ON RECORDS AND KEEPING OUR EYES ON THE BALL
Kwesi Kwaa Prah Responds
In our brave new world, with the technology of our times, we are able, without face to face meetings, to successfully lock horns in debate in cyber-space. It is most convenient. Let‟s get on with it. I read your recent paper, The Struggle to Convert Nationalism to Pan-Africanism: Taking Stock of 50 years of African Independence1 with riveting interest. It has given me reason to explain a few things here.
I found the first part easily agreeable and unproblematic, if factually hackneyed. But beyond a certain point the narrative becomes troubling, prickly and unsubstantiated by evidence. Your elastic use of the notion of territoriality and the analytical ambiguities of your commentary on the contributions of Garvey and Du Bois deserve fresh reflection. An important point one needs to note relates to the differences in the class character of their followings in the inter-war period.
Without an appreciation of their different socio-historical mainsprings the rationalities of their ideologically divergent significations will remain obscured and elusive. The contradictions between these two figures mirrored a lot of the historical and social realities of the African Diaspora during the early decades of the 20th century and in turn they influenced the development of political thought and practice on the continent.
We are informed that, after reading the Autobiography of Du Bois in Conakry, in exile, in 1968, Nkrumah reacted thus:
‘… My opinion of the book is very mixed. Here is an intellectual aristocrat born in 1868; and here is the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels published in 1848, and this man never became a communist –not even a socialist- until the last evenings of his life. His philosophy for the Talented Ten and his fight with Booker Washington, and later with Marcus Garvey, put me off him when I was a student in the United States …… There are a lot of things Du Bois did which have put a brake to the revolving machine of African Revolution. Dr Du Bois lived behind a “veil” which he was afraid to tear open. He was an intellectual but not a revolutionary. If Du Bois had supported Marcus Garvey, the course of Afro-American history might de different now. But 2 I loved him and respected him just the same.’2
That was Nkrumah. But these are not the issues I wish to raise here.
It is with regards to matters of witting or unwitting obfuscation that I want to react here. You write that:
‘Some of the old debates on racial and territorial nationalisms are re-appearing. Who is an African for the purposes of Pan-Africanism? And, therefore, who constitutes the nation for purposes of national liberation? For Kwesi Prah, Bankie Bankie, Chinweizu and others, “African” is defined by colour, culture and custom.’
I hold no brief for others, but in the face of your assertions and our earlier debates, I am surprised about the lack of familiarity with my work and position. For Kwesi Prah it is culture and history. Please learn that. Why have you studiously avoided the written evidence? I ask myself. I shall not attempt to put my finger on possible explanations for this here. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I shall start from the premise that you are poorly informed and do not know where I stand on these issues. I have long been on record, in 1989, (The Cause of Our Times: Pan-Africanism Revisited) 3 that:
‘The racial definition of an African is flawed. It is unscientific and hence untenable. No serious mind today would use the race concept in any way except as an instrument for poetic imagery. What l am saying is that no group of people has been „pure‟ from time immemorial. Notions of purity belong to the language of fascists and the rubbish-bin of science. But before my observations are misunderstood let me take the argument into another direction. Most Africans are black, but not all Africans are black, and not all blacks have African cultural and historical roots. Jews range from blond to black. Another example, Arabs also do. I am not denying the fact that this continent is the cradle of the African and as far as we know today the birthplace of homo sapiens. There are many groups in Africa today which are not African, do not describe themselves as African or wish to be so regarded, peoples whose cultures and histories are linked and derived from extra-African sources. Needless to say, they are full citizens and must always remain full and equal citizens in all respects to the Africans amongst whom they live, and l dare say apartheid and caste systems of any kind should not be tolerated, since we seek ultimately the freedom of all humanity, and the untrammelled social intercourse of all the peoples of this earth. The cultures of these minorities who live amongst us have helped in the enrichment and cosmopolitanization of social life and tastes in large areas of Africa. Some of these groups may in due course of time and history, come to regard themselves as African. All peoples have a right to their culture and its usage. But cultures are not stagnant or fixed entities. Cultural change is a permanent feature of all societies. No human group has from time immemorial been hermetically sealed, culturally or otherwise. Diffusion, interpenetration and mixing is the real substance of the historical process, but at every given historical conjuncture, people are