Introduction: Pan-Africanism is an educational, political, and cultural movement which had a lasting impact on the liberation of the people of Africa and the Diaspora. It evolved, beginning with formerly enslaved Africans in the Americas, the colonial borders of the 1884 Berlin Conference, and the rise of the independence movements in Africa. Ayttey and et al argue that Pan-Africanism should be understood as a “quest” for Africa’s self-understanding and self-knowledge through historical narrative.
Over different historical periods, the focus on the unity of Africa stayed consistent. Some of the evolution of Pan-Africanism took place in universities, as intellectual centers tied to the aspirations of people of African descent in different parts of the world. In addition to being an intellectual movement, Pan-Africanism was also, according to Armah, a political movement or organization whose goal was the liberation and unity of Africa, especially after slavery and the encounter with modernity. African and Black are words used interchangeably, reflecting the concept used within Pan- Africanism.
For formerly enslaved Africans, Pan-Africanism was an idea that helped them see their commonalities as victims of racism. They realized they were enslaved because they came from the same continent and shared the same racial heritage. Thus, the early articulations of Pan-Africanism took place “outside Africa,” mainly in North America and the Caribbean. Pan Africanists associated the continent of Africa with freedom.
The partitioning of Africa at the Berlin Conference created false nation-states out of what was initially seen as an undivided continent. The creation of colonial nation-states did not erase the idea of a united Africa.
Pan-Africanism provided an “ideology” for rallying Africans at home and abroad against colonialism, As different African nations gained political independence, they took it upon themselves to support those countries fighting for their independence. Many African countries drew inspiration from the nations in the Caribbean, including Cuba. The belief then was that as long as one African nation was not free, the continent could not be viewed as free. The existence of nation-states did “not” imply the negation of Pan-Africanism. The political ideas and practices examined include those of Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. Du Bois, Kwame Nkrumah, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, and Thabo Mbeki.
Pan-Africanism, as it were, has shaped how many people understand the history of Africa and of African people. Pan Africanism offered a hope that Africa will be one, united, but not “Balkanized” by colonial powers. It made it possible to give a systematic presentation of a united Africa, an attempt at self-explanation. Many scholars were cognizant of the fact that the history of Africa did “not” begin with the encounter with Europeans or foreign invaders, even though the encounter with Europeans had led to the fall of Africa. African kingdoms and empires had existed earlier. Its spirit predated the first Pan-African Congress (PAC) meeting of 1900 in London and there was an implicit understanding that, prior to the encounter with modernity, Africa was almost united.
Ancestral home: Pan-Africanism promoted a consciousness of Africa as the ancestral home for Black people, and a desire to work for its liberation. Gebrekidan explained that at the core was the understanding that people of African heritage had “similar” experiences, regardless of their location in the world. These experiences included colonialism, racial discrimination, oppression, and slavery. For a significant part of the 20th century, Addis Ababa was frequently viewed as headquarters of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), indicating the “hope” of a united Africa.
Although the concept of Pan-Africanism came into popular use in the 1950s, there are some who argue that Pan-Africanism was present and manifested itself not only in the protests and resistance to slavery, but also in the “desire” to return to Africa. Formerly enslaved.
Africans sought to return to Africa, and even when a physical return was impossible they kept the idea of Africa alive. In many ways, enslavement did not “remove” a sense of belonging to a wider African community, or even a return to Africa.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, there were many efforts to repatriate formerly enslaved Africans. Some left from the USA to Sierra Leone and Liberia. While some returned on a voluntary basis, others did so at the urging of European Americans with the support of the US government as pointed out by Lake and Liebenow. While “abolitionists” in the US were keen to end slavery, some did not like having Blacks live among them, and encouraged them to “relocate” to Africa. Some were shipped from Jamaica and the Caribbean to make it free and safe for Europeans.
The mission of development and religion: Many of the formerly enslaved Africans returning to Africa saw their mission as that of “developing” Africa. Among the new things they sought included new forms of commerce and new religions, including Christianity. It was a “fusion” of capitalism and Christianity that could lead to a transformation of Africa. The return to Africa or the promise of Pan-Africanism was predicated on a vision of a victorious Africa, one free from slavery and foreign domination. However, the abolition of slavery did “not” lead to a significant emancipation of Africans, in the Diaspora or in Africa itself.
As revealed by Armah, the abolition of slavery was “followed” by the dismemberment of Africa at the Berlin Conference. The subsequent partitioning of Africa paved the way to colonization of Africa. At the Conference, European society found the principle of resource “theft” perfectly acceptable. This brutal act was taken as good governance for Africa. Africa and Africans belonged to Europeans, and this was “ascertained” by the partitioning of Africa at the Conference.
The partitioning of Africa: The partitioning of Africa at the Berlin Conference not only led to the theft of resources, but to the creation of borders where previously there had been none. The making of “false” states continued to be administered by Europeans using European legal systems. The Conference literally fragmented Africa into British, French, Portuguese, German, Belgian, and Spanish Africa. Political, cultural, and economic independence were “lost” in the process of colonialism. Europe imposed its culture in ways that would radically change the course of African history and identity, as well as the potential unification of Africa. With the partitioning of Africa, it suddenly became a continent of several nation states.
As a result of the Berlin Conference, Germany had German West Africa (Namibia) and German East Africa (Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi) as well as Togo and Cameroon. France, on the other hand, took possession of over ten territories, including the Ivory Coast, Senegal, Niger, Gambia, Morocco, Gabon, Algeria and Tunisia. Britain grabbed Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Egypt, Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Botswana, Lesotho, and Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) among others. Portugal colonized Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, and Guinea-Bissau. Eventually, the delegates to the Conference from European countries convened and decided the fate of Africa and its people.
