What is Wrong with the Pan-Africanism Movement?

[nattyreb]

From Bro. Walker (via SOA list):

To All,

These are the major problems that I and my associates believe we have to address if we are going to complete the work of African liberation:

* Individuals who see Noam Chomsky, Tony Benn and others of that ilk as reference points for anti-imperialism and thus introduce their thought into the dialog on Pan-Africanism. Tony Benn for example recently declared that the elections in Zimbabwe were not fair...how the hell does he know -- what gives him the right to even comment? We appreciate many of the postures he assumes for example his contribution to the anti-war movement in UK, but he is not an authority on the African Liberation movement and should, to use a phrase attributed to Mbeki (in re a letter he is supposed to have sent to Bush on Zimbabwe), BUTT OUT. Until we see him overthrow capitalism and imperialism in the UK he has very little to offer to Africans. Chomsky on the other hand is much more clever, he has grounded his general comments and overall political economic posture in a linguistics analytical base and makes many good points about the impact of language systems and their use on philosophy and society. But he frequently uses this to slip in incorrect historical analysis. For example his oft-stated observation that the Vietnam War started in 1962 ... or more accurately the US phase started in 1962. But in point of fact the Vietnam war began the moment (that is in 1946) when the British military command rearmed the Japanese prisoners of war they held to fight the Vietnamese Patriots of the Viet Minh (the overall organization of the "Indochinese" people fighting for liberation.) This was something that the British did, not out of love for French colonialism, but out of a firm belief in the importance of maintaining colonialism generally, and of course with the assumption that they would subsequently supplant French colonialism. Also, it is extremely naive, at best, to assume that the British could do this without the tacit agreement of the US imperialist, who had long since assumed control of the imperialist alliance. Furthermore, Choms ky's assertion, oft repeatd assertions, fly in the face of the facts in an even more crucial way, that is US massive equipment and financial support of the French imperialist in the French phase of the war, at the time of the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, the Eisenhower was footing over two thirds of the French costs in the war. The US even considered using nuclear weapons to save the French ... but Eisenhower rejected this French request, unless other states would agree to join the US (i.e. the UK)...we have to be very careful who we hold up as experts when we are discussing the history of the struggle between the oppressed and the imperialists.(There are even those who hail Barack Obama as the talisman of Africa and global Africans, what completely inane rot!)
* There are many, even some who consider or at least call themselves Nkrumaists or general followers of Nkrumah's strategy who incorrectly link Nkrumah thought and action with individuals such as Ben Jochanan, whose comments and writings frankly detail his hatred iof Nkrumah and his work;as well as others such as Nyerere, Kenyatta and their kind who were in fact neo-colonialist to the bone and any other similar personalities. A closer related group of supposed Nkrumaists decry and denounce the role of Guinea-Conakry and Pres. Ture in the saga of Kwame Nkrumah. This is shameful given the great contribution that revolutionary Guinea made to the work of Osageyfo anbd Pan-Africanism generally. Many of these same elements are pushing various anti-Arab position; refusing to attack Arab reaction, such as the actions of Saudi Arabia, they, instead attack Arabism as a whole, completely ignoring the formula worked out between forces in the post-WWII African Liberation Movement such as Nkurmah and Nasser, including others such as Ben Bella, Lumumba and Ture.
* There are some who say that they speak for Nkrumah in the contemporary political world, but eschew the basic tenets of Nkrumah's work and theory They do not talk about neo-colonialism, thet do not talk about scientific socialism, many rarely even mention Pan-Africanism generally. Hence, the ignore Nkrumah's wishes, a truly scientific socialist party in Ghana for example, the idea that Ghana should be a base for the global African Liberation war, particularly aimed at the destruction of settler colonialism, remnants of colonialism and neo-colonialism. They do not educate the people around the critical concept of All African Socialist Union government and so on...in fact even if one merely examines these failures, it is clear that this approach has thrown philosophical consciencism, Nkrumah's ideological - philosophical basi s for Africa and has only sought to keep the name Nkrumah
* Closely associated with this approach are those that try to make it appear that the current rendering of the AU would have been satisfactory for Nkrumah, where in point of fact, he would have been the first to point out its failings and striking similarities to the OAU.
* In short were Nkrumah emphasized All-African Union government, All-African trade unions, women's federation, student unions, All-African military and political organizations (i.e., AAPRA, AACPC, and A-APRP.,..far too many who claim to be the heirs to the Nkrumah-led movement for global African liberation movement substitute alliances of so-called Africa Supporters, loose regional based associations of head of government and states, united fronts of Africans devoid of any serious revolutionary principles and the like.

These are just a few of the reasons why I, and my associates, believe that the time is ripe to vigorously publicize and propagate Nkrumah and his many associates true program.

I, and my associates, would welcome your comments and views on the matter as we cannot move forward in our tasks without proper critiquing.

[RWalker]

I thank Natty Reb for posting my short discussion, which was well-received in many corners...I would like to make one correction when discussing the British rearming of the Japanese to fight the Vietnamese revolutionaries, I mistyped the date, it read 1946, it should be 1945.