formed by the existent culture they produce and reproduce. But cultures are created and also wither. When cultures die, the people whose culture declines and falls, do not necessarily physically die, they become other people. Often they are absorbed by more dominant cultures. Obviously, there is constantly a world culture in creation. This universal cultural fund is shared literally by all people. The phenomenology of a global village underscores this point. It is a cultural fund to which we all in principle contribute, but in practice, it is the dominant or hegemonic cultures of the world which determine active cultural development in this sphere. There are many, particularly among Westerners who too easily and rather ethnocentrically, equate universal culture with western culture. In a world of competing cultures, growth, prosperity and cultural advancement is a factor of economic and political power. This is why, for example in the case of South Africa, under Afrikaner National Party rule, the language of the Afrikaner, Afrikaans which had started as a patois was developed and rapidly elevated to a language of modern science and technology and forced on to the rest of the population. Culture, history, attachment to these and consciousness of identity and not skin colour primarily defines the African. The fact that most Africans or people of African historical and cultural descent are black is only one characteristic, a bonus which generalizes and typifies Africans. And indeed, l dare say, for us, in the absence of a strong unifying religion or single language, colour has become an easy and fortunate identifying attribute of most people who regard themselves as African. Thus while others have used our colour to distinguish us for oppression and denigration, it is at the same time one of the most fortunate coincidences which identifies a people whose cultures have over centuries been woefully shattered by their oppressors. While in recent centuries slavery by Europe and the Arab world has hung heavily on African history, Africans have existed long before these periods, and cannot be defined as a people mainly on the basis of this experience. Definitionally, being African is not simply or essentially a reaction to the history of oppression. It includes this, but also stands before and transcends this history.’ 4
In the preface to the same text; Beyond the Colour Line (the title was chosen to carry meaning), I wrote that:
‘If most obviously Africans are mainly black, to some extent for the present and increasingly in future, there will be more and more non-blacks whose cultures will claim, acquire and assume African sources and connections, to the point that they assert an African identity. It is in this sense that Africaness is ultimately colourless. It is beyond colour. It transcends colour. It is indeed more history, and/or culture, and not biology. I however think we are still very far from there.’5
In Pambazuka News of 2008-10-22 (Issue 403), the editor, for purposes of contextualization prefaced my paper; A Pan-Africanist Reflection: Point Counter-point, with this note:
‘In a response to Issa Shivji’s Our political guiding post: pan-Africanism’s new dawn. (http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/51014) featured inPambazuka’s 400th issue English-language edition, Kwesi Kwaa Prah asks what can be achieved with pan-Africanism as a “category of intellectual thought”. Problematizing the extent to which pan-Africanism could ever represent a politically neutral philosophy, the author suggests that its proponents can be located across the political spectrum and argues that while colour may have provided a useful racially-based organizing tool, it should never override the essential inclusivity of the African identity.’6
The Editor, if imperfectly, clearly understood me better than you. I suppose by ‘politically neutral philosophy’ the editor was attempting to summarize the part of my argument which appears as follows in my paper:
‘Shivji asserts that the “new pan-Africanism is rooted in social (popular) democracy, [it] is African nationalism of the era of the so-called globalized phase of imperialism. African nationalism was born of pan-Africanism, not the other way round.” On the surface there is precious little to quibble about this assertion, but it masks a great deal of ambiguity and gross simplification which needs to be interrogated. If by “social (popular) democracy” we are to understand a political ideology defined as “democratic socialism”, that is a left and centre-left political position which acknowledges individual rights, transparent constitutionalism, the rejection of the Marxist-Leninist notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, support for universal adult suffrage, the inclusion of social and economic equality and rights to education, medical care, pensions, and employment, and some measure of social security support for the unemployed and underprivileged, I would say yes, these are for many people, without doubt, desirable ideals. They are universal ideals with practical and theoretical adherents throughout the world, in virtually every single country on this planet, but it is certainly not pan-Africanism. Some pan-Africanists are doubtlessly social democrats, but not all social democrats are pan-Africanists. Some pan-Africanists are right-wing conservatives while others are to the left of social democracy, indeed many have been, or are, Marxists (including Nkrumah in his final years). Indeed, pan-Africanists can be found within the whole spectrum of political colouring.’7