The mask of European rationality and the “superiority” of the European political system lasted until the emergence of Hitler and Nazism. Nazism revealed the shortcomings and moral bankruptcy of European philosophies and ideologies. Following the defeat of Germany, other European countries punished Germany by “dispossessing” it of its African colonies. Colonies that had formerly belonged to Germany were given as spoils to new conquerors.
On top of dividing Africa among themselves, European nations also “divided” Africans from each other. This was mostly evident with the making of colonial borders. However, the colonial borders also quickly became religious and cultural borders, as colonialism was quickly followed by the imposition of different religious traditions, including variations of Christianity. A byproduct of the division of Africa was the creation of Egypt and parts of North Africa as separate from the rest of Africa, especially what is now called Africa South of the Sahara, as pointed out by Armah. European cartography defined Africa’s geographical and political identity. The Berlin Conference, in many ways, created false nation-states ruled by colonial powers. It formed the foundation for the continued “destruction” of African history, culture, and unity.
Pan African Congresses (PACs): Despite the concerted effort by Europeans at disuniting Africa as a result of the Berlin Conference, activists and intellectuals in the Diaspora sought ways for advocating for the unity of Africa and people of African descent. Those in the Diaspora organized conferences and congresses to deliberate on the present and future of Africa. Pan Africanism is a practical approach to a unity of people of African heritage, especially those in North America, the Caribbean, Europe, and Africa. The PACs, especially those during the time of Du Bois and Padmore, became places for defining the goals and vision for Africa.
The First PAC was organized by Williams of Trinidad and explored, among other things, the independence of Africa, and the rights of Black people in the Diaspora. In many ways, Pan-Africanism made it possible to view the future of Africa through a different lens. A generational and ideological shift was apparent, especially when compared with those of the days immediately after slavery. Christianity was “no longer” viewed as essential to the ideological and material revival of Africa.
The Second PAC took place in 1919, and was again dominated by Blacks from the Diaspora. As with the First Congress, it also took place in Europe, and among those present was Du Bois. He played a leading role in many of the PACs. What eventually came into play was the question of who was to lead Africa out of European domination, and in what political and ideological direction. Another key activist was Marcus Garvey who played a role in shaping the direction toward the future of Africa. For Garvey, it was important for Africans to think in terms of race first, and in this case, the Black race.
Du Bois had already written and published on the contributions of Black people in world history in ways that challenged European perceptions of Africa. The gaps in European ideologies and capitalism had made it possible for Blacks in the Diaspora to study Marxism and Socialism. The rise of the Soviet Union and the “acceptance” of Blacks in the communist International persuaded Pan Africanists to consider Socialism as central to the unification and future of Africa. However, within a relatively short time, some Pan Africanists began to “realize” the shortcomings of socialism, and broke with the Communist International.
At the early stages of his career, the younger Padmore, for example, viewed socialism and the potential solidarity between workers of the world as something that could solve the race problem. For a while he saw the problem as one of economics, while Du Bois, Garvey, and others viewed “race” as central. Later on, however, Padmore began to see the limitations of Communism within the struggle for African freedom. He had a huge influence on other Pan Africanists, including Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana.
Most students of Pan Africanism would not question the dedication that those in the Diaspora had for the cause of Africa. Partly because of the proximity to Europe as well as their experiences with European and North American education, those assembled at the First and Second PACs envisaged themselves playing a leadership role in Africa. Even the young Du Bois saw the educated Blacks as essential to a mission of “civilizing” Africa.
For a significant amount of time, the early Pan Africanists saw the liberation of Africa through an Anglo-American worldview, but this is partly because they had been educated in that environment. It could be argued that they sought to “remake” Africa and Africans, at home and abroad, in the image of the Western bourgeois societies. However, over time, many of the Pan Africanists found a “home” in Africa, and ended up advising the presidents of newly independent African countries.
All previous PACs had advocated for a gradual emancipation for Africans and strongly stressed the necessity of ending colonialism. Representatives from African countries began actively participating in these congresses. With the independence of Africa, the subsequent PACs were held in Africa, shifting the balance to Africa. The creation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) made many African heads of State defenders of Pan Africanism. It was within this framework that Nkrumah, Haile Selassie and other leaders made “resources” available to African countries fighting for political independence.
Some African states gained political independence through peaceful transitions of power, when former colonial masters handed over power to Africans. However, peaceful transition was not the norm and many countries had to wage armed struggle to attain political freedom. Good examples of these struggles were the Mau Mau of Kenya, the ANC in South Africa, and the struggle for Namibia’s independence. Although independence was generally attained by one state at a time, the states that gained political independence provided resources for liberation movements of other African countries. For Nkrumah, the liberation of Africa was seen as “incomplete” without each and every country being free.
Conclusion: Some African countries are not fully liberated yet. They are under the “indirect” influence of former colonial masters. Supported by these former masters, the leaders of these countries have reigned for life, yelling Adios to democracy! They rule their country until forced to die. The question now is whether African people gained real freedom and democracy after independence? The answer is that it is only a change of “colors” of masters and dictators. African resources are still exploited by foreign firms, which represent harsh indirect rule. The former colonial masters have managed to conspire with irresponsible local rulers to jointly exploit the resources of Africa and impoverish its people. Let me end by asking what happened to the goal of PAC? Is it only a myth? Africans have to answer these questions in good faith. African leaders who had been the true children of Africa had faced removal from power with disgrace or death by other fellow Africans, under the influence of foreign powers. We have to watch these evil powers who intend to destroy the ideals of Pan-Africanism.
Thank you.
The Ethiopian Herald August 2/2020
BY GETACHEW MINAS
