ARCHIVE

THE TRUE STORY OF THE 9TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS - ALL THE BACKGROUND

SUPPLEMENT TO THE ARTICLE in TOWARDS FREEDOM: THE TRUE STORY OF THE 9TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS

“Mr. Siphiwe Baleka, New Afrika. I have the honor to inform you that Togo is hosting the 9th Pan African Congress, scheduled from 29 October to 02 November 2024 in Lomé on the general theme: Renewal of Pan-Africanism and Africa's role in the reform of multilateral institutions: Mobilizing resources and reinventing itself to act. . . . The general programme of activities includes a session entitled "Words to Pan-Africanists" to enable the delegates to benefit from your rich experience, your contributions to the advancement and consolidation of Pan-Africanism, your vision and the current and future role of Africa on the international scene, as well as your expectations for the 9th Pan-African Congress. I have therefore the honour to invite you to lead the work of this session. I remain convinced that your participation will bring inestimable value to the 9th Congress, by enriching the discussions between the congress participants.” 

- Professor Robert Dussey, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and Togolese Abroad, Republic of Togo, 13 September 2024

You could imagine my excitement and pride, being invited to lead a session at the 9th PAC, to become a part of this historic legacy that is the PAN AFRICAN CONGRESSES. It’s a history that started in my hometown of Chicago, in 1893. The Chicago Congress on Africa held that year was attended by both Africans and people of African descent in the New world, including Alexander Crummell, Bishop Henry Turner and Bishop Alexander Walters of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. A Pan African Repatriation plan was initiated two years later in 1895 by black businessman William Ellis, who helped Bishop Turner organize the Congress on Africa in Atlanta at the end of 1895. Bishop Alexander Walters would, five years later, chair the London Congress in 1900. That Congress declared that the problem of the new century is “the problem of the color-line, the question as to how far differences of race… will hereafter be made the basis of denying over half of the world the right of sharing. . . the opportunities and privileges of modern civilization.” Haitian born Benito Sylvain, the former secretary of the Haitian Legation in London and serving as Aide-de Camp to the Imperial Household of Ethiopian Emperor Menelik, attended the London Congress in 1900 as the Ethiopian Representative. Three years later, Sylvain introduced Ellis to Emperor Menelik who repeated the words first spoken by Martin Delany in 1853 - “Europe for Europeans and Africa for Africans!”, later to be attributed to Marcus Garvey.  The First Pan African Conference Address concluded by demanding that the Congo Free State “become a great central Negro State of the world”, a demand that both W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey re-iterated in separate proposals to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Pan African Congresses were then held that year in Paris, and again in 1921 in London, Brussels, and Paris again; in 1923 in London; in 1927 in New York; in 1945 in Manchester (5th PAC); in 1974 in Dar es Salam, Tanzania (6th PAC); in 1994 in Kampala, Uganda (7th PAC); and in 2014/15 in Johannesburg, South Africa and Accra, Ghana (“dueling” 8th PACs).

By the time of the Fifth Pan African Congress in 1945, the imperative of the African World was an end to colonialism, which led to the formation of the Organization of African Unity in 1963. The challenge for the participants of the Sixth Pan African Congress in 1974 was how to harness Africa’s new independent power, deconstruct neocolonialist regimes, and unite the diaspora under a common Pan-African agenda. To achieve this, the 6th PAC sought dual citizenship for Africans from the West and establishing a Permanent Secretariat. Thirty-eight years later, that unqualified citizenship had still not been granted to the Diaspora, prompting The Declaration of the Global African Summit 2012 to recommend that, 

“‘diaspora issues should be a standing item on the programmes and agenda of AU Summits….,’ and that ‘a Diaspora Advisory Board be set up which will address overarching issues of concern to Africa and its Diaspora such as reparations, right to return and to follow up to the WCAR Plan of Action.’”

The 8th Pan African Congress (PAC8.0) held in Accra, Ghana 5-7 March 2015 concluded,

“We acknowledged the need for strong collaboration, especially through citizen input, with existing Pan African entities and initiatives, such as Agenda 2063 of the AU, and especially those identified to promote the Sixth Region of the African Union . . . We recognized the need for African leadership to immediately implement processes and structures that incorporate the 6th region of the African Union, the Diaspora, in implementing Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2063 . . . Recommend that the identification of appropriate organizations to be a conduit for Africans of the Diaspora to partner with the PAM initiatives at all levels and facilitate the involvement or inclusion of Africans from the Diaspora who have repatriated back home to Mother Africa. Strongly support the actualization of the concept of the 6th Region of Africa, being the Diaspora, by the 8th Pan African Congress”

Such is the historical foundation from which I wish to discuss how the 9th Pan African Congress(es) scheduled for 2024 were organized and postponed based on my understanding from my involvement in trying to connect and harmonize them. 

TOWARDS THE 9TH PAN AFRIKAN CONGRESS

In July of 2022, the African Diaspora Development Institute (ADDI) under H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao, former AU Ambassador to the United States, solicited for delegates to attend what was originally announced as the African Diaspora Pan African Congress and later as the “9th Pan African Congress” to be held in Harare, Zimbabwe from 14-19, 2022 hosted by the Government of Zimbabwe. According to their solicitation for delegates,

“Since the amendment of the AU constitution, it has been brought to our attention the onus has been left to the African Diaspora to organize and collectively, in a united manner present demands to the African Heads of State as to how we wish to organize and formalize the 6th Region in the same way as the other 5 regions on the continent of Africa. . . .The African Diaspora Pan African Congress will primarily focus on the formalization of the 6th Region.”

I took great interest in the African Diaspora/9th Pan African Congress called by H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori Quao, especially since I was the only African American who, in February 2003, attended the 1st Extra-Ordinary Summit of the Assembly of the African Union in Addis Ababa that approved the Article 3(q) amendment to the Constitutive Act of the African Union that officially “invite(s) and encourage(s) the full participation of Africans in the Diaspora in the building of the African Union in its capacity as an important part of our Continent.” I also founded and directed the AU 6th Region Education Campaign that initiated the election process for the African Diaspora’s representatives to the AU’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council under ECOSOCC Statute Article 5 Section 3. However, twenty years later Ambassador Quao was calling attention to what I had been publicly lamenting: that the African Diaspora still has no representatives in AU ECOSOCC and the “6th Region” is just a concept with no formal structure within the AU. After spending a week in February 2023 in Zimbabwe listening to Ambassador Quao share the details of her 9th PAC agenda, I became a true believer in our shared mission and she appointed me Coordinator of the Agenda for what became known as the “8th Pan African Congress part 1” since the 2014/2015 Dueling PACs were “nullified” and there were objections all around for calling it the “9th PAC”.

Meanwhile, on May 3, 2023, the African Political Alliance (APA) first ministerial conference in Lomé, Togo announced, “The Ministers stressed the need to move towards a synergy of action by Pan­ Africanists and welcomed the project to organize the 9th Pan-African Congress in Lome, in 2024, by Togo, in collaboration with the African Union. . . .” That effort had started back on February 10, 2020, within the framework of the 33rd Summit of the African Union, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs, African Integration and Togolese Abroad, Professor Robert DUSSEY, representing HE Mr. Faure Essozimna GNASSINGBE, President of the Togolese Republic, presented a communication on behalf of Togo on the launching of the “Decade of African Roots and Diasporas”. This Togolese initiative is known as the “Lomé Framework”. On May 7, Ambassador Quao and I sent a letter to Minister Dussey “inviting Your Excellency to a meeting (date and time to be determined) of the leadership of the various major entities to discuss possibilities for harmonizing our respective efforts.” A favorable response was returned.

On July 4, 2023, however, the late Professor Ikaweba Bunting, the Secretary General  of the Global Pan African Movement (GPAM) issued the Call to Convene 8th Pan African Congress Phase II which emanated out of a July 8-11 2022 meeting in Kampala. Immediately I sent Professor Ikaweba Bunting a copy of my 73-page strategy document, entitled THE FUNCTIONAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE  AU 6TH REGION: HARMONIZING THE AU-AFRICAN DIASPORA SIXTH REGION (AU-ADS) HIGH COUNCIL, THE AFRICAN DIASPORA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (ADDI) ADPAC AGENDA, AND THE "DECADE OF AFRICAN ROOTS AND DIASPORAS" PROPOSED BY THE REPUBLIC OF TOGO AND ADOPTED BY THE AU GENERAL ASSEMBLY  EX.CL/1420(XLII) as well as the draft DECLARATION FOR THE HARMONIZING OF THE PAN AFRICAN CONGRESSES AND THE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH THE AFRICAN DIASPORA AS THE 6TH REGION OF THE AFRICAN UNION asking him and Presidents Museveni, Mnangagwa, and Gnassingbe along with H.E. Kahinda Otafiire, Minister of Internal Affairs of Uganda and Chairman of the Governing Council of Global Pan African Movement (GPAM), H.E. Professor Robert Dussey, H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori – Quao, and Dr. Barryl A. Biekman, PhD., Coordinator of the African Union African Diaspora 6th Region Facilitators Working Group Europe & Co-Facilitator of the Monitoring & Policy Working Group to sign the Declaration. The Declaration would then be sent to Pan Africanists to endorse and sign. The exchange I had with Robert Musasizi, Director of Communications for GPAM-Governing Council is worth sharing:

Robert: "Have read through your document, it's good you have now acknowledged PAC  Ghana 1. How I  wish we started from here yesterday. How I wish you came as a team and met with Chairman of GPAM Gen Otafiire in Kampala and empowered our Secretariat so that it unites all these different gatherings on the continent. We need to unite. . . . Chairman Gen. Otafiire is Museveni's long time special envoy on Pan African matters on the African continent and Diaspora. I think Amb. Arikana should have checked on him and harmonized these Pan African issues. . . . If Pan African groups on the continent can not unite, then who will unite and integrate Africa? It's very ironic.  At one point I will share with you the latest letters from Museveni instructing Otafiire to organize the 8th PAC in Uganda 2024."

Me: "This is why I am working so hard to help them ‘harmonize’ and signal to the rest of us grassroots that a new chapter has begun and the time is now. . . . Well, now we are together. So I will need your help to get GPAM on board. . . . Maybe she didn't know Gen Otafiire or have any contact/connection to him. . . . After arriving in Harare, Zimbabwe on February 7th to join H.E. Ambassador Chihombori-Quao’s planning committee, I asked her why the conference was now being called the ‘8th PAC Part 1’ when it was originally announced as the ‘9th PAC’. Her response was that it was on the insistence of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who intends to host the ‘8th PAC Part 2’ next year in Uganda to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the 7th PAC that was held in Kampala, Uganda. I know she felt fully empowered by Museveni after meeting with him in Kampala as you will soon discover, it was Museveni's idea for the Ambassador’s ‘PAC8.1’. In any event, there is a good roadmap now on how to unite all these different gatherings. Do you have any suggestions and/or instructions now? . . . Since President Museveni is supporting both of us, there should be no problem in our uniting under the Declaration framework. The Ambassador is with the Ambassador of Togo as we speak, securing their support...."

On July 25, H.E. Ambassador Quao traveled to Kampala and presented the plan to President Yoweri Musevni who agreed  to call both President Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe and President Faure Ayedemen of Togo as well as to host and sponsor a pre-summit meeting of 150-200 leaders of African Diaspora from around the world to come to Uganda to discuss the way forward under the umbrella of the Pan African Secretariat which currently is housed in Uganda according to the outcomes of the 7th PAC. There also exists a Memorandum of Understanding Between the African Union Commission and the Pan African Movement signed by H.E. Dr. Aisha L. Abdullahi of the AU Commission for Political Affairs and Gen Kahinda Otafiire, Chairman of the International Committee of the GPAM in Kampala, on May 22nd, 2015. That memorandum states that they must work together in organizing any Pan African Congresses. In her follow-up letter to President Museveni, H.E. Ambassador Quao stated, “To host a gathering of a truly representative group of the African Diaspora from all over the world there is a need for as many Diaspora leaders to meet and discuss the agenda for the three PAC’s.  This is the only way we can move forward united . . . .”

Following a request for GPAM’s Constitution, Robert Musasizi, writing for the Chairman of GPAM on August 7, stated, 

“Following our meeting in Kampala on 26th July 2023, the Governing Council of GPAM will meet soon to deliberate on the serious issues you addressed to us. Therefore, as we keep on planning and working around the clock for pre-Congresses within Africa and the 6th region as precursors for the main Pan African Congress in Kampala 2024, let’s wait for the Governing Council’s decision before we start sharing with you any of our classified documents.” 

Finally, during the Accra Reparations Conference in November 2023, I met with Gnaka Lagoke, Chair of the Scientific Committee of the 9th Pan-African Congress in Lomé and chief coordinator working for the Togolese government. I presented him with the plan for harmonizing the Pan African Congresses and we agreed to work together. He asked me for the list of the 150 to 200 Diaspora Pan Africanists. He also asked me to submit a concept note for gaining the support of Pan Africanists outlined in the plan that was based on my work for the PAC 8.1 that convened five preparatory Town Hall Zoom meetings, each of which were attended by 400 to 600 people. Unfortunately, the detailed plan was presented and rejected by the 9th PAC Organizers.