Of course, the universe of discourse on Pan-Africanism is marked by a wide spectrum of political hues. This is what I have noticed in a life time of Pan-Africanist involvement. For our purposes here, I want to refer to some of the points I made there in reaction to your paper. I had pointed out that:
‘A few years ago, at the opening of the Marcus Garvey Pan-Afrikan Institute in Mbale, Uganda, I had in my keynote address explained that it was useful to indicate that physical attributes would be in no sense the key to understanding identities as objective factors in societies. Another way of saying the same thing is that it is not biology but culture that defines and identifies people; it is not nature but nurture that separates or unites the tastes, values, behaviour and customary usages of people. I have often remarked that the racial definition of African is wrong and misplaced. Most Africans, I assert, are black, but not all blacks are Africans and not all Africans are black. Indian Dravidians, Melanesians and Native Australians are black, but they are not Africans. What I mean is that colour is no basis for defining an African in much the same way as colour cannot define Arabs, who range from blonde to black, or Jews who range from blonde to black, or Hindus who range from near white to black. In fact, in the Sudan, for example, it is not possible to always differentiate between Arab and African on the basis of colour. The obsession with colour, particularly noticeable with Africans in the Diaspora arises on account of the age-long racism and oppression Africans in the western Diaspora have endured at the hands of white westerners. But when that has been said, I must add that the overwhelming majority of Africans are black and in the absence of unifying cultural attributes like a literacy-based religion or a common language, colour has been a fortunate reference point for people of African-descent both on the continent and in the Diaspora. We can literally invariably recognize each other from afar. …I need also to point out that there are certain attributes that culturally unite and define Africans. Firstly, our religious systems and rituals are fairly homogenous. These extend into the Diaspora as Candomblé, Santería, Voodoo, Obeah and other institutions in South America, in Brazil in particular, the West Indies and North America. The central character of these religious systems is ancestor veneration and a fairly common structure of religious symbolism. All these systems are underpinned by expressive visual art forms, dance and recognizable rhythms. Secondly, our systems of kinship and marriage are also fairly ubiquitous. These kinship systems in their specific and general character often cross state borders. Thirdly, the pre-colonial political systems that linger into present political order were and have been interlocking and largely similar. Fourthly, there is a sense in which the commonalities of our customs and history make our aspirations similar. Fifthly, and very importantly, our languages are broadly related and the degree of similarity among them is much greater than meets either the eye or the ear. Territorial contiguity characterizes the habitat of the majority of Africans. This is the African continent. The cultural attributes are not in all respects unique to Africa either individually or collectively, but the mix and history of these cultural affinities are sufficiently shared as typifying characteristics among Africans. If cultural attributes constitute the predominant feature in the definition of an African identity, it is language that lies at the heart and is the principal pillar carrying culture. It is in language that cultures are registered and transferred as legacies. Apart from these cultural convergences, Africans generally display a recognition and acknowledgement of other Africans as Africans. This extends invariably into the Diaspora. This recognition exists in spite of considerable localism and 6 the frequent promotion of ethnicism by dominant elites. It needs also to be said that being African is an inclusive notion. It is possible for people who are not African today to become African in due course of time. But this is not achieved by opportunistic claims based on expediency and formulae like „commitment to Africa.‟ I have elsewhere argued that Verwoerd, Henry Morton Stanley, or Ian Smith were all committed in their own ways to Africa, but can we say they were Africans? If I arrive tomorrow in China and declare my commitment to China, does that make me Chinese? Becoming African involves immersion into African society and requires a certain degree of acculturation into African society. At least it would require the adoption and sharing of the values of African society. It is possible therefore to creolize into Africa, but that involves also the blurring of the cultural boundaries between the creolizing community and the wider African community. It has nothing to do with colour, but all to do, to varying degrees, with cultural integration. In other words, it is not possible to be African while one rejects African culture and rejects the self-designation of being African. It is not possible to be African, whilst one looks down on Africans, maintains caste-like relations with Africans and refuses to mix with Africans. As another English aphorism declares, „you cannot have your cake and eat it.