, Nyerere made it clear that he considered the south of Sahara Africa, black Africa, a distinct geo-political unit, quite separate in its identity and its destiny from Arab North Africa.
In that 1997 speech, Nyerere repeatedly emphasized that he was speaking about Africa south of the Sahara, and not of the entire continent. And his reason for considering the North African Arabs as a people apart, a people with a different identity and destiny is this:
" North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they'll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East."
What, we may ask, led him to change his view? His reason, as stated in 1997, is purely geo-political and based on the likely realities of the 21st century. It has nothing to do with whether Arabs love or hate blacks;
nothing to do with past historical relations between Arabs and Black Africans. So, even those who think that Arabs are our "brothers" and best friends, have to consider Nyerere's final position on the matter of Afro-Arab unity or alliance.
Even if, indeed, they are our "brothers" and best friends, it is in our enlightened geo-political self-interest not to cling to them in the 21st century. Their history, their circumstance, their aspirations and their destiny are different from ours.
It is significant that Nyerere's argument for our separately taking care of our own business is not based on the history of our relations with the Arabs. There are some Black Africans who feel that because of the Afro-Arab anti-imperialist alliance in the second half of the 20th century, an alliance whereby Arabs gave help to Black Africa during the liberation struggles, we should, in gratitude, treat the Arabs as part of ourselves, or at least as our permanent friends and allies.
Nyerere knew about the Arab help better than anybody else since he coordinated that help in his position as Chairman of the OAU Liberation Committee.
But despite all that, Nyerere is indicating that our interest in the 21st century demands that we give up that idea of relying on or identifying with the Arabs. We must recognize no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only our permanent interests. And our interest in the 21st century, Nyerere urged, is distinct from the interest of the North African Arabs.
We must accept that fact and draw the necessary conclusions and act on them. Whatever help the Arabs gave to the anti-colonial struggles in Black Africa, it does not require that we ignore the reality of the divergence of interests in the 21st century.
Nyerere is pointing out a key aspect of our reality that must be made the foundation of our behaviour: There is a time to be on one's own. And that time for Black Africa is the 21st century.
We are blessed with the fact that Nyerere lived long enough, and spoke his mind towards the end, so that we don't have to speculate on where he would have ended up on this issue.
With the wisdom of experience and at the end of a long life, he arrived at the conclusion that we must go our own way and self-reliantly. And that, I think, is what we should do if we are sane.
But Is Nyerere Likely to Be Heeded?
Certainly not by the get another life crazies whose inferiority complex makes them pathologically terrified of Blacks-only associations. To understand why Nkrumahists and other Continentalists are unlikely to accept Nyerere's advice, we need to appreciate the psychological yearning that continentalism satisfies. Continentalism is the political counterpart of social integrationism, and both belong to the same complex of pathologies as skin bleaching and hair straightening: all are desperate attempts to desert the now powerless black race and join the now more powerful white race.
Continentalists, like all compulsive integrationists, are psychological victims of the white supremacist dogma that blacks cannot achieve anything without white guidance. As Amos Wilson explained, they have been intimidated by Eurocentric history; by the inflated European achievements.
All this talk about the great achievements of the Europeans, of the great white race, has intimidated them. And they subconsciously say to themselves: "Hey we'd better hang in with these white people because if we lose them we're going back into barbarism and primitiveness. Blacks can't be on their own!"
Subconsciously, they are driven to seek white company, and to fear and flee from any blacks-only group.
Lacking self-confidence and lacking confidence in the black race, they are pathologically grasping at any white straw to keep themselves from drowning.
If Europeans are not available, then they go for the next best thing: the white Arabs. Hence their craving for continentalism. Their negrophobic subconscious is insistently telling them "Without whites we can't take care of our own business. We can't be on our own. We can't go it alone.
We'll mess it up." That's the negrophobic message they get from their get another lifeized subconscious; the message that drives them to cling desperately to whites. That is the mindset that will prevent Continentalists from taking Nyerere's advice about Black Africans being on their own.

We must recognize no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only our permanent interests. These are great leader for the like they do not produce the kind anymore, Nkrumah had the idea but wrong method Nyerere refine the method in accordance to the idea which is the sole alliance of sub sahara Africa. Nyerere was not perfect man but we can learn much on the way to go with even just to study him.

The flaw with Nyerere and all the Pan-Africanists's position is that they all dream of ruling the much enlarged Africa when they have clearly failed to rule the individual country. Nyerere's failed socialism experiment held back Tanzania's development 50 years for at least. Our own Mugabe has held Zimbabwe back 100 years. Both these two leaders would have jumped at the chance to be a continental leader!

There is nothing more dangerous that a small man of little intellect trying to project himself on a larger than life stage of which he knows nothing about.

[mhungu]

 Wilbert, on 01 November 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

The flaw with Nyerere and all the Pan-Africanists's position is that they all dream of ruling the much enlarged Africa when they have clearly failed to rule the individual country. Nyerere's failed socialism experiment held back Tanzania's development 50 years for at least. Our own Mugabe has held Zimbabwe back 100 years. Both these two leaders would have jumped at the chance to be a continental leader!

There is nothing more dangerous that a small man of little intellect trying to project himself on a larger than life stage of which he knows nothing about.