It should be noted that all of this was preceded by the Global RootsSynergy Roundtable (GRSR) held in Accra, Ghana in November 2019. The resultant 2019 Accra Declaration requested, 

“That a Secretariat for the implementation of the Decade of Return consisting of Professional Diaspora Cadres should be placed under the Diaspora Department of the A.U. Commission. This Secretariat would have the mandate and responsibility to drive the entire process of the Decade of Return: 2020-2030.”

What’s interesting is that after this, His Excellency Professor Robert Dussey held working sessions with the Citizens and Diaspora Directorate (CIDO), the department responsible for leading the AU’s engagement with non-state actors in Addis Ababa in October 2021, on the sidelines of the African Union Executive Council. The purpose was to agree on the importance of aligning the Decade's activities with ongoing initiatives of the African Union Commission. CIDO undertook to transmit to Togo a draft action plan for the Decade which would take account of this requirement and based on the Sustainable Development Goals and the African Union Agenda 2063. How did CIDO develop this draft action plan? Was it based on the 2019 Accra Declaration? Why wasn’t the GRSR included, since this is exactly what they proposed? And why wasn’t GPAM included as mandated by the MoU that specifically states an agreement to “facilitate the implementation of a Joint AUC/PAM Action Plan”? Here I would like to quote the great Pan Africanist, Dr. John Henrik Clark, who said, 

“We are the meetings and the talking -ist people in all the world. We call more meetings, pass more resolutions and get less done than any people in the world. We will meet and vote and forget what we voted for . . .”

It should also be noted that also in October 2021, Mrs. Grace A James from Jamaica but living in Tanzania, Co-President of the African Diaspora Alliance (AfDA), retired Judge D. Peter Herbert O.B.E. in the United Kingdom, and myself, completed a motion to the African Union Executive Council 39th Extraordinary Session upon the request of Shem Ochuodho, East Africa's Representative to the AU ECOSOCC who stated, “Our current term in ECOSOCC ends in 2 years. It would really have been my/our wish, within that time, to bring diaspora into the ECOSOCC system. At a time when we have about 15-20 pro-diaspora members in the General Assembly! With a good Framework, they would assist us push it through.”  The motion was to be submitted to the AU ECOSOCC Secretariat through the Zambian Minister of Foreign Affairs, but for whatever reason, the motion never reached the African Union.

GRSR, led by the African Union African Diaspora 6th Region Facilitators Working Group (AUADS) then went on to host the Addis Ababa Summit in May 2022, which was attended by representatives of both CIDO and ECOSOCC and which the Resolution from this Roundtable was submitted to the African Union Commission in cooperation with the CIDO, AU ECOSOCC and the African Commission For Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). GRSR then hosted the Maputo Summit 10-13 July, 2023, presided over by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Mozambique and included a representative the AU ECOSOCC Standing Committee, to establish an AUADS High Council (HC) that would provide a coherent governance organizational voice for Diaspora participation in the African Union.

FOR THE REST OF THE STORY CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE TOWARDS FREEDOM ARTICLE

Endnote

  1. Memorandum of Understanding Between the African Union Commission and the Pan African Movement signed by H.E. Dr. Aisha L. Abdullahi of the AU Commission for Political Affairs and Gen Kahinda Otafiire, Chairman of the International Committee of the Global Pan African Movement (GPAM) in Kampala, on May 22nd, 2015. The Memorandum states: “GUIDED by the ideals of Pan Africanism, African unity, self-reliance . . . CONSIDERING further that PAM is a mass movement that aims at promoting Pan Africanism among African peoples within Africa and in the diaspora with an ultimate aim of uniting Africa under a union Government of African states; RECALLING that PAM and the Commission have a historical standing relationship that dates back to the immediate post-independence where the founding fathers of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU)/African Union (AU) were also the founders of the PAM;. . .  DESIROUS of further improving and strengthening the existing relationship between the Commission and PAM by establishing appropriate working arrangements; . . .  HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE 2(e) Convening PAM Regional stakeholders’ consultations (Pre-Congress Conferences in all the 12 PAM regions and the four Special Interest groups of Women, Youth, Workers and Intellectuals) and Pan African Congresses within the agreed upon intervals . . . . (h) Conducting joint resource mobilization initiatives to facilitate the implementation of a Joint AUC/PAM Action Plan. . . ARTICLE 4 (a) Each Party undertakes to regularly inform the other of the priority areas for cooperation as identified by their respective organizations; (b) the Commission shall consider any proposal made by PAM considering projects and programs that relate to activities set out in the Joint Action Plan for strategic partnerships; (c) PAM shall similarly undertake to consider any proposals made by the Commission that relate to activities set out in the Joint Action Plan. . . .  ARTICLE 5 Subject to consultations and their respective internal rules and procedures, the Parties shall endeavor to invite each other, as an observer, to attend meetings on matters of mutual interest as deemed appropriate. . . . ARTICLE 8 1. The Parties have agreed to hold regular consultations with each other on all matters arising from this MoU that may be necessary for the smooth running of their cooperation. . . . ”

  1. Accra Declaration 2019: 

“Ghana Year of Return not in vacuum 

The Year of Return declared in September 2018 in Washington DC by the President of the Republic of Ghana, Nana Akufo-Addo, with reference to the 400-year remembrance of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the enslavement of African people does not stand by itself nor is it a vacuum. The Year of Return must be considered as an event in the series of various instruments that have been established in the framework of declarations and resolutions on the People of African descent in the last twenty years . . . .

Diasporans as development bridge-builders and agents of change 

In 2020, we are on the eve of the 5 years mid-term review of the UN International Decade for People of African Descent; in 2021 20 years of commemoration of the DDPA. And in the middle of those processes is the Year of Return. It had to be so. A Year at the crossroads of the transition to a new decade 2020. A Year whereby thousands of African Diasporans, many in united partnerships accepted the invitation of the Ghana President. Each in its own way. This has more than ever, made it clear that the African Diasporans are ready for reunification. The required task to bring this engagement to fruition is to the ending of the slow pace of the implementation of the May 2012 Sixth Region African Union African Diaspora Declaration. . . . 

III.2.3 CALL TO ACTION

 The Global RootsSynergy Roundtable calls on

“The African Union Commission [and] respective AU Heads of State 

To adopt its next session the AU Decade of Return 2020-2030 with the aim to invite the ‘historical’ Africans in particular, to ‘Return to their Continent’. 

To use this Decade of Return as a tool to end the slow pace of the implementation of the May 2012 African Union African Diaspora Sixth Region Declaration as far it concerns the Legal and Political Framework and Structure with the aim: Sustainable Integration of the Diaspora Legalization in the diverse political, socioeconomic and social organs and bodies of the African Union. 

III.2.4 RECOMMEND 

That the Programme of Activities for the implementation of the Decade of Return must be developed in close cooperation with an appointed “Technical Working Commission Decade of Return” with a consultative voice for the Ghana Presidency Commission Year of Return, because of the learning and experience aspects. 

III.2.5 REQUEST 

That a Secretariat for the implementation of the Decade of Return consisting of Professional Diaspora Cadres should be placed under the Diaspora Department of the A.U. Commission. This Secretariat would have the mandate and responsibility to drive the entire process of the Decade of Return: 2020-2030.”

Dr. John Henrik Clarke - African Americans the lonely nation away from home

"My talk for tonight and unfortunately the last in the series will deal almost solely with the 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏-𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒆 because the African-American is the most misunderstood, most abused, most wounded of all the African people who live outside of Africa and yet he is the target for destruction by more forces than any other African people. He's the one African that the western world won't destroy principally because he has grown insensitive to his oppressor and he, more than any other African, has fought in larger numbers for his oppressor and mastered his oppressors modern war technique. He's also the most dangerous African on the face of the earth because he is the only African on the face of the earth trained in the modern warfare technique called combined operations. Combined operations is the art of striking a target from land, air and sea. No other Africans on the face of the earth have enough training to move on a target with ships, airplanes and infantry and the Black American has been trained to do all three. He wasn't trained to do this to liberate himself or to liberate anyone. He was trained to do this for someone else but the training is still with him. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. . . After world war two, Africa could have picked up almost for nothing one of the finest black air forces on the face of the earth. But because Africa was not ready to do this their talent deteriorated. Many of the men went bussing dishes and clerking and lost all their skills. But I'm saying that the skill and the training to make a modern army was with the Black America and right now, right this very minute, there's been enough Black Americans discharged from the U.S. army with enough modern skill they can train a modern army for every nation in Africa. This is what makes him the target for the colonists because they realize if contact is ever made with him and if he becomes aware of his skills and affects the wedding between his skills in Africa he could change the world. He could have stopped the congo situation. He can revitalize any nation in Africa because of his training. He can learn faster than almost any other African on the face of the earth. The question is why then do we have slums if he can fix houses? Why don't they fix them? Why then do we have dope? Why is his institution deteriorating? Why is he debating his integration instead of maintaining his institution? Because his mind has been trained into dependency. I'm saying that one thing about Jim Crow, one thing about that oppression - it was real.

We in the United States, then and now, was never given the illusion of nation. They will let us know right now that they don't want us here and they didn't let us dream that we were part of this nation. They let us know that we were brought to do a set labor and once the labor was over we were a surplus population, a nation within a nation without a nationality. We were not brought to this country to be given a nationality. We were not brought to this country to be given status. When they said liberty and justice for all, we were not a part of the all. No one let us dream or think that we were part of the all.

When we look at the atrocities against us day by day they keep saying again and again, not you. When I say American citizen I don't mean you. Now we have . . . . This nation has mortgaged its soul and lived a lie and tells a lie to the world because they dare not face up to the fact that you've got a massive nation inside of the United States living in under a condition many times worse than Nazis. 

We have not examined the illusion that went into the original entry in the united states that wouldn't go away. We can't deal with the present because we think that maybe this country has betrayed us. This country has not betrayed us, didn't promise you anything in the first place because it wasn't talking to you. . . . 

When we arrived in the country the country had not worked out its racial pattern. To understand what I'm talking about you have to understand once more the design of the country. White male protestant middle class and those who agreed with the prevailing political state and who owned property. Everybody in this country is trying to impress that group. The jews are trying to impress that group. . . .  That's the, that is the big rooster in the in the pecking order and if you watch chickens in a yard the big rooster can peck anybody but instead of pecking him you pick the next smallest one till you get down to the little one, but you don't peck,  you don't peck the first pekka which is the rooster. This is what you call the pecking order. You pass the peck down but you don't pass it up. So the gentile white male protestant is the rooster in the barnyard. He has his way and if you look at a book called 60 American families, the richest people in this country falls into that category. Right now its the same 60 family and their descendants who control the major wealth in the country. At the turn of the century, still control the major wealth in the country.

Now our history in this country is working our way around all these illusions and assuming that certain promises were made to us that were not made to us. Taking handouts and crumbs from the table while other groups and other places fair a little better but do not assume that slavery was mild anyplace slavery was different and being different does not mean it is less harsh. Ii mean the slave owner was less crude in his administration of the system but he still administered the system. He still killed, he still sold families from families. All right now come the American revolution. We hear all this talk about liberty and justice for all We believe some of it now. Look at the United States on the eve of the civil war. African-Americans would go into that war and in one battle alone, win 16 congressional medals of honor. It had never been done before. Why did they fight so bravely for a nation that had betrayed them and that still betrayed them? They had the illusion that if they show that manhood maybe someone will reward them with the concept of citizenship. It was a gamble but the gamble didn't totally pay off . . . .

We faced some problems that we haven't dealt with and finished dealing with to this day. We had been betrayed, have been an attempt to sell us back into slavery. The promises of the reconstruction had been betrayed. . . .  We need to study again the negro convention movement. It was meeting every year. We are the meetings and the talking -ist people in all the world. We call more meetings pass more resolutions and get less done than any people in the world. We will meet and vote and forget what we voted for . . . . 

When I said that we are the loneliest nation, we are the lonely African away from home, we are the ones who were invited to the United States and when we finished laboring, the labor, the jobs became obsolete. To this day no African nation has invited us to come home officially. The same as Israel has a law, that any Jew wants to return can return, Africa has no such law. Not one nation in all africa and yet africa has more space than Israel, one thousand times more. In fact all Black Americans fit into one corner of the Sudan and they will not miss the space. On the proper cultivation they feed ourselves there, too. But the African has been brainwashed into not inviting us home. 

So we came into the 20th century with illusions but it was the Italian-Ethiopian war that made us think of nation again, made us think of wholeness. The protection of nation made us relive some of Marcus Garvey's teachings about nation and nation structure. . ."