‟ Finally, indeed with regards to the African Diaspora, the interlocking character of the history and sentiments attached to this history and its subjective reference points have filtered into the social and political histories of Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora, particularly in the last hundred and fifty years. Africans on the continent feel profound fraternal bonds and intense sentiments of attachment to the Africans in the Diaspora. It is worthwhile restating that, indeed, it is not possible to understand pan-Africanism outside of the context of the Diaspora. Much of the theoretical foundations of pan-Africanism as political philosophy were created and actively shaped by the Diaspora.’8
In another paper you wrote in 20109, you made the following points:
‘….. the notion of the African nation, even among Pan-Africanists, is a fiercely contested concept. It is, unfortunately in my view, formulated in a rather fruitless question: „Who is an African?‟ Are the Arabs in North Africa part of the African nation and therefore included in the Pan-Africanist project? Are the Indians in East and Southern Africa, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Boers and Malays in South Africa etc. Africans? For Kwesi Prah, Arabs are not Africans and therefore not part of the African nation ….’10
Yes, Arabs are not Africans. Nyerere’s late advice (1997) was that Africans should seek unity and cooperation on a sub-Saharan basis.11 Arabs aspire to Arab unity (el watan el arabi – the Arab 7 nation). They have a right to this unity. They have organizations which pursue this aspiration and which define this, including pre-eminently the Arab League, ALECSO etc. Are you unaware of what is described as the Arab world? Do you not know the history of Arabs and Africans on this continent? There is a history of Arabization in Africa; an assimilationist process which removes people away from their native cultures and acculturates them into Arabic culture. In the North Sudan most of the people who describe themselves today as Arabs are historically Arabized Nubians; Africans who have been Arabized. They have become Arabs. Some have been ready to go to war against Africans to promote Arabism.
You continued thus:
‘…. and therefore Pan-Africanism includes and covers only Black Africans in sub-Saharan Africa and Africans in the Diaspora. Prah defines the African subtly in terms of history and culture although he cannot always keep clear of the race and colour in his conceptualisation of “who is an African”. Having strongly denied that his conceptualisation is based on race or colour, he ends up with a throwaway: “But when that has been said, I must add that the overwhelming majority of Africans are black and the absence of unifying cultural attributes like a literacy-based religion or a common language, colour has been a fortunate reference point for people of African-descent both on the continent and in the Diaspora. We can literally invariably recognise each other from afar.”’12
I suppose you mean ‘give-away’ not ‘throw-away’. Of course Issa, do you want to deny that the overwhelming majority of Africans are black? Even school children all over the world know this! The point is that, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Africans are black does not make blackness the determining criterion of Africaness. Furthermore, you say:
‘… The question of colour, Prah’s reference point, often gets reduced to biological rather than historical and cultural. While, the issue of ‘who is an African’ remains contested, from the viewpoint of pan-Africanism, it seems to me, the better approach is political in terms of struggle against domination and exploitation. It is within this political context of struggle against oppression that Prah’s cultural diversities can be accommodated; otherwise, as Prah rightly points out, these diversities become divisions as oppressors, and their allies politicize race, ethnicity and colour for their own power game….’13
Yes, Africans should ‘struggle against domination and exploitation’. But, please this cannot define Africaness, ‘who is an African’ or Pan-Africanism. If Africans are simply those who ‘struggle against domination and exploitation’ practically the whole world would be African. Again, yes of course, colour is biology. It can be nothing but biology. Pigmentation is biology. History and culture are not biology. Maybe, I should add here that, while animals are pre-eminently ruled by instinct and biology, humans create and live culture. For social scientists, this 8 is the main difference between animals and humans. Colour is genetically handed down through nature; culture is historically crafted and nurtured by humans. They are quite separate entities. The point you are ascribing to me (‘The question of colour, Prah’s reference point, often gets reduced to biological rather than historical and cultural’) is in fact hopelessly contradictory and defies logic. I do not mix up biology and culture. You are procedurally in your argument conflating oppositional meanings. Biology and culture are like chalk and cheese. The difference between them is parallel to the distinction between changeableness and immutability. Issa, they are dialectically contrastive.