The problem with a honky like yourself is that you think you’re entitled to have your way at every moments turn. Before we talk about the symptoms of the issue we need to first tackle the root of the problem and the fact that these “countries” weren’t institutionalized to be governed in the interest of the native in the first place is the paramount truth we cannot overlook. The basis of prosperity for Africa at the forefront has to be a radical break from all the vices that are the colonial structure. How can one attempt to develop if the structures that holster it are in conflict with the philosophy of independence?
.
What held Nyerere’s form of socialism back was the erratic entangled web domesticity and the broader issues at stake inside the continent, the broader issues causing a good chuck of funds. And more importantly the act of betrayal was the dagger to Nyerere’s socialist form, this is the same betrayal that can be witnessed throughout all of Africa. Government officials practically robbed state enterprises blind after the nationalization of the resources by Nyerere, the same chronology of stooges we see today parading as leaders of the people. Furthermore due to the policies of Nyerere and the hand Tanzania had in the liberation struggles the country received foreign pressures in critical elements such economy trade and diplomacy. Nyerere mistakes were made but the mistakes of mwalimu were not the mistakes that particularly brought down ujamaa, considering the conditions most of any economic model would be at odds for success. Nevertheless Tanzania under Nyerere achieved the highest literacy rate in Africa, made major advances in healthcare due to egalitarian policies such as free education and medical services, and a level of ethnic cohesiveness not previously observed in modern Africa.

Nyerere and Mugabe are two different individuals, one of who didn't mind the background, however that doesn't negotiate the fact land is most important for the social advancement of a people and the fact that if any African leader is willing to make land a first priority it seems to not rest well for honkys like yourself that are the beneficiaries within the international capitalistic system. However evil MUGABEE may be I think there is certainly a legit method to his madness in the case of land reform of which I applaud his actions, for that has maybe set the social development of the native forward 100 years already! Honkys such as yourself need to understand your opinions to those of us of the renaissance are terribly worthless, if it was left to you the repatriation of vast surplus from the land and the political status quo would forever be the ideal situation of Africa as we know it. Again, realize that your statistics, opinions, theories and ultimately your life mean very little to those of us of the renaissance.

Good day.

[Zakiyya]

The renaissance will ultimately overthrow the global system of white supremacy. This is a fact that most don't understand.

[Wilbert]

 mhungu, on 02 November 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

The problem with a honky like yourself is that you think you’re entitled to have your way at every moments turn. Before we talk about the symptoms of the issue we need to first tackle the root of the problem and the fact that these “countries” weren’t institutionalized to be governed in the interest of the native in the first place is the paramount truth we cannot overlook. The basis of prosperity for Africa at the forefront has to be a radical break from all the vices that are the colonial structure. How can one attempt to develop if the structures that holster it are in conflict with the philosophy of independence?
.
What held Nyerere’s form of socialism back was the erratic entangled web domesticity and the broader issues at stake inside the continent, the broader issues causing a good chuck of funds. And more importantly the act of betrayal was the dagger to Nyerere’s socialist form, this is the same betrayal that can be witnessed throughout all of Africa. Government officials practically robbed state enterprises blind after the nationalization of the resources by Nyerere, the same chronology of stooges we see today parading as leaders of the people. Furthermore due to the policies of Nyerere and the hand Tanzania had in the liberation struggles the country received foreign pressures in critical elements such economy trade and diplomacy. Nyerere mistakes were made but the mistakes of mwalimu were not the mistakes that particularly brought down ujamaa, considering the conditions most of any economic model would be at odds for success. Nevertheless Tanzania under Nyerere achieved the highest literacy rate in Africa, made major advances in healthcare due to egalitarian policies such as free education and medical services, and a level of ethnic cohesiveness not previously observed in modern Africa.

Nyerere and Mugabe are two different individuals, one of who didn't mind the background, however that doesn't negotiate the fact land is most important for the social advancement of a people and the fact that if any African leader is willing to make land a first priority it seems to not rest well for honkys like yourself that are the beneficiaries within the international capitalistic system. However evil MUGABEE may be I think there is certainly a legit method to his madness in the case of land reform of which I applaud his actions, for that has maybe set the social development of the native forward 100 years already! Honkys such as yourse

lf need to understand your opinions to those of us of the renaissance are terribly worthless, if it was left to you the repatriation of vast surplus from the land and the political status quo would forever be the ideal situation of Africa as we know it. Again, realize that your statistics, opinions, theories and ultimately your life mean very little to those of us of the renaissance.

Good day.

You talk as if Africa is governed by separate economic rules than the rest of the world. That is nonsense, the same laws of supply and demands governing the West, China and every one out there apply to Africa too. Nyerere held back Tanzania economically for decades because of his failed socialist policies.

Our people are looking for a better life and all you Pan Africanist are offering is excuses. All this shadow fighting against the colonialists is old bone?!

[keepmesafe]

This is nice sharing..................................

[keepmesafe]

This is nice sharing..................................

[Neter]

The fact is that Africans can only rise together. It is important to note that it is in the interest of the West and Asia for us to remain divided because they will retain a massive bargaining power over us. Africa is resource rich and if we worked together, we could form a price fixing cartel like OPEC for all our resources, in the process extracting a bigger portion of value from the global economic system.

[SavageHunter]

 pmurcus, on 16 October 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

We do not lack the brains or will for economic emancipation, we just lack the necessary political leadership

What is lacking is real time experience and that’s a reason why African countries fail. Book learning is fine but it takes many years of hands on experience before a person can be considered ready to take on a job successfully.

[TABLAND]

we will do better without Somali and Magreb Islamists