This is the reason why Under Director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI launched its COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program). On August 25, 1967, the United States government launched a new CounterIntelligence Program against “Black Nationalists” calling them “Hate Groups” instead of freedom fighters seeking justice. According to the The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) memo revising the United States’ war strategy, 23 FBI offices were instructed:

“The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆, 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒖𝒑𝒕, 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒅𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕, 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒕 𝒐𝒓 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒘𝒊𝒔𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒖𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝒐𝒓𝒈𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒛𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑, 𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒌𝒆𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏, 𝒎𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔. . . . "

The policy was then expanded on March 3, 1968 in another FBI secret memo that listed the goals of the war against the New Afrikan people:

"1. Prevent the COALITION of militant black nationalist groups. In unity there is strength; a truism that is no less valid for all its triteness. 𝐀𝐧 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 “𝐌𝐚𝐮 𝐌𝐚𝐮” [𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐲] 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧."

The true black revolution in America started on April 12, 1964. Malcolm X returned to Detroit to support his friends, including Milton (Henry, later known as Gaidi Obadele) who had created the Freedom Now Party. That night, Malcolm X gave his famous "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech, stating,

"It is our intention to have 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 which will consist of delegates from all over the country who are interested in the political, economic and social philosophy of black nationalism. After these delegates convene, we will hold a seminar; we will hold discussions; we will listen to everyone. We want to hear new ideas and new solutions and new answers. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝐢𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲, 𝐰𝐞'𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. 𝐈𝐅 𝐈𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐄𝐂𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌 𝐀 𝐁𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐀𝐑𝐌𝐘, 𝐖𝐄'𝐋𝐋 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌 𝐀 𝐁𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐊 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐀𝐑𝐌𝐘."

At a national meeting convened in Detroit, the 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭/𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭 𝐔.𝐒.𝐀. was formally organized as a national organization. Max Stanford was elected National Field Chairman, Donald Freeman was elected Executive Chairman, James Boggs, Ideological Chairman, Grace Boggs, Executive Secretary, and Milton Henry/Paul Brooks, Treasurer. RAM’s international representatives were El Hajj Malik Shabazz (Malcolm X), International Spokesman, and Robert F. Williams, International Chairman.

Three weeks later, the Afro-American Student Conference was held in Nashville, TN from May 1-3, 1964. By its end, the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) convinced the conference that 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒖𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑩𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒊𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒈𝒈𝒍𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 which embodied cultural revolution, promoted Pan African socialism and was ready to form an organizational apparatus to 'translate' Nationalist ideology into effective action and whose members were willing to make the supreme sacrifices to build and sustain a dynamic Nationalist Movement.

Malcolm X then traveled to Ghana and met with representatives of liberation organizations, including the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the South African Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC). After returning from Ghana, 𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐦 𝐗 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐤 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐨 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 (𝐎𝐀𝐀𝐔) 𝐨𝐧 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝟐𝟖𝐭𝐡, 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟒 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. Malcolm said the purpose of the OAAU was to bring independence to people of African descent in the western hemisphere; first in the United States fighting against enemies by every means necessary. He said the motto of the OAAU was freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary. He said the purpose of the OAAU was to unite all persons of African descent into one united force and when this is done in the western hemisphere to unite with Africans on the motherland on the continent of Africa. In the book, 𝑭𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑪𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍 𝑹𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑩𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝑳𝒊𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏: 𝑴𝒂𝒍𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒎 𝑿 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑶𝒓𝒈𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒛𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒐-𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚, William Sales, Jr. notes,

"Paralleling these discussions, and in as much secrecy, were discussions Malcolm X had with RAM through its field secretary, Muhammed Ahmed. . . . The OAAU was to be the broad front organization and RAM the underground Black Liberation Front of the U.S.A. 𝑴𝒂𝒍𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒎 𝒊𝒏 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒑 𝒕𝒐 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒓𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒔𝒚𝒍𝒖𝒎 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍/𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒓𝒆𝒔. While Malcolm was in Africa, the field chairman was to go to Cuba to report the level of progress to Robert Williams. As Malcolm prepared Africa to support our struggle, ‘Rob’ [Robert F. Williams] would prepare Latin America and Asia. During this period, Malcolm began to emphasize that Afro-Americans could not achieve freedom under the capitalist system. He also described guerrilla warfare as a possible tactic to be used in the Black liberation struggle in America. . . . The OAAU was to be the organizational platform for Malcolm X as the international spokesperson for RAM’s revolutionary nationalism, but the nuts and bolts of creating a guerrilla organization were not to take place inside the OAAU. The OAAU was to be an above-ground united front engaged in legitimate activities to gain international recognition for the African American freedom struggle.”

The OAAU was given Observer Status at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and at its second Summit Meeting, Malcolm X, as Chairman of the OAAU and representative of the 22 million black people in America, joined the other African liberation movements housed on the boat named "Isis" docked in the Nile River for the OAU Summit held in Cairo. On July 17, 1964 Malcolm X distributed a memo to the African Heads of State that said,

"If South Africa is guilty of violating the human rights of Africans here on the mother continent, then America is guilty of worse violations of the 22 million Africans on the American continent. And if South African racism is not a domestic issue, then American racism also is not a domestic issue. 𝐖𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, on the grounds that the United States Government is morally incapable of protecting the lives and the property of 22 million African-Americans. And on the grounds that our deteriorating plight is definitely becoming a threat to world peace."

Within seven months, Malcolm X was killed. However, his followers formed the Malcolm X Society. In January 1968, one of its members, Imari Obadele, published 𝑾𝒂𝒓 𝒊𝒏 𝑨𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂 outlining RAM's counter-response to the war being waged against black Americans. Obadele stated, "A second important aspect of the renewed black warfare is that it was initiated and carried out during the first three years (1964-1966) by young members of the most exploited class of black people. . . . That units of the black underground army were present in Harlem (1964) and destroyed property with noteworthy effectiveness in Watts (1965) and Cleveland (1966) should not be overlooked." The Malcolm X Society then convened the National Black Government Conference in Detroit from March 29-31, 1968 (just after the FBI's COINTELPRO Memo) and issued the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of New Afrika. On May 31, 1968 about 30 leaders of the RNA met at 40 North Ashland Avenue in Chicago to address some of the biggest issues facing the new government. Among them was, “the legislative act that established the Black Legion, the RNA’s military."

By 1969, a Newsweek poll was showing that 68% of "northern negroes under the age of 30" approved of the idea of "black power", 36% felt that violence was necessary, and 27% wanted a separate black nation.

Rather than respect their human, civil and political rights as well as the UN Resolution 1514 on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) that recognized the New Afrikan's right to self determination, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐲 through the COINTELPRO.

THE TIME IS NOW FOR THE REPARATIONS MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES TO FOCUS ON BREAKING THE DEPENDENCY ON AMERICA, CONDUCTING A PLEBISCITE FOR SELF DETERMINATION WITH THE FOLLOWING FOUR CHOICES:

(1) return to Africa,

(2) the creation of a new African nation on American soil,

(3) emigration to another country and

(4) US citizenship

and our education campaign should be focused on promoting number 1 and 2 to break the dependency on number 4.

AN ANSWER TO THOSE WHO SHIFT THE BLAME TO AFRICANS FOR SELLING THEIR OWN PEOPLE INTO CHATTEL SLAVERY IN THE AMERICAS

“AFRICAN RULERS SOLD THEIR OWN PEOPLE INTO SLAVERY!”

This is a common consideration/objection raised concerning the responsibility for reparations and I have previously addressed slavery in the West African context. However, I have a very simple answer to this objection that is being made by some in the reparations movement.

Because NO Africans were trafficked to the Americas BEFORE June 18, 1452, and because the Dum Diversas Apostolic Edict was a declaration of total war issued by the Pope claiming planetary authority, and following the declaration a military invasion was initiated, then all trafficking by all parties are de facto "war time activities".

It doesn't matter who was taking the action of capturing and trafficking, all of it occured by virtue of the war declaration. Here is how Sir Hilary Beckles, Chairman of the CARICOM Reparations Commission, describes it in his speech “The Age of Terror: Europe and the Trade in Africans in West Africa,” given 3-2-2023:

"The chattel slave was not an African product. One of the characteristics of European History has been this notion that slavery existed everywhere and therefore there was nothing new in what they were engaged in and this was one of the first mythology and lies and deception imbedded in European History. The word Slavery was used historically in the most loose and elastic fashion to include all relationships in which individuals experience some reduction in your freedom. Institution of marriage, the female experience some reduction of freedom through resources, control of them, naming and control of children. This is imbedded in most systems of the world historically. This was seen as the shallow end. Then there was a question of What do you do with prisoners of wars, you go to war you have prisoners you have a choice, You can execute them as losers or bring them home and integrate them into your community but now they are now working on behalf of the state, chief or family. But these people had rights. They had rights to live in the community, rights to resources, rights to their own family, to get married, they could become high officers in the families in the royalty. . . . None of that was significant in the context of what the Europeans wanted. The Europeans invented a new category of slavery that had never been seen on planet earth before. No culture of civilization had ever created this thing called chattel slavery. Have never been found before. It was something specifically created to enslave the African and bring him across the Atlantic to slavery in the Americas. That moment in history. How do I establish the authenticity of that statement? What chattel slavery was? This is something that seems to have erupted from the depth of hell. Never seen before. First, A Chattel slave under law is not a human being. In no system of labor,in no system of domestic usage, in no system of family usage, in no system in which the word slavery was used before were those people denied their human identity –all of these people who were classified as slaves loosely were seen as heroic people were people who had status in their families. They performed domestic work, they performed agricultural work, they were married they had their children, many became ambassadors of the kings to go and do things on behalf of the king, they were just servants. In chattel slavery The African was not a human being, the African was property. The so called domestic slave in Africa was not Property, they were human beings whose identity was respected.

We also know that this military engagement in Africa began as a search for gold. And shifting from gold trade to the kidnapping of enchained labor. That was the enormity of this military complex that was unleashed upon the indigenous people of Africa . . . In Europe the royal families were the principle investors in these military operations. . . . The British Royal African Country had the full might of the British army and navy behind them. No West African government had the military capacity to withstand the military onslaught of these companies. These companies built forts along the coast of West Africa from Senne Gambia to Congo. . . . These corporations, and I have to emphasize this for people who have not been effectively exposed, there is a belief which you will find from observing movies and Hollywood type images, that slave traders were just a group of random individuals who took a small ships went out and randomly grabbed people and took them down the river and put them on a boat. You are looking at the most highly organized commercial military complex at this time. These corporations had dozens and dozens of ships, and thousands of soldiers in West africa on the coast to protect the storage and the shipment. They were Highly militarized with the latest military technology with the guns and the cannons and they were able to penetrate deeply into Africa with this military capacity. The Wealth that they accumulated, which was in the first instance the monopoly wealth of the royal families, eventually tricked down to the private sector, when they were given free access and down to the banks. The Bank of England was established in 1694 to help to finance the slave trade. All of the wealth coming back into England, going to the royal family and aristocracies that money had to be converted into investment capital . And so the Bank Of England was created . . . ."

Meanwhile, I have previously discussed The Correctness of Shifting from the European "Slave Trade" to the African "War Crimes" Narrative: Notes on José Lingna Nafafé's New Book on the 1684 Mendonça (Kongo) Reparations Case at the Vatican. My friend, Jose Lingna Nafafe, makes the point in his new book, Lourenço da Silva Mendonça and the Black Atlantic Abolitionist Movement in the Seventeenth Century:

"To fully comprehend Mendonça’s work, it is crucial that we understand from the outset that the enslavement of Africans was part of the Portuguese conquest of West Central Africa, and the enslavement of Angolans was inseparable from Portuguese military aggression in the region. From the beginning of Portuguese settlement there in the mid-sixteenth century, war was waged against the West Central African people. This was the catalyst for the enslavement of ordinary civilians. . . If we are to grasp the rationale behind the capture of enslaved people, in the region and understand how they were obtained, it is crucial to recognise the role played by the Municipal City Council of Luanda, which regulated the shipment of the enslaved Angolans sent to Brazil. Indeed, it is impossible to understand the significance of Mendonça’s court case without taking account of the involvement of the Municipal City Council of Luanda in the slave trade. Central to the argument of this book, then, is the story of the destruction of Pungo-Andongo and the death of its last king, Joao (John) Hari II, who was Mendonça’s uncle. . . Crucially, to fully understand the involvement of sobas (Angolan local rulers) in the slave trade in Angola and perhaps eslewhere in Africa, I contend that it is necessary to take into account the introduction in 1626 by Fernao de Sousa, the Portuguese governor in Angola, of baculamento, a tax payment of enslaved people in place of encombros, a tax payment in produce.  This is a piece of new data that has not been used by historians of West Central Africa, Africanists and Atlanticists. I argue that it had far-reaching consequences for the historiography of the region in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Unaware of this legislation, West Central African historiography on ‘taxation’, ‘wars’, ‘debt’ and ‘legal practices’ has unwittingly been prevented from truly understanding the reasons for and methods of enslavement. These historians of West Central Africa have remained ignorant of Sousa’s introduction of the baculamento. Subsequent governors and their captains in the presidio (Portuguese outpost) in Angola used the baculamento for centuries to naturalise the Atlantic slave trade. And the baculamento has remained obscure until now; most West Central African historians have taken it as accepted wisdom that slavery was an African practice, and the idea that Africans colluded in Atlantic slavery has never been challenged. Generations of scholars have studied systems of ‘taxation’, ‘wars’, ‘debt’ and ‘legal practices’ without interrogating the Portuguese institution of baculamento, which overrode local practices; instead, blame has been placed on the Angolan institutions. All Angolan soba allies of the Portuguese conquest were obliged to make a payment of 100 enslaved people annually to Portugal. This Portuguese taxation, which was named after the local baculamento practice - a tribute system- profoundly disrupted the Angolan socio-political and legal system and resulted in social upheaval. Communities and their rulers were turned against each other, a new local judicial procedure was imposed that served the interests of the Atlantic slave trade, putting judicial officers in local courts in Angola to adjudicate local cases in their own interest - what Kimbwandende K.B. Fu-Kiau called a turning point in African governance and leadership in West Central Africa.