I have already elsewhere made the point that:
‘This advantage of colour and high visibility is such that in a crowd of humans it is invariably easy to pick out those that are Africans. When I make this point, I am not suggesting that colour is the most important feature of the African or contradicting myself as Shivji appears to suggest. Culture and history remain the prime points of definition of Africaness but there is factually no denying of the reality that Africans are overwhelmingly black.’14
On the basis of visible biological traits one can hardly confuse a Chinese for an Indian? Do we generally confuse a Chinese for a European? No. Of course these biological features are not as categories water-tight. Black and white are not necessarily polar opposites. In the real world, beyond binary abstraction, gradations either way are recognizable. In the Afro-Arab borderlands one cannot always make out an Arab and an African on the basis of colour. In much the same way, an Indian can hardly be physically/biologically differentiated from a Pakistani. Palestinians do not look different from Israelis. The differences are primarily cultural and historical, not biologically visible. As humans the most consequential sources of our identities are based on cultural and historical roots. Indeed, our struggle as Africans in the contemporary world is cultural, social, political and economic not biological. Full stop.
You asked; ‘Are the Indians in East and Southern Africa, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Boers and Malays in South Africa etc. Africans?’ The simple answer is that it all depends. If with time the boundaries of the cultures blend and interpenetrate with African cultures and practices, of course they will slowly become African; growing into Africaness, adopting local identities in the institutional life and social expression of their cultures. Cultural hybridity is historically a familiar and ubiquitous standard. But, they cannot live among Africans, maintain social distance, practice exogamous and caste-like relations with Africans and become Africans at the same time. You cannot go in opposite directions at the same time. I cannot be part of and not part of at the same time.
I must also indicate that I think cultural and universal rights must come equally to all of us; minorities in Africa should be free to choose how they societally evolve so long as the universal rights of others are not violated. They do not have to become Africans. To argue otherwise would be assimilationist, undemocratic and unhelpful. As citizens of African countries they should have equal rights as anybody else and should have the right to their cultures in an open, 9democratic, equalitarian and multicultural fashion. We should be able to celebrate our diversity in peace and harmony. I have recently written that; the logic of multiculturalism and composite cultures is a simple one. Given our rich and rampant diversity, the need to tolerate, value and respect otherness is the only rational way to collectively prosper and survive on this planet. There is also in my view, the inherent wisdom in preserving the rich variegation of social and cultural habits created and rooted deeply in the past, which dot the globe. Every case of cultural or linguistic extirpation means an irredeemable and permanent loss to humanity as a whole. Cultural freedom and equality offer the best approach to the management of our social diversity. Politically, the idea of democratic pluralism, rule of law and secularism captures this mood and need of our times. The pursuit of democratic pluralism bets on diversity, instead of regarding cultural heterogeneity as a source of social discord and disunity.15 I went on to say that:
‘In recent months and years, some important voices have tried to question or castigate the notion of multiculturalism. In Germany, the Federal Chancellor, Angela Merkel has on occasion (16.10.2010) announced that the idea of multiculturalism in Germany “has utterly failed”16 and metaphorically is as good as dead. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, at a security conference in Munich (5.2.2011), in similar vein abandoned the doctrine of “state multiculturalism.’’17 Not to be outdone, French President Nicolas Sarkozy also announced that “multiculturalism had failed” (11.2.2011).18 Of course, this is all in specific reference to their own societies; they were basically referring to the fact that after decades of immigration from different parts of the world, some immigrant communities, particularly some Muslim groups, have not adopted enough of the local predominant European language and culture to indicate a conscientious wish to blend-in and demonstrate acceptance of the host culture. Extremist theocratic militantism has been an unfortunate trend in some immigrant circles. The question remains whether this experience; this lack of success for reasons yet to be fully identified, warrants a total 10 rejection of multiculturalism; whether the fact that British, French and German societies have not had much success with the idea of the melting-pot, or a palpable sense of “shared identity”, means that the idea of multiculturalism in its entirety needs to be jettisoned. Some of us disagree. Doubtlessly, immigrants should do enough to blend and integrate into host cultures, but one would also suggest that