I always read The Continent with much interest (and often disagreement), but, while I can understand the frustrations resulting from the unsatisfactory outcome of the Baku COP meeting, I cannot resist reacting this time considering all the internal inconsistencies in this blog.
You say Africa shouldn't find accommodation with the current system, nor seek to lead it, but overthrow it, although the title of your blog says the opposite.
When you overthrow something, you have to replace it by an alternative which is not spelt out.
You say you have to build allies, but to do what?
And quoting Nkrumah, you suggest starting with "all people" of African descent, although also admitting that "black faces in high places won't save us", thereby also reducing Africans to their skin colour, despite the admitted genetical diversity? And are we not all of African descent? How long can we still be considered Africans then, once having left the continent (and reversely, how long do returnees to Africa have to live there to be accepted as "new Africans")?
You admit Africa's genetical diversity but end up with an indeed "mystical and dubious", essentialist concept of shared culture, to nevertheless end with the conclusion that Pan-Africanism is bred of (I guess economic and political) necessity.
But if Pan-Africanism is bred of necessity about "how to face the world", you have first to learn to interact among yourselves and find a common voice?
I always read The Continent with much interest (and often disagreement), but, while I can understand the frustrations resulting from the unsatisfactory outcome of the Baku COP meeting, I cannot resist reacting this time considering all the internal inconsistencies in this blog.
You say Africa shouldn't find accommodation with the current system, nor seek to lead it, but overthrow it, although the title of your blog says the opposite.
When you overthrow something, you have to replace it by an alternative which is not spelt out.
You say you have to build allies, but to do what?
And quoting Nkrumah, you suggest starting with "all people" of African descent, although also admitting that "black faces in high places won't save us", thereby also reducing Africans to their skin colour, despite the admitted genetical diversity? And are we not all of African descent? How long can we still be considered Africans then, once having left the continent (and reversely, how long do returnees to Africa have to live there to be accepted as "new Africans")?
You admit Africa's genetical diversity but end up with an indeed "mystical and dubious", essentialist concept of shared culture, to nevertheless end with the conclusion that Pan-Africanism is bred of (I guess economic and political) necessity.
But if Pan-Africanism is bred of necessity about "how to face the world", you have first to learn to interact among yourselves and find a common voice?