Conquered, and subjected to Portuguese rule, Angolan kings and sobas loyal to the king of Portugal were made subject to annual tax payment in human beings in 1626, thus turning people into a currency. This was particularly the case for Angolan kings, because ‘native’ soldiers were recruited directly from the region where the Portuguese had established control and maintained fairs (markets). The Municipal Council of Luanda was charged with dividing land already conquered from the Angolans between the Portuguese and African war captains, so-called guerra preta. . . . Guerra preta was a term used to refer to Angolan soldiers who were recruited by force from the Portuguese-controlled or -conquered region of Angola. All loyal sobas in both Angola and Kongo were conquered by the Portuguese and forced to give obedience to the Portuguese Crown in five areas: (1) pay annual tax in enslaved people to the Crown; (2) allow recruitment of soldiers for war to fight alongside the Portuguese contingent of soldiers stationed in Angola or Kongo against fellow Angolans or Kongolese; (3) open local and regional markets for the Portuguese to freely trade and impose their rule; (4) allow Portuguese priests to build churches and carry out Christian mission activities in the area; (5) allow land to be alienated for the Portuguese use. In return, sobas were granted protection from their Angolan enemies, and their children offered Portuguese education. . . .

On 19 November 1664, members of the Municipal Council of Luanda showed their power by lodging a complaint with the Crown that was adjudicated by the Portuguese Overseas Council, which dealth with all overseas affairs: 

‘That the trade of the same Kingdom [Angola] consists only in the enslaved that is carried out in the lands of Soba’s vassals of His Majesty, that is, from presidios such as Lobolo, Dembos, Benguella, and from those that are mostly conquered by that government . . . that the most important thing that there is in that kingdom, which is in need of maintaining, is the Royal standard tax duty in slaves that they dispatch from the factory of Your Majesty. It is not that its profit is great, but also for being used for sustaining the Infantry, and to pay governors’ salaries of five presidios of hinterland, of secular priests in Kongo, and of other clergy of that kingdom, and other salaries, and budgets.’


This clearly demonstrates that the City Council’s budget depended entirely on revenues from enslavement. The slave trade in Angola was the lifeblood of the council and maintained the Portuguese project of conquest; without it, there was no Portuguese Empire. . . .  
Mendonça represented those constituencies from his own family - his grandfather, Philipe Hari I, and father, Ignacio da Silva - who were coerced into the slave trade by the Portuguese regime in Angola. . . . When it comes to historical sources, in 1682 the Jesuit missionaries Francisco Jose de Jaca and Epifanio de Moirans, who knew and supported Mendonça’s court case, completed their work Servi Liberi Seu Naturalis Mancipiorum Libertatis Iusta Defensio ( Freed Slaves or the Just Defence of the Natural Freedom of the Emancipated). Both also offered a critique of the capture of Africans in Africa who were then taken to the Americas as enslaved people. While renowned Spanish Jesuit Barolome De las Casas (1484-1566) defended the Indigenous Americans against slavery, the lesser-known Jaca and Moirans also spoke out against the enslavement of Africans using the legal arguments of the time. Their work, however, did not come to the fore in the debate on the Atlantic slave trade until the beginning of the 1980s, when their defence was translated from Latin to Spanish by Jose Tomas Lopez Garcia as Dos Defensores de los Esclavos Negros en el Siglo XVII (Two Defenders of the Black Slaves in the Seventeenth Century). Neither Jaca nor Moirans went to Africa as missionaries, but they both worked as Jesuit priests in Venezuela and Cuba, where they met. Their defense is a major work on the injustice of African enslavement in the Americas, and on the abolition of slavery in the Atlantic yet it is almost unknown. They analyzed in great depth the same legal terms that were used by Mendonça in the Vatican, such as ‘natural’, ‘human’, ‘divine’, ‘civil’, and ‘canon law (jus canonico)’, challenging why Atlantic slavery was being practiced against these laws. They argued that the Atlantic slave trade was illegal, stating that ‘when we begin with natural law, all men are born free’. They contended that the responsibility for those enslaved Africans in the Americas law with the pope, because ‘the lords of blind slaves with their ambition to impress the Governor (the governors in the Indies are subject to the Catholic King and the kings are subject to the Pope). This chain of responsibility made it necessary for the pope to punish the guilty parties committing such crimes, particularly the Portuguese governing authorities in Africa, Brazil and the Americas. And this obligation also implicated the pope in a crime against humanity: the Atlantic slave trade.”

When so-called "complicit African kings and queens" raided and attacked each other and trafficked African people, it was done so to fulfill the war tribute/tax imposed by the Dum Diversas principals subject to the Pope . . . .

This is just a small sample of the research which informs my work and the reason for the questions in the Request for the ICJ opinion. Again, it doesn't matter who it was doing the capturing, buying and selling, all of it was initiated and exacerbated by the Dum Diversas and succeeding Asiento monopoly war contracts.

REPARATIONS FOR THE DUM DIVERSAS WAR IS THE UNIFYING GLOBAL AFRIKAN REPARATIONS CLAIM that the Resolution on Africa’s Reparations Agenda and The Human Rights of Africans In the Diaspora and People of African Descent Worldwide - ACHPR/Res.543 (LXXIII) 2022 - Dec 12, 2022 calls for:

"2. Calls upon member states to: . . . take measures to eliminate barriers to acquisition of citizenship and identity documentation by Africans in the diaspora; to establish a committee to consult, seek the truth, and conceptualize reparations from Africa’s perspective, describe the harm occasioned by the tragedies of the past, establish a case for reparations (or Africa’s claim), and pursue justice for the trade and trafficking in enslaved Africans, colonialism and colonial crimes, and racial segregation and contribute to non-recurrence and reconciliation of the past;, . . . 4. Encourages civil society and academia in Africa, to embrace and pursue the task of conceptualizing Africa’s reparations agenda with urgency and determination.” 

IMARI OBADELE ON MALCOLM X AND REPARATIONS

Excerpts: 

3:54 - Greetings from the Provisional Government of the Republic of New AfriKa and from the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America . . . . distinguished people who have come here tonight not only to honor Malcolm X but also to talk about and plan for and finally act upon our future. I'm going to talk very briefly and center my remarks today on the issue of reparations. You will recall that reparations is the idea that black people in our context should be paid for slavery that even those of us who exist - they should receive payment for the unjust war and the enslavement of our people in this country, unjust war waged against us by the United States and sanctioned in the United States Constitution . . . . 


15:27 - We were entitled to believe that the federal government made a promise for 40 acres and a mule . . . . the promise of the 40 acres goes back beyond General Sherman. White folks when they indentured other white folks, when they held white servants during colonial time in South Carolina and Maryland used to give an indentured freed person freedom dues. They did that in all the colonies. They had been indentured - you work for seven years if you were a criminal you might have worked for 14 years occasionally even 24 and when you whites were free there was freedom dues. This is sometimes $50 and acts and a suit and a new suit of clothes, a barrel of corn. In South Carolina where we were long in the majority and in Maryland they gave the freed indentured servant 50 acres. So the idea that somehow we could help ourselves if we were just given a little to work with. We have never forgotten reparations. In the 1818 -19s black people across this country organized into something called the Ex-slaves Bounty and Reparations Society, collected 50 cent apiece, waged their campaign at Congress and indeed found some black, some white congressmen willing to support the idea that blacks should be compensated for slavery or at least given something with which to begin to build economically new lives. Well what happened to the Ex-slaves Bounty and Reparations Society? . . . . the American government jailed these men and women who were in the leadership of this movement . . . .


20:42 -  They sent a missive to the United Nations . . .  in 1963 because they had an idea that unless within 100 years of the Emancipation Proclamation we made a formal demand to international sources we might as well forget reparations since they did it to try to preserve for us the idea and the right to avoid this legal concept . . . .


21:25 - And all of you here most of you here except the very young know the modern story Republic of New Afrika in 1968 formed the cause in large part of the work of Queen Mother but these were the Malcolm X, the members of the Malcolm X Society, formed after his assassination who then called the black government conference . . . . and here where a declaration of independence was concluded part of it says we claim no rights from America except those rights that belong to people all over the world and these include the right to reparations for the grievous harm inflicted upon us, our people, by the United States. Republican of New Africa people went into the streets, some of you in Chicago may have first encountered provisional government people asking you to sign a petition and incidentally we have petitions. . . .  What is the minimum that they owe and as you can plan in your mind, when you take into consideration the the Middle Passage, when you take into consideration just the war waged against us in North America under the United States constitution's provision of what we call a fugitive slave provision which said that you could not even leave just peacefully and quietly and go away because the whole force of the United States government, Army, Navy, Marines, stood against you, their court system stood against you . . . . never mind that . . . they will cut off Gabriel's head and hang it on the post.  Gabriel [Prosser] understood that if he lost the revolution that they were going to do that to him. He knew what kind of people they were dealing. I said he stuck his head and those of his companions on the posts and an arrayed the walks into the town of Richmond with these heads so that everybody and particularly the black people would understand that you don't raise your hand against white people. . . . What about the little old lady reading her Bible and decides, unlike the Hebrew, she won't take any gold and silver, won't say to the people who have been harming her, “let me just borrow so I can go out into the desert and pray.” I pray the little old lady who just leaves quietly at night watching the North Star barefoot the full force of the United States government was against her, not just Gabriel or that [Nat] Turner . . . . 


26:26 - and so the African people's Socialist Party worked in the streets and then in Baltimore and in Tallahassee in certain other places across the United States trying to raise this consciousness and in 1987 the provisional government's legislature - this is the national body. [I] Hope some of you who really believe in land who really believes that we should have independence, I hope in the RNA elections this year those of you who are really serious and will bring your talent and your money will run and be elected out of Chicago or wherever you may happen to live, to this national body. They decided that we were trying to call together black people from across this country to see if we could form a coalition that was not just land-based nationalists like myself but to spread out to the sororities and fraternities to churches to spread out to all groups and we said we wanted to at that time work make a more positive New AfriKan contribution to the freedom of our people in southern Africa and mind you that's another story . . . . so the National Conference of Black Lawyers came together with the Provisional Government and formed the National Coalition of Blacks for reparations in America (NCOBRA).


32:50 - We have never forgotten reparations. It really doesn't matter to our enemies and the United States is our enemy until they are willing to sign a peace treaty. As you know they never signed it with Elijah Muhammad not to mention Denmark Vesey, Gabriel, they haven't signed it with the Republic of New Afrika . . . . the United States is our enemy until they cease its war against us. Now the enemy has to be forced . . . .