blending must not be expected to mean the total abandonment of one‟s inherited culture for the wholesale acceptance or immersion into another. We would argue that it is possible to blend-in and at the same time maintain a good measure of one‟s specific historical heritage. This has successfully happened historically in many societies; admittedly not always without problems and difficulties. The European political right cannot have the last word on the matter. We should be careful not to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. Jewish people are scattered as historically rooted communities across the globe in as many countries as one would dare to count. Muslims are likewise spread everywhere, as Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians, Senegalese, Nigerians, Americans etc, etc. Hindu communities are global. Historically, Chinese communities are dotted across South-East Asia and beyond. African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans all assert per definition the hybridity of their histories, cultures and heritage. In all these cases, and others, the success of multiculturalism depends on the extent to which they have culturally interfaced and interpenetrated their host or majority communities; blurring cultural and communal boundaries, avoiding caste-like separation and apartheid-type relations, and respecting in policy and practice the rights of all to cultures of their choice in conditions of equality of opportunity and infrastructural support.’19
Issa, my suggestion would be that you should pay more attention to sensitizing minorities like yours to the need to embrace Africans. This is what Pandit Nehru advised.20 After more than a century among Africans you could possibly count on two hands the number of inter-community marriages. What does this indicate? Do not be silent about this. It will be strategically more useful for us all than telling Africans who they are or who they are not; or declaring all citizens of all countries on the African continent to be Africans. Do not undermine the right of the minorities to their cultures, and the celebration of their cultures in equality and diversity, so long as all cultural and social borders are permeable. It is also unhelpful to endorse the idea that ‘what 11belongs to me belongs to me, but what belongs to you belongs to all of us.’ I have said that; ‘if everybody is an African, then nobody is an African.’
Frankly, I find the obsessive preoccupation with colour and ‘race talk’ uncomfortable and oftentimes obnoxious except where we need to volubly confront and combat racism; where colour-based racism has become a societal pestilence and spoiling for a fight. The arbitrariness of the race concept is understood by most anthropologists. In the US, the late Marvin Harris (1970) exposed the scientific bankruptcy of the concept, ranging from; ‘one drop rule’ hypo descent notions of blackness in the US to Brazil’s numerous race-colour gradations and labels towards hyperdescent.21
What for Africans, in our numbers, is really at stake is not colour but rather our culture, which is under siege from the twin legacies of Arab and Western imperialism; especially, the Western cultural onslaught which is today sometimes sold euphemistically as globalization. Our elites have become complicit in this. The threat of slow but steady ethnocide is in my view a distinct and undesirable possibility. If we wish to roll back this danger, at this stage, a culturally driven renaissance is crucial. As an initial step, we must recenter our languages as instruments for cultural retrieval, memory recall, scientific and technological advancement; in short the empowerment of mass society. Our languages must be the vehicles for the journey into modernity; and without unity Africans cannot come into their own.
Finally, I need to reiterate that, being or becoming African is not an issue of ‘legality’; it is not a reality that is established simply by fiat or pompous declarations. It is a process. It must have history and involves cultural inclusion as a process. It is learnt, and continuously changes by degrees as it generationally is passed on. It implies sharing the cultural values and usages of African society. It is won through practice not formally conferred by proclamation.
1. I. Shivji. The Struggle to Convert Nationalism to Pan-Africanism: Taking Stock of 50 years of African Independence. Keynote Address to the 4th European Conference on African Studies Uppsala June 15 To 18, 2011.
2. Letters to Reba Lewis, 12/05 and 03/06/1968. In, J. Milne. Kwame Nkrumah: The Conakry Years: His Life and Letters Pp. 234 and 238. Quoted here from; Elikia M‟Bokolo. George Padmore, Kwame Nkrumah, Cyril L. James et l‟idéologie de la lutte panafricaine. Mimeo. Paris. 2009.
3. K. K. Prah. The Cause of Our Times: Pan-Africanism Revisited. In, Beyond the Colour Line. Vivlia. Jo‟burg. 1997 and Africa World Press. Trenton. N.J. Pp. 36-38. 1998.
4. K. K. Prah. The Cause of Our Times…. Ibid.
5. Ibid. Preface. P.5.
6. Editor’s note to; K. K. Prah. A Pan-Africanist Reflection: Point Counter-point.Pambazuka News. 2008-10-22 (Issue 403), http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/51383
7. K.K. Prah. Ibid.
9. Issa G. Shivji. Kwame Nkrumah’s Thought in the Evolution of Pan-African Ideology. Nkrumah Centenary Celebrations. 22–25 May 2010, Mimeo. Accra. 2010.