39:11 - Now I think brother Hannibal told me I'm gonna have a chance tomorrow to talk something about the Republic of New Afrika but I just want to mention this to you. We in the Provisional Government take the position that black people should not say we're American citizens. I mean this relates to also this question of our using the term African American and alas one of my colleagues and I said . . . .  Ron Walters who was one of those who pushes, I said,  “look Ron you know what? I use this term African American because you know we're not Americans” and he said,  “yeah, but just to get us to say African now is such an improvement that maybe we ought to take this step.” But what concerns us is maybe let's just say African. It’s just Africans. I mean, like I said, we're Africans in the new world so were New Africans or Africans because in the 200 years between 1660 and 1860 we have what, ten, seven generations? And in that time who were these Africans? They didn't come from one country, one state one nation in Africa, they came from several. I mean even though they say well we came mostly from the west coast but you remember it was a Spanish and the Portuguese who attacked into the Angola region and who also went around and attacked them, attacked them in Mozambique and so we came from all over the continent and here we had many people from many different nations who could not stay together. In Africa you knew who you could marry. Once you get here, you've got a mind to marry the woman who was next to you and so we have in America across seven to ten generations a fusing of people from many different African nations and States. And then you've got the Indian genes and you got the European genes in our gene pool and so here then you'll have a common history that solidifies the people. . . . How do you know I'm black? You know it because, not only because the gene pool, but because you know my brother and sister we may not have blue eyes and fair skin. Not only because of the gene pool but you know it also because of the common perspective and the common history. So when we look for instance at people on the same territory in the same space . . .  Maybe it's easier if we look at say the Mohawk or the Passamaquoddy or some of those in New York and New England here when the whites come. The Europeans come to Massachusetts, they are on the same land with the Passamaquoddy, they are in the same time frame, they are experiencing the same event which will be war - because we read the end of the books that we know it turns into war - so here they are at the same time, same place, same timeframe, two different perspectives. The whites are saying,  “Oh God thank you for giving us this wonderful land” and the Indians are saying much like, “God what did we do to lose this land?”  Always we would say,  “God what did we do wrong to get us in this mess? What can we do to get out of it?”  It's the same time, same place, same event - two different perspectives and those two different perspectives in history create two different nations.  See, the nation is what evolves. We can't create it. Queen Mother couldn't, Elijah Muhammad couldn't. The nation evolves, it's not made up. Either we are or we are not and we are because of gene pool [and] perspective in history. We don't have state power. Gabriel tried, Denmark Vesey tried,  Tunis Campbell tried, and for a while succeeded. The Sea Islands off of South Carolina and Georgia, the red towns and black towns joined together in Florida before 1819 and succeeded - the Indian’s Seminole State for one. But in general we have not succeeded in freeing the land. We don't have state power.  Yes, we have an army.  When we think of state power, think army. It's so small now, so tiny now. We are a nation without state power and so in . . .  overthrowing colonial education, brother Hannibal needs help. We all need help. We got to get it, I mean, because this is an essential part of our reparations campaign. We cannot demand certain things if we don't want, as Malcolm says, and here in the education pieces, we don't know the past. And then if we don't know the terminology that is used . . . it isn't that the terminology is right or wrong, but some of it is so potent in its acceptance that we have to understand the terminology in order to deal and get what we want. Again not a question of whether the terminology is right or wrong but we have to understand it. We must not be shy in the classrooms. Brother Chaos, he was just telling me about his experiences, how principals come up and say, “you got to teach this and this and this” and he goes in, he says “okay I'll do that and teach us the liberation of his people.” We must not be afraid in the classrooms to teach that we are a nation of the oppressed people.  No matter what, Europe or Africa who retain some sense of the nationality strive to build state power. You see it a little bit today in Latvia. They understood that they were a separate people, a nation, that the Soviet’s claim to their land was bogus and so they fight or struggle to free themselves, to build, to have state power and the army.  We know that in Poland's history, the Germans have come in from the west as Russians have come in from the east from times ago and wiped out Poland and noted that in many instances Poles who lived under the Germans said, “it's your school around here, these Germans are such marvelous mechanistic people and they're letting us to go to these schools. We ought to just forget this thing about Poland.” And to those who are living in the Russian area, this “so what do we need Poland for because we are all slaves around here. Great Russian people, what do we need Poland for?” But some Poles understood that their history was distinct from the history of the Russians. . . . And the moment they got the chance, which came at the end of World War II,  there's gonna be a new and free Poland. So it's not just us, but we must fight here against the colonial education. We must be ashamed for the children and so what they would go into the streets in opposition to colonial education to be taught in Africanist and we teachers walk in and collect our salary, don't even back up to it,  go straight up there smiling and collect our salaries and teach horse manure, teach nothing about a New African Nation. You must teach these young people who are wearing Malcolm medallions and singing about Malcolm. . . . They are entitled to learn from you and me, they are entitled to have the explanations that they need. As a teacher, I always say to the young people, “you are entitled to trust your professors. Imani,  have faith, but question everything. And it is important for us to put the information in front of the young people. Queeny Mother did not make up the New Afrikan nation, it grew, it evolved, like every nation and we struggle for state power. My reference is Malcolm X's message to the grassroots . . . . talking about statehood really independent land. Now think not that we have an easy battle here at Congress. They don't regard you as any subjugated nation because you walk around talking about you are American whatever that is . . . Malcolm gave us the word. He said I am NOT an American citizen, remember I am one of the 20 million victims of America. We say, “hey cool that's a statement of the international law” and that's law today. It says you can't take a captured people and make them into anything . . . so if you have conquered somebody you must ask them what they want to do afterwards. The Conqueror cannot come and make you into anything. . . . 


56:03 - Nevertheless if I want to go back to Africa that is a logical choice or if I just want to say I'm out of here because these people have treated me so bad, I'm going somewhere else, I don't care if it's China, Sweden, nowhere - that's another choice. It's two of them right then because they held you here. If you decided, well I want to be an American citizen, that was a logical option and a possible option. Okay, so you got a right to do that. If they held you here you're not able to do it. . . . There's more to this three lines of stress but then finally obviously you could do what so many Africans tried to do here is get on out in the woods and build you an independent state. So those are the logical four options you had and so when John Franklin told us about the law we said well what we need to do is to bring to black people generally the idea of self-determination. . . . If you wanted to vote in the enemies election you have to sign something that says “I'm an American citizen”. So you know we said well that's under duress. So first of all, the Provisional Government put out the word, we have issued the words, “no black people have valid US citizenship” but they still take our taxes, don't it?  I mean, you can't go up and tell them, “well I'm a citizen of Republic of New Afrika, therefore I'm not paying the gasoline tax” but you don't get the gas. I mean, so they take your taxes and so if you're sitting in Chicago and they are getting ready to have an election for the mayor what is wrong with you trying to get somebody in that's going to take better take better care of your taxes than somebody else? So I don't vote in the United States election because I have served as President for these years. I am . . .  there will be a new president in the fall and I will hopefully get elected to the People Senate Council from Louisiana, but in any case the citizenship in New AfriKa is not going to stop you from having to pay taxes and so if they take your taxes go ahead and vote if you wish. I mean, if you feel like it and I think you honor in many circumstances, if you've got a chance to do better in the enemy system and have somebody in the enemy system that does better for you than somebody else who's going to get there anyway . . . .  Okay? So don't worry. Signing IOUs in status under duress doesn't mean a thing. Now but it is important for you to know and for you to teach whether or not these options are viable . . . . 



1:06:54 - We really don't have to tell them squat about what we want to do with the reparations but the other side of the picture is that we make a more significant case when we not only say that we want to do things to end the dope economy to do something about border babies and young women and the use of crack and cocaine and all of that.  Not only when we say we want to do that but when we begin to build the institutions and the industries that will make it possible for us to do that . . . .  So you notice that Poland doesn't come to the United States and say give us some money because now we have overthrown communism. They come to America with a plan. All of those countries . . . Panama doesn't come and just say look y'all did us wrong and blew up the house, give us some money. They come with a plan and so we in the Provisional Government, and mind you, this is only one idea because we must come together as a people and decide what the ideas are, there's. . . . the national conference is June 15 in Washington. There are leaflets out there about it, but we have to come together and talk so let me just tell you about the RNA idea. We say give one third of the reparations straight to the black families, black individuals. [Some] said well you give it to them and [it will] be right back to the white man. Don't worry about it. I mean people aren't entitled to raise their income, they are entitled to take ten, twenty, thirty, forty thousand dollars, whatever their family gets, and use it for what they want because what are they gonna do? They're gonna buy a house, maybe a decent car, help the children with education and some of you all buy stocks and bonds. So yeah, some of us are gonna waste it. Give the money to individuals. We say that a third of us should be given to those groups and organizations that are working on all these problems. Obviously we are not satisfied with what the United States government is doing. What we are doing about these problems? And all of us know but we think that if the agencies - I don't mean agencies, I mean people like the Deltas and all those community groups that are working on these problems - if they had a little more money without any budget cuts - because you know how the white folks do, they want to give you this and take that back - if they had a little more money they could do even better programs to help. And of course, we say that a third should be given to the nation builders. . . .  part of the effort of the United States was to destroy the state every time you raised up the question of statehood, the question of having an army. And it didn't matter whether it was Tunis Campbel or those revolutionaries or they are for Indian Seminole State - they never let you have any peace. Why was Malcolm X killed? Because he talked to you about State Building and the state builders money would be used for economic development, collective economic development. We have to talk together and plan together through organized efforts. . . .

Video Block
Double-click here to add a video by URL or embed code. Learn more

𝐏𝐆𝐑𝐍𝐀 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 - Queen Mother Audley Moore's Speech to the Summit Meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in Kampala, Uganda - July 28, 1975

𝐏𝐆𝐑𝐍𝐀 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐀𝐟𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 . . . .

In 1955 Queen Mother Audley Moore founded the Reparations Committee of Descendants of United States Slaves. In 1957, Queen Mother Audley Moore presented a petition to the United Nations and a second one in 1959, 𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒖𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇-𝒅𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒆, 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, making her an international advocate. Interviewed by E. Menelik Pinto, Moore explained the petition, in which she asked for 𝟐𝟎𝟎 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 to monetarily compensate for 400 years of slavery. The petition also called for 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚.

In 1962, Queen Mother Audley Moore's Reparations Committee filed a claim in California. In 1965, Robert L Brock, an African American attorney working along with Queen Mother Moore, filed a brief in federal district court representing the Self-Determination Committee.

In the 1970s, Queen Mother Audley Moore 𝐰𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧-𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 in Kampala, Ugand at the request of Ugandan President Ida Amin.

( Special thanks to Professor Ashley Farmer, author of Remaking Black Power: How Black Women Transformed an Era (UNC Press, 2017) and the first full-length biography on Moore, “Queen Mother” Audley Moore: Mother of Black Nationalism for providing the text below)

AFRICAN PEOPLES PARTY (USA) REACHES OUT TO :

THE ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY

PRESENTED: JULY 28. 1975

KAMPALA, UGANDA

PRESENTED BY: QUEEN MOTHER MOORE. REPRESENTING

ALL AFRICAN PEOPLE'S PARTY (USA)


Your Excellency, Excellencies, and most Honorable guests of the Organization of African Unity. 

The All African People's Party of the (USA) is honored to accept the invitation tendered by his Excellency Al Hajji ,General Idf Amin Dada, President of the Republic of Uganda. My attendance at this gathering of the Heads of State on the African continent demonstrates to the world that the children of Africa who were kidnapped centuries ago and scattered throughout the western hemisphere are linked by the bonds of common origin, common struggle, and common aspirations. For more than three centuries we were forced to toil as slaves, building up the very foundation of the capitalist structure on which today imperialism stands as a barrier to your development and our liberation.

In those centuries of boundage our African heritage was mocked, our very blackness was made a laughing stock,we were-brainwashed and crippled mentally as a people. But simultaneously with the accession to sovereignty of the formerly colonized states of Africa, we experienced a cultural revolution, the fight for identity, this revolution has largely been won. We know now that we are a people, that we are an African people, that we are an entity-- a unique entity as Africans born in the United States of America.

Our party emerged from the struggles of the past fifteen (15) years. The African People's Party has had to take the vague slogan Black Power and give it concreteness for power has to be exercised by a people, a nation and before power can be exercised, the right of self determination must be won. Citizenship in the United States was imposed on us in 1867 by the government (unilaterally} without even consulting us, without a plebiscite.

We had no choice. The Congress of the United States declared us citizens. By declaring us citizens we were not only denied the right to self determination, we were also denied the right to reparations for unpaid labor and the social degradation that slavery entails. While the act of conferring citizenship on Black captives seemed magnanimous on the one hand; on the other hand Black Codes were enacted by various states to nullify completely the benefits of citizenship. Our party emerged from the spontaneous rebellions that flared in every big city of the USA and made cities such as Watts, Newark, Detroit, Cleveland and many others international symbols of our revolutionary national discontent; from murderous repressions officially approved,  which killed or imprisoned a generation of our most gifted and dedicated Revolutionary Nationalist Youth, from the so called war on poverty aimed at placating the youthful revolutionaries, while building a black middle class buffer. From all of this our party has emerged with a scientific program for the black nation.

We are building the national consciousness of our people for the maximum unity of the thirty million Africans born in the United States. Our party has as its principal task the mobilization of the black people to fight for our survival. The nature of our Party’s struggle is indicated by the following statistics:

Nearly five million black people of 17% of the black population live on public assistance  with no hope of improving their condition. Black young people from 17 to 21 years of age are 40% unemployed. Health conditions are indicated by infant mortality rates - deaths per 1,000 births - 4.7 for whites and 12.1 for Blacks. The recession has meant 95 to 12% unemployment for the white workers but for Blacks the recession is in fact a deep depression with 18% to 40% unemployment. Our program is addressed to these conditions.

The thirty million Africans born inside the United States are not a minority caste and here I must speak of race. Our race in the New World has coincided with, or I should say, determined our social, political and economic status. Slavery in the U.S.A. was African slavery, Africans are black. In the early history of colonial North America there were white and black indentured servants. This was changed before we entered the 18th century, when legally whites were indentured but blacks were made slaves in perpetuity. Even to this day the long shadow of the slave plantation darkens and makes difficult our path towards full liberation. 