11. Julius K. Nyerere. Reflections. In, Haroub Othman (Ed). Reflections on Leadership in Africa – Forty Years After Independence. Free University of Brussels Press. 2000, Pp. 17-24.
14. K. K. Prah. Towards a Contemporary Pan-African Agenda: Keeping Our Eyes on the Ball (3). Keynote Address to the International Colloquium: Global Africans, Pan-Africanism, Decolonization and Integration of Africa – Past, Present and Future. Organized by CBAAC. 21st – 24th September 2010. Abuja, Nigeria.
15. K. K. Prah. Challenges of Democracy, Language, Multilingualism and Social Development in Africa. Paper presented to the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns Annual Symposium on Science in South Africa. Pochefstroom. 23rd and 24th June, 2011.
16 Matthew Weaver. Angela Merkel: German multiculturalism has “utterly failed.” Guardian (UK), Sunday 17 October 2010. Weaver writes that; “The German chancellor Angela Merkel, has courted growing anti-immigrant opinion in Germany by claiming the country’s attempts to create a multicultural society have ‘utterly failed’. Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democratic Union party, Merkel said the idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily ‘side by side’ did not work. She said the onus was on immigrants to do more to integrate into German society. „This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed, ‘Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, west of Berlin, yesterday. Her remarks will stir a debate about immigration in a country which is home to around 4 million Muslims.’
17. See, ‘State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron.’ BBC News, 5 February 2011. Laura Kuenssberg Chief political correspondent, BBC Newschannel (5th February 2011) wrote in reaction to the speech that; ‘David Cameron strode firmly into a debate where many politicians tread timidly. In his view, such caution is part of the problem. In frank language he made abundantly clear he believes multiculturalism has failed. Any organisation that does not stand up to extremism will be cut off from public funds, and he wants the country to develop a stronger sense of shared identity. It is the first time he has spoken so directly as prime minister, but there are echoes of what has gone before. Tony Blair edged away from multiculturalism in the years after the 7/7 bombings in London, and his ministers moved to stop funding any community organisation that did not challenge extremism. And what of Gordon Brown’s continual quest to strengthen ‘Britishness’? Behind the scenes, ministers are reviewing the ‘prevent’ strategy, the policies designed to try to deal with extremism. But the review, which had been planned for publication this month, is likely to be delayed. It is not clear yet how Mr Cameron will translate his strong words into action.’
18. Sarkozy ends multiculturalism.
19. K. K. Prah. Challenges of Democracy …. Op cit.
20. J. Nehru. India’s Foreign Policy; Selected Speeches, September 1946 – April 1961. Publications Division Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Govt. of India. Delhi, 1961. ….. “In his address to the Lok Sabha, he said that India was interested in the destiny of its Diaspora, because they share a mutual history with India. But he clarified that Indians overseas had previously been given the option to either vote for the Indian or another citizenship. Once they opted for the latter, then „we have no concern with them, [… because] politically they cease to be Indians‟. ” (See, J. Nehru. Ibid. 1961, pp. 128-130. Citation on p. 130). “This is evidence that Nehru considered the issues of those Indians overseas, who had decided to naturalize to other countries, thus were no longer the concern of India. But what is with Indians who actually retained the Indian citizenship and were legal aliens abroad? Nehru expected from every Indian settler, no matter if Indian national or not, to adapt to the country they live in and respect the local environment there. So, he refused to assist them, regardless of the issue. He said: „If you cannot be, and if you are not, friendly to the people of that country, come back to India and not spoil the fair name of India‟. In other words, he kept the door open for expatriate Indians to come back to India but rejected to intervene in their concerns….” Quoted here from; Subin Nijhawan. Why has the Indian Diaspora been shunned by successive Indian governments? Mimeo. SOAS. London. 2003. http://www.subin.de/diaspora.pdf
21. Marvin Harris. Referential Ambiguity in the Calculus of Brazilian Racial Identity, 1970. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. Spring 1970. Vol.26. No. 1. Pp. 1-14. See also, M. Harris. Patterns of Race in the Americas. Greenwood Publishing Group. Connecticut. 1964.