This partially explains why the word ‘slum’ is synonymous with ‘Black Community’ where more than 34% of all black families in the USA live in substandard housing without hot water and adequate plumbing. These depressed conditions are not the result of an act of God, they result from a conscious policy which is consciously administered on a racial basis. We are not racists, we do not hate white people as white people, but the conditions under which we live remind us daily of white capitalists who are supported in these acts of oppression by the white citizenry, who still reap the benefits of exploitation.

I mention the above because a few of our young people and intellectuals have read a few books by Marx and Lenin and have announced themselves as Marxists-Leninists. They have learned no more about Marx than what he wrote about Europe in 1848 and they know what Lenin wrote about Russia in the early part of the 20th Century, and some have a smattering of the writings of Mao Tse Tung. They know by what these great men have written about Europe and China. But Black revolutionaries and independent revolutionary thought concerning the Black struggle is strangely absent. 

The activities of these youthful phrase mongers, whether they realize it or not, is diversionary and aids the imperialist because they hamper the mobilization of the most powerful revolutionary anti-imperialist force inside the USA. For by insisting dogmatically that the white working class aided by a minority of blacks must lead the anti-imperialist struggle, they deny and ignore the power of the most exploited, the thirty million Africans born inside the United States. They would deny that Black people, most of whom are workers, can by theory activity in behalf of their own freedom, positively affect the thought and action of the white working class.

They would prefer ‘the cart before the horse’. If we take the example of Portugal and its colonies of Angola and Guinea Bissau and Mozambique we note that it was the fight for African Liberation that brought about the final crisis that resulted in the freedom for the Portuguese themselves. Suppose the people of Angola, Guinea Bissau and Mozambique had waited for the Portuguese workers to free them. In that case, they and the Portuguese people would still be living under the Catano dictatorship.

We live in the head office of imperialism in the world. We recognize too that this is a critical period for world imperialism. It is confronted with insoluble contradictions. The current recession results from the urgent necessity to expand, to find new markets when there are no markets. That is too dangerous. So it had to seek market outlets in the socialist countries i.e. China and the Soviet Union.

The Southern African position of the USA can be understood from the viewpoint of markets, even the US persuasion of SOuth Africa to lift the apartheid bars a little, to improve the African wage scales a little, can be understood from the imperialist imperative to expand their markets.

The African states that are politically free are not immune to the imperialist’s attempts to solve their contradictions at the expense of others. They cannot bring back colonialism, but the CIA and other agencies will do their utmost to ensure safe access to the raw materials it needs to keep its factories going.

Our party demands the right of All of Africa to be free of colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, imperialism and capitalism. We Africans who are captives in the western hemisphere understand that our destiny and liberation are historically interlocked with Africans everywhere. We who are in colonial bondage by the United States Government ask that our African brothers and sisters in Africa take a stand in respect to our human rights. Africans born inside the United States ask our African brothers and sisters to hear our demands

  1. We want self-determination and independent nationhood. We believe African captives in the USA will not have freedom until they have land of their own and a government; a nation that we govern, run, and control. We demand the states of Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Louisiana as partial repayment for injustice done to us for over 400 years.

  2. We want an independent self-governing economy to guarantee full employment for our people. We believe the US federal government owes us for 400 years of slavery and 100 years of forced citizenship-servitude. We demand the US government pay the colonized captive African 400 billion dollars for ten years as partial repayment for its crimes of genocide against our people. 

  3. We want community control of all businesses in the black community and an end to the economic, political and cultural exploitation by the capitalist class waged against our people. We demand of the US government the long overdue debt of forty acres and two mules, we demand this repayment in land, the territory stated in point one and currency and period stated in point two. We also demand Black community control of all businesses located in the Black community. We want all businesses in the Black community to be turned into community cooperatives.

  4. We want community control of housing and community planning of Black communities. We believe all housing and land in the Black community should be turned over to the Black community to be developed into communal-communities we call communes. We advocate the formation of Black housing cooperatives wherever possible. We believe urban renewal for the Black community has meant Black removal. We therefore demand 100% control of all planning boards that are planning housing and other project relocations of the Black community. We believe we are the best qualified to plan our own community. 

  5. We want to control the education of our children. We want an education that teaches us the true history of Black people and of our racist oppressors. We believe because the present racist educational system is inadequate to the needs of our people, Black people must form an educational system of their own. We advocate the establishment in every Black community, Black institutes that teach and train youth and adults alike in the knowledge of self and prepares them in job retraining and in the scientific and technical fields

  6. We want all Black men to be exempt from military service. We believe that Black people should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that does not protect us. We believe until racial abuses, police brutality and racial genocide is stopped being waged against our people right here in the US, ‘the US is THE BLACKMAN’S BATTLEGROUND’. We therefore call for the formation of Black People’s Liberation Army and seek to organize Black youth into Black Guards

  7. We want an immediate end to the racist war of genocide that is being waged against the African held in captive bondage inside the United States. We believe Black people living inside the US who are called citizens are actually colonial captives because after the emancipation proclamation was signed so-called freeing us from chattel slavery, a vote was never taken among the so-called freedmen to determine whether we wanted to be citizens of the US government or not. Therefore the last 100 years of enforced citizenship has been one of citizenship slavery and we are, therefore, still captives of war. We have also in the last 100 years been victims of a systematic plan to destroy our captive nation. 

  8. We want freedom for all Black people held in federal, state, county, and city prisons and jails. We believe under the present system that this racist system is organized in all ways against Black people. We especially demand the release from prisons and jails of all Black political prisoners. We believe all Black people should be tried in court by a jury of their peer group, meaning people from Black communities.

  9. We want an end to the social degradation of our community. We want to rid our community of drug addiction, prostitution and other social evils that destroy the moral fiber of our community. We believe these evils which are controlled by organized crime is a vice that is controlled by police who accept bribes and graft. We feel these evils are allowed to exist to lower the moral fiber and to weaken our community.

  10. We want independence, self determination and Black State Power. We believe Black people in the US will not have true freedom until we control and govern a government and nation of our own. We advocate the formation of a national Congress of African Peoples run by Black people to determine the destiny of the Black nation. We feel the decision (vote) of this Congress should be taken to the U.N. to present our case of self determination to the World Court. We the African Peoples Party of National Liberation, call on all Black leaders and organizations to unite to form a Black Liberation Front that would serve as a centralizing committee of a national Black Congress.

We ask our African brothers and sisters to make a public stand in defense of our just cause of self-determination against our common imperialist oppressor. We call upon our African brothers and sisters to support us in our just demands for reparations, self-determination and ask that you bring the United States before the United Nations General Assembly for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and support our just demand for a United Nations convened plebiscite.

Being that our liberation movement is under constant harassment, counter-intelligence and over-kill tactics, a war is being waged against our liberation fighters some of whom have been murdered and tortured while in prison. These and other acts of racial genocide is constantly being waged against our people in an attempt to nullify our mentality. We ask you to support our position for amnesty for all African prisoners of war inside the United States. 

In behalf of the African People’s Party (USA), we wish again to thank General Amin for his very kind consideration in inviting us to this OAU Summit Meeting. We feel that thru General Amin’s invitation he has shown great depth, understanding and brotherly love for African People. This invitation has been an inspiration to our movement, where we were suffering enormous casualties.

We hope this is the beginning of a dynamic relationship between our brothers and sisters in Africa and thirty million Africans born inside the United States. We feel that the significance of our attendance here at this O.A.U. Summitt marks the beginning of the end of imperialist oppression which began with our separation  from our motherland Africa and the beginning of the realization of common aims of African People everywhere. 

Our Party is willing and ready to fulfill to the best of our ability any service that we are able to render in our common struggle to defeat our common enemy - U.S.A. imperialism.

LONG LIVE THE UNITY OF THE O.A.U

LONG LIVE OUR MOTHERLAND AFRICA

LONG LIVE THE GREAT AFRICAN REVOLUTION

***********************************************************************

Foreign Affairs Minister Siphiwe Baleka is proud to be following in Queen Mother Audley Moore's footsteps, leading the effort for New Afrikan self determination and reparations at the United Nations and the African Union.

𝐋𝐞𝐭'𝐬 𝐇𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐮𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐲 𝐌𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐞! 𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐆𝐑𝐍𝐀 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐲: https://www.balanta.org/nadcsc-initial-plebiscite-survey

Feb 3, 2024 - The Interim Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika Applies to Renew Observer Status at the African Union - https://www.balanta.org/.../the-interim-provisional...

Feb 26, 2024 - Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika Advises African Union Legal Reference Group - https://www.balanta.org/.../provisional-government-of-the...

Apr 26, 2024 - Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika Statement to the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent - https://www.balanta.org/.../provisional-government-of-the...

Apr 26, 2024 - THE POLITICAL-LEGAL HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF NEW AFRIKA AND THE WAR WAGED AGAINST IT BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - https://www.balanta.org/.../the-political-legal-history...

Apr 27, 2024 - Analysis by the Republic of New Afrika of Legal Issues Requiring an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice - https://www.balanta.org/.../analysis-by-the-republic-of...

May 9, 2024 Republic of New Afrika Minister of Foreign Affairs Siphiwe Baleka Concludes Successful Diplomacy Tour in Ougadougu, Burkina Faso - https://www.balanta.org/.../republic-of-new-afrika...

May 19, 2024 - The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika addressed the Afrodescendant Nation National Reparations Convention in Washington, D.C. - https://www.balanta.org/news/a18r6d73a7jrxrpq43zjcrbn7zwg4s

May 27, 2024 - PGRNA Minister of Foreign Affairs Siphiwe Baleka discussed the UN Permanent Forum and the Request for an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ on the 𝑹𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝑵𝒐𝒘 podcast - https://www.balanta.org/news/at50j2ptg017w7i0ajdl6sz5vlqu5s

June 14, 2024 - Republic of New Afrika Minister of Foreign Affairs on RealTalk: History as a Weapon for Black Liberation, Black Power Media Network podcast - https://www.balanta.org/.../republic-of-new-afrika...

June 19, 2024 - Minister of Foreign Affairs Presents at Juneteenth Commemoration Highlighting the Need for Reparatory Justice - https://www.balanta.org/.../balanta-leaders-present-at...

July 12, 2024 - The Republic of New Afrika Returns to the African Union for Diaspora Day https://www.balanta.org/.../the-republic-of-new-afrika...

#pgrna #republicofnewafrika #ReparationsNow #ReparationsIsADebtOwed #unpfpad #AfricanUnion #AfricanUnionCommission

THE ABSENCE OF THE BLACK NATIONALISTS IN TODAY’S REPARATIONS MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: A FAILURE TO LEARN THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

Where is the Black Nationalist Voice in the Reparations Movement? 

Where is the Black nationalist voice in today’s local state and national reparations movement and conversation? With the exception of the New Afrikan Diplomatic and Civil Service Corps (NADCSC), the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika (PGRNA), and the Afrodescendant Nation (ADN), which have been promoting a plebiscite for self determination that includes recognizing the right to establish an independent nation on American soil, the rest of the reparations movement is largely silent on the question of nationalism if not outright dismissive. Why isn’t the issue of establishing an independent black nation, which was historically and traditionally the central aim of the reparations movement, front and center in the reparations conversation? Why are the nationalists not supported by the integrationists and the repatriationists? Why is there no Reparations United Front containing NCOBRA, ADOS, FBA, Repatriationists and Nationalists speaking with ONE VOICE? Why can't ADOS and FBA support the nationalists and the nationalists support those who believe that the Democrats or Republicans should “Earn the Black Vote”? How do we overcome the ideological, strategic and tactical differences to unite and amass enough compelling force so that WE ALL GET WHAT WE WANT = Cessation/Assurance of Non-Repetition, Restitution and Repatriation, Compensation, Satisfaction, and Rehabilitation?

The First #ADOS Division Splitting the Emigrationists and the Integrationists in 1853

Prior to the Civil War, the overwhelming desire of the majority of both the enslaved and free Africans in the United States was to either return to their ancestral homelands in Africa or escape to liberated territory on American soil and develop separate, independent communities of their own. W E B DuBois writes in Black Reconstruction in America 1860-1880 that

“It is clear that from the time of Washington and Jefferson down to the Civil War, when the nation was asked if it was possible for free Negroes to become American citizens in the full sense of the word, it answered by a stern and determined ‘No!’ The persons who conceived of the Negroes as free and remaining in the United States were A SMALL MINORITY BEFORE 1861, AND CONFINED TO EDUCATED FREE NEGROES AND SOME OF THE ABOLITIONISTS.”

See:  VIEWPOINTS OF THE ORIGINAL AMERICAN DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES (ADOS) from 1792 to 1861.

Louis Mehlinger, in The Attitude of the Free Negro Toward African Colonization, writes,

“To carry out more effectively the work of ameliorating the condition of the colored people, a National Council composed of two members chosen by election at a poll in each State, was organized in 1853. As many as twenty State conventions were to be represented. Before these plans could be well matured, however, those who believed that emigration was the only solution of the race problem called another convention to consider merely that question. Only those who would not introduce the question of African emigration but favored colonization in some other parts, were invited. Among the persons thus interested were Reverend William Webb and Martin R. Delaney of Pittsburgh, Doctor J. Gould Bias and Franklin Turner of Philadelphia, Reverend August R. Greene of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, James M. Whitfield of New York, William Lambert of Michigan, Henry Bibb, James Theodore Holly of Canada, and Henry M. Collins of California. Frederick Douglass criticized this step as uncalled for, unwise, unfortunate, and premature. . . . The greatest enemy of the Colonization Society among the freedmen . . . . was Frederick Douglass. At the National Convention of Free People of Color, held in Rochester, New York, in 1853, he was called upon to write the address to the colored people of the United States. A significant expression of this address was: ‘We ask that no appropriation whatsoever, State or national, be granted to the colonization scheme.’ . . . .[I]n writing to Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe in reply to her inquiry as to the best thing to be done for the elevation of the colored people, ‘The truth is,’  he said, ’we are here and here we are likely to remain. Individuals emigrate, nations never. We have grown up with this republic and I see nothing in her character or find in the character of the American people as yet, which compels the belief that we must leave the United States.’”

Hollis Lynch writes in Pan-Negro Nationalism in the New World Before 1862 that,

“Before Delany could act on his scheme, the largest Negro national conference up to that time was convened in Rochester, New York, in 1853, and the persistent division between emigrationists and anti-emigrationists was forced into the open. The anti-emigrationists, led by the Negro leader Frederick Douglass, persuaded the conference to go on record as opposing emigration.  But as soon as the conference was over, the emigrationists, led by Delany, James M. Whitfield, a popular poet, and James T. Holly, an accomplished Episcopalian clergyman, called a conference for August 1854, from which anti-emigrationists were to be excluded. Douglass described this action as ‘marrow and illiberal,’ and he sparked the first public debate among American Negro leaders on the subject of emigration.

Here Douglass is betraying the expressed desire (through songs) of his enslaved brothers and sisters who wanted to leave the United States and return to Africa. This either/or rejection of emigration was a major mistake made by Douglass and the ADOS. At this time, the leaders should have united around and demanded a plebiscite to give each person the exercise of self determination and then advocated that the resources for emigrating, integrating, or building separation communities (nationalism) be provided. That they did not unite around this most necessary procedural step is the legacy that has been bequeathed to this generation and the historically, politically necessary procedural step that still needs to be performed.



Historical Periods of Black Nationalism

In my April 27, 2020 article, Black Nationalism in America - Cultural, Religious, Economic, Revolutionary: The Need for a Black United Front, I noted

“Nationalist ideologies have been in the ascendant only at certain historical periods ; in others, the major emphasis has been on racial integration and assimilation. During four periods, nationalist sentiment in various forms has been prominent in Negro thought: the turn of the eighteenth century, roughly from 1790 to 1820; the late 1840s and especially the 1850s; the nearly half-century stretching approximately from the 1880s into the 1920s; and since the middle 1960s. In general, nationalist sentiment, although present throughout the black man's experience in America, tends to be most pronounced when the Negroes' status has declined, or when they have experienced intense disillusionment following a period of heightened but unfulfilled expectations.”

This is exactly what happened after the period of Civil Rights, prompting the Black Power and New Afrikan Independence movements. The 1969 Newsweek poll captured this ascending nationalism. But what happened? In my June 11, 2020 article INTEGRATION (ELECTORAL POLITICS) VS. NATIONALISM (SELF DEFENSE) VS. REVOLUTION (BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY): UNDERSTANDING THE ART OF COOPTING BLACK LIBERATION I quoted William W. Sales, Jr., who  explains in From Civil Rights to Black Liberation Malcolm X and the Organization of Afro American Unity:   

“There is still a lack of understanding of the African American nationalist tradition and the context within which it reemerged in the 1960s. Little is known or understood about the important integrationist-nationalist debate of this same period. If this generation of African American youths is to be oriented toward revolutionary options, it must deepen its understanding of the African American protest tradition and the ideological and programmatic alternatives between which they must choose. . .

The study of Malcolm X is important because he was the best critic of an era and a movement which still holds significance for us today. Malcolm asked the right questions, some of which he found answers for. We must know these questions and and answers so that we don’t ‘recreate the wheel.’

The Black Liberation movement developed in the latter 1960s in marked contrast to the integrationist Civil Rights movement. It was repressed violently by the agents of the state. Even today it represents the only significant alternative to Civil Rights integration-ism that African Americans have ever developed. This movement, for a time, energized those groups in the ghetto who are today vilified as ‘the underclass.’ Our present oppression as a people is tied to the defeat and destruction of the Black Liberation movement. It is also tied to the sanctification of Black electoral politics within the confines of the Democratic Party, the sainthood of Dr. King, and the canon of nonviolence.

This sanctification stood as an alternative to the mobilization of poor and dispossessed African Americans outside of the institutions of electoral, legislative, and executive politics which are institutionally structured to maintain powerlessness. A rejuvenated Black Liberation movement can be constructed only upon an accurate understanding of the strengths and weaknesses, the accuracies and errors of our previous major efforts at rebellion. Critically studying Malcolm X is central to this reconstruction and rebuilding effort.

With a few notable exceptions in the tradition of Malcolm X, like the National Black Independent Political Party and the National Black United Front from the period of 1979-81, the dominant strategic motion in the Black community has come from those in the tradition not of Malcolm X but of Martin Luther King Jr. Their bankruptcy and that of Black electoral politics, from the perspective of resolving the pressing needs of the masses of ghettoized Black people, has engendered a renewed interest in Malcolm X and the Pan-African nationalist and internationalist tradition of which he was the most elegant spokesman in the latter part of the 20th-century. . . . While many years have passed, the questions which the Black Liberation Movement addressed are still with us. The groupings in the Black community are even more distinct and opposed than in Malcolm’s time. And we should not forget that, as Malcolm X said, if you want to know a thing, you must know its origins.”

And this is exactly what is happening now. There was great expectation during the Presidency of Barack Obama and then we witnessed that little changed. The white backlash resulted in the current Donald Trump/Maga era. But what has been the response? Mostly a one-sided and uninformed fear-trauma familiarity heuristic that begins with, “Our Ancestors died for the right to vote” and then proceeds to “choosing the lesser of two evils” and climaxes with dismissing or insulting everyone who doesn't “vote Democratic”. Nowhere does anyone stand up and say, “No, my ancestors died for the right to return to Africa” or “My ancestors died for the right to establish their own nation.” Unfortunately, often it is people within the reparations movement, the very people who ought to know better and should check such thinking that reduces our political struggle to merely voting in the Anglo American system.  This article helps to contribute to a proper understanding of what our political discourse, especially at this time and concerning this election, should be - that is, if we want to build a Reparations United Front with sufficient compelling force. 



Block Voting in the Democratic Party vs. Nationalism

Sales continues,

“Through force, exploitation, and deprivation of social necessities, Black people internalized the notions of minority status, and remained isolated from and ignorant of the larger world. They came to believe that physical resistance was impossible. African Americans were conditioned to believe that the violence which maintained White superiority and Black subordination could be minimized only through conforming with a code of behavior which at every turn symbolized racial power discrepancies and Black acceptance of them. . . . Those who ascribed to the ethnic-assimilationist model were heirs of the militant-assimilationist posture of the established Civil Rights leadership. They made their peace with Black Power by defining it as no more than the traditional strategy of European ethnic groups applied to the Black problem. Politically, bloc voting within the Democratic Party would increase Black elected representation in the South and in U.S. cities. The resources obtained in this fashion - patronage, influence, and the control of government contracts - would be, as for European immigrants, major sources of African American empowerment. Economically, the construction of civic-minded Black middle-class business persons would be the center of gravity around which Black community development would occur. In this way, the struggle shifted from the arena of protest to the electoral arena, from tactics appropriate to those frozen out of the polity to those who now had access to the polity.

This represented an argument for extending leadership credentials to Black politicians and the Black middle class generally.

The masses of Black people were to give up the protest option and concentrate on expanding their voting power so as to increase the number of Black insiders who would then seek resources on behalf of the masses.

[Siphiwe note: this is where voting became elevated as THE tactic among black people. Until then, it was not considered a SACRED DUTY]

This tendency was responsible for greatly increasing the Black electorate and number of Black elected officials at all levels of government. It was responsible for the establishment of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Joint Center for Political Studies, and TransAfrica, the Washington-based African American lobby on African affairs. Almost all of the largest U.S. Cities have experienced the election of a Black mayor, and there is a greatly expanded African American presence in the Democratic Party. The high point of achievement for this tendency was the presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson in 1988 and the election of Ron Brown as Democratic national chairperson. [Siphiwe note: this was superseded by the election of Barack Obama in 2008]

Nationalist forces generally reflected two alternative responses to this thrust: revolutionary nationalism and cultural nationalism. Both responses united in viewing the Black predicament as a form of domestic colonialism. Their position was that racism was not an aberration but inherent in the nature of U.S. society.

In the tradition of Malcolm X, revolutionary nationalists focused on the question of the achievement of self-determination for Black people.”

In response, Mumia Abu -Jamal emphasized  in “While Rage Bubbles In Black Hearts”,  August 20, 2011 in Have Black Lives Ever Mattered?

“It has taken a while to reach this conclusion, but upon reflection it is inescapable. Why, after over a half century of Black voting, and the election of more Black political leaders than at any time since Reconstruction, are the lives, fortunes, prospects , and hopes of Black people so grim? . . . One is forced to conclude that Black America suffers maladies similar to those faced by continental African nations: a segregated neo colonial system in which a political class gives the appearance of freedom and independence while perpetuating racial oppression and financial exploitation. . . . If Black politicians are to do the very same thing as their white colleagues, why have them at all? What’s the difference? Neocolonialism at home and abroad.”



The Issue is Compelling Force 

On April 26, 2020, I published an article entitled, LEARNING THE LESSONS OF HISTORY: SLAVE SONGS, REPATRIATION, INSURRECTION, INTEGRATION, NATIONALISM & THE ORIGINAL #ADOS MOVEMENT FROM 1792 TO 1861. In the article I lamented, 

“I am writing this article because of the tragic, lamentable state of division and hostility that exists within the “black” community, both in and outside of Africa, and specifically in the United States of America, recently intensified because of the #ADOS movement. The massive amount of non-constructive conversation and activity is preventing the development of substantial COMPELLING FORCE that could be harnessed and used in the collective liberation of all people who continue to be dominated by the global system of white supremacy. The infighting among some members of ALL of our groups and movements - #ADOS, Pan African, Black Nationalist, Aboriginal, Native American, Kemetians, Nation of Islam, Black Hebrews, Moors, Washitaw, Christians, Rastas, Black Greek Fraternities, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Hip Hop, Entertainers, Sports Stars, Politicians, Facebook Groups, etc…. - is definitive PROOF that collectively, we have not LEARNED THE LESSONS OF HISTORY. All of the debates that we are having now we had during the period of 1792 to 1861. The fact that we are still having the same debates and have failed to create a UNIFYING platform that does not require homogeneity or “sameness of thought” has prevented us from developing the COMPELLING FORCE necessary to achieve each group’s goals. A UNIFYING PLATFORM whose aim is to gain all that each group desires IS POSSIBLE if we LEARN THE LESSON.”

Concerning COMPELLING FORCE, I wrote in my November 11, 2019 article THE ESSENTIAL ISSUE IS COMPELLING FORCE: REPARATIONS AND #ADOS 

“The essential point is this: the current world order is run according to COMPELLING FORCE. Now, who among us has enough COMPELLING FORCE to COMPEL the system of white supremacy to submit to our interest?  Come on - which group? Jamaicans? African Americans? New Orleanians? Afro Cubans? Temne? Balanta? Nigeria? South Africa? Ghana? ....when you stop all the nonsense you are talking, you will realize that if any one group had enough COMPELLING FORCE to safeguard its interest, IT WOULD ALREADY HAVE DONE SO. So, when you all are finished with petty emotionalism and how you feel about it, and either return to or come up to both a common and scientific understanding of the COMPELLING FORCE of white supremacy used against ALL of us, then you will realize that the reason why we come together and forget all the distinctions between us is because of the overriding imperative to develop enough COMPELLING FORCE to effectively oppose white supremacy and all the nations it has built. Malcolm X already schooled everyone.”



Are You Just Another Nigger With An Opinion Or Do You Have Data?

Now, my father once told me, “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Without DATA, you are just another nigger with an opinion.” So I proceeded to scientifically determine what could be the basis of the Reparations United Front by launching a survey designed to gather the data and find the answer. And although the survey has not been large enough to draw a solid conclusion, the initial survey results were revealing. The “identity” questions showed the most diverse range of answers, indicating that to try to build unity around what to call ourselves or identify as IS NOT GOING TO SUCCEED IN ACHIEVING UNITY. Meanwhile, the questions that received the most agreement were: 

15. Do you believe that black people in America experience and interpret shared historical events the same way as white people in America?

Yes - 4%

No - 96%

16. Do you believe that black people in America are fully integrated into American society?

Yes - 4%

No - 96%

17. Do you believe that black people in America constitute a “nation within a nation”?

Yes - 86%

No - 14%

18. Do you believe black people in America should have a government of their own like all other free peoples?

Yes - 89%

No - 11%

The results from questions 15-18 suggest that black people in the United States do, in fact, see themselves as a nation within a nation as W.E.B. DuBois put it at the turn of the century. This is important since if we wish to have the UN Decolonization Committee (C-24) recognize our current condition as an internal, domestic colony and non-self-governing territory that has been undeclared since the founding of the UN Trusteeship system.

20. Do you believe that Reparations are owed to the descendants of Africans who were enslaved in the American colonies and later the United States of America?

Yes - 100 %

No - 0 %

Undecided - 0%

21. Do you believe that Reparations are owed to African Americans because of the legacy of slavery such as Jim Crow laws and other systemic forms of racism?

Yes - 100%

No - 0 %

Undecided - 0%

29. Would you participate in a plebiscite recognized by the United Nations or the African Union that would give you the a chance to choose among the four options: (1) US citizenship, (2) return to Africa, (3) emigration to another country and (4) the creation of a new African nation on American soil 

Yes - 93% (72%)

No - 7% (28%)

Using the Data to Build a United Front Centered Around The Plebiscite

So the DATA shows that if we want to build a UNITED FRONT, we should frame reparations around the PLEBISCITE concept. And this makes complete sense since the plebiscite would be the one mechanism where everyone can document their demand on what principle form of reparation they want. Additionally, it would then set the discussion on the macro-distribution of resources. Let’s look at an example. Suppose the approximate 29 million black people of voting age in the United States were to participate in a plebiscite conducted by Plebiscite Committee (comprised 100% of trained plebiscite coordinators within the black community) and the results were the following:

7 million voted for establishing a nation of their own (24%)

4 million voted to return to Africa (13.7%)

300,000 voted to emigrate somewhere else (1%)

17.7 million voted to integrate into America as full citizens (61%)

Now suppose, $112 Trillion were approved for reparations to be paid to a Reparations Fund controlled by the Plebiscite Committee. Thus, we would now know that 

$26.9 trillion needed to be allocated for establishing an independent nation

$15.5 trillion needed to be allocated for repatriation to Africa

$68.3 trillion needed to be allocated for integration into America

And the remaining $1.3 trillion for those emigrating elsewhere.

National Committees for each option composed of local committees would then go about the business of determining how those funds would be used to achieve the identified purpose. 

This is a straightforward, common-sense approach to reparations that will provide each group what they need and eliminate, to a significant degree, the in-fighting between the various groups. Moreover, it will lead to SATISFACTION, which is one of the components recognized by international society as a requirement for full repair. 

And so this begs the question,

if the NATIONALIST are largely excluded from the various commissions and conversations, how will they get SATISFACTION?

And now it is important to remind everyone that the modern reparations movement as we know it emerged out of the NATIONALIST segment of our nation.



Remembering the Nationalists - Don’t Betray Their Cause

Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. DuBois Call For A New Afrikan State at the Paris Peace Conference 1919

In 1918 and 1919, both Garvey and DuBois sent delegations to the Paris Peace conference to negotiate the establishment of a NEW AFRIKAN NATION right alongside other peoples that were also seeking admission to the new League of NATIONS. Both Garvey and DuBois suggested that the former German colonies in Africa be given to BLACK PEOPLE to form a NEW AFRIKAN NATION.

The National Movement for the Establishment of the 49th State - 1930s

Following that came The National Movement for the Establishment of the 49th State, a movement popular among African-American separatists during the 1930s. The movement, led by Oscar Brown Sr. from Chicago, Illinois, sought to create a state for African Americans in the American South. Following that, The development of revolutionary territorial nationalism in the United States also includes the formations of the African Nationalist Partition Party of North America (ANPP), the African Descendants Nationalist Independence Partition Party (ADNIP), and the Provisional Government of the African American Captive Nation (PG-AACN). 

Queen Mother Audley Moore and the Reparations Committee of Descendants of United States Slaves - 1955

In 1955 Queen Mother Audley Moore founded the Reparations Committee of Descendants of United States Slaves.  In 1957, Queen Mother Audley Moore presented a petition to the United Nations and a second one in 1959, arguing for self-determination, against genocide, for land and reparations. Interviewed by E. Menelik Pinto, Moore explained the petition, in which she asked for 200 billion dollars to monetarily compensate for 400 years of slavery. The petition also called for compensation to be given to African Americans who wish to return to Africa and those who wish to remain in America. In 1962, Queen Mother Audley Moore's Reparations Committee filed a claim inCalifornia. In 1965, Robert L Brock, an African American attorney working along with Queen Mother Moore, filed a brief in federal district court representing the Self-Determination Committee. On March 31, 1968, Queen Mother Audley Moore became the first signer of the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of New Afrika.

In the 1970s, Queen Mother Audley Moore went to Africa several times and raised the question of the right of African-Americans to self-determination at the Summit meeting of the Heads of the State of the Organization of African Unity in Kampala, Uganda.  



Reparations and the Republic of New Afrika

Republic of New Afrika Declaration of Independence

As we will see from the excerpts of the works of Imari Obadele included below, the modern Reparations movement as we know it today can be credited to the NATIONALISTS and specifically the Republic of New Afrika. Here it is important to note that, the Declaration of Independence states,

“We, the Black people in America, in consequence of arriving at a knowledge of ourselves as a people with dignity, long deprived of that knowledge, as a consequence of revolting with every decimal of our collective and individual beings against the oppression that for three hundred years has destroyed and broken and warped the bodies and minds and spirits of our people in America, in consequence of our raging desire to be free of this oppression, to destroy this oppression wherever it assaults mankind in the world, and in consequence of our inextinguishable determination to go a different way, to build a new and better world do hereby declare ourselves forever free and independent of the jurisdiction of the United States of America and the obligations which that country’s unilateral decision to make our ancestors and ourselves paper-citizens placed on us.

We claim no rights from the United States of America other than those rights belonging to human beings anywhere in the world, and these include the right to damages, reparations due us for the grievous injuries sustained by our ancestors and by ourselves by reason of United States lawlessness.”



Imari Obadele Foundations of the Black Nation (1972) 

It should be further noted that after the establishment of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika (PGRNA), Imari Obadele wrote in Foundations of the Black Nation (1972) that, 

“Proposals for the Black Agenda To The National Black Political Convention in Gary, Indiana, March 10-12, 1972. . . . 

Today the Republic of New Africa is locked in struggle for liberated land - independent land - the one thing the black nation lacks. 

Our presence at this historic convention is to further that struggle. We think We understand the role of the Republic in black people’s total struggle for freedom in America. We know that today New Africa stands just outside of the center-of-vision of most blacks in America. Thus, in coming here to further the Republic’s struggle for independent land, We are not here to urge all black people to become citizens of record in New Africa: New Africa is only for those who freely want New Africa. Nor are We here to argue that conventional politics should be abandoned by black people: in our four years of struggle New Africa could not have made the advances We have made without timely help, now and then, from sons of conventional politics like Judge George Crocket, Congressman John Conyers, and Representative Julian Bond. In Mississippi, moreover, We have enjoyed certain protections and leverage which We could not have enjoyed except for work done before and since our coming by “conventional” politicians like Representative Robert Clark, Dr. Aaron Henry, Sister Fannie Lou Hamer, and others whose names you might not recognize.

Like all those men and women, the Government of New Africa understands that We blacks in America are one people and that, no matter how many fronts We must fight on, We are engaged in one struggle.

Let me, then, assure you that the Government of New Africa is here to join you in supporting all those things which benefit all black people.

The RNA requests on the black agenda are two, and while they emerge from the standpoint of an RNA perspective, they are calculated to benefit all black people.  We urge that this Convention insist that no candidate for President of the United States, and no political party, receive black support unless he or she pledges the following:

  1. To seek legislation and use presidential power to assure the peaceful acceptance by the United States of the results of the plebiscites, for land and independence, to be held in the Deep South.

  2. To accept the principle of reparations for blacks in America and to work for prompt payment of these reparations in accordance with the Republic of New Africa’s ‘Anti-Depression Program’, submitted this month to U.S. Congressmen and Senators, calling for no-strings payment of 57.5 billion dollars in the first two years and a total of 300-billion dollars. . . .

We know whence the ‘start-money’ for the nation should come. It SHOULD come from the nation of our former slave masters, from the United States, whose wealth today is ALL derived, in essence, from the tri-cornered trade - that is to say, from the body and exploitation of the African slave. Repayments for this is what is known as reparations. The principle of reparations is well established in international law. Nations pay reparations to nations. . . . We have proposed a settlement to the United States federal government: $10,000 per individual descendant of slaves, some 300 billion dollars. (The US defense budget every year is well over 70 billion dollars.) Because of the special nature of our oppression and a belief within the RNA Government that economic development would best be advanced this way, we have proposed that 40% - $4,000 of the $10,000 - go directly to the individual. . . . What is more, the struggle can be successful. A great deal, however, depends upon how fast and how completely Africans in America can un-track their minds from the inability to think about land, independent land, as not only an integral part of our struggle for freedom but as an essential primary goal. For success of the struggle depends a great deal upon the support those of us who now opt for and are working to build an independent African nation on this soil, get from those of us who do not now choose for themselves the route of an independent nation. We calculate that those who do not now opt for independence may number as many as two~fifths of Our people. And the support of these people must be founded upon Understanding of what the New Africans are about. . . . Perhaps the best way for people to un-track their minds from the slaving inability to think of land as a real and legitimate goal of our struggle is to understand how a people acquire claims to land. There is, of course, what we call the bandit rule of international law: that says, essentially, that if a people steals land and occupies it for a long time, the world will recognize that land as belonging to them. This, of course, is the manner in which the United States acquired claim to most of America: white folks simply stole it and held it. As a people We Africans in America have been cowed by this rule; We have cringed before it (and before the power of the beast) as if it were the only rule of land possession. There is, fortunately, a civilized rule of land possession. It says that if a people has lived on a land traditionally, if they have worked and developed it, and if they have fought to stay there, that land is theirs. It is upon this rule of international law that Africans in America rest their claim for land in America. The essential strategy of our struggle for land is to array enough power ( as in jiu-jitsu, with a concentration of karate strength at key moments) to force the greatest power, the United States, to abide by international law, to recognize and accept our claims to independence and land. The purpose of this strategy can be further simplified: it is to create a situation for the United States where it becomes cheaper to relinquish control of the Five States than to continue a war against us to take back or hold the area.”




The Anti Depression Program and the National Black Political Convention in 1972

That same year, the PGRNA submitted a reparations program called the Anti Depression Program to the National Black Political Convention in Gary, IN in 1972. In the book Reparations on Fire: How and Why it’s Spreading Across America, Nkechi Taifi writes, 

“The RNA supported James Forman’s Black Manifesto, which in 1969 called for white churches and synagogues to pay Black people half a billion dollars in reparations. The RNA drafted an Anti-Depression Program which called for a lump-sum reparations down payment and a negotiating committee between its subjugated government and the U.S. government, and successfully had the Program adopted at the 1972 National Black Political Assembly Convention. . . . It was an act . . . to determine kind, dates, and other details of paying reparations. The Mississippi Loyalist Delegation to the Democratic National Convention accepted the Anti-Depression Program that same year. . . . 10,000 Black delegates gathered at the Black National Convention in Gary, Indiana, and adopted a Black Agenda which specifically called for reparations to Black in America from the U.S. government. The Black Agenda also recognized the right of the Republic of New Afrika to political independence and sovereignty over Black Belt land in the southeast.”



Nkechi Taifa: Black, Power, Black Lawyer and Reparations on Fire

Nkechi Taifa also writes in her memoir, Black Power, Black Lawyer,

"The spark for [the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America - NCOBRA] founding emanated from a 1987 conference on Race and the Constitution spearheaded by the National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) and held at Harvard University. . . . [Note, in Reparations on Fire, Taifa adds, “Aiyetoro invited Imari Obadele, President of the Republic of New Afrika, Chokwe Lumumba, co-founder of the New Afrikan People’s Organization, and me, along with economist Richard America, to address the issue of the constitutionality of reparations on a panel at Harvard and to discuss whether a U.S. constitutional amendment was needed to effectuate reparations.”] We also examined an act authorizing negotiations between a commission of the U.S. and a commission of the RNA to determine kind, dates and other details of paying reparations. We discussed the significance of 'government to government' reparations as the negotiated settlement that follows the conclusion of war . . . . Out of that historic September 26, 1987 gathering, the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparation in America (NCOBRA) was born, bringing together diverse groups under one umbrella. Black Nationalist politics clearly dominated the room. . . . Since the creation of NCOBRA, the demand for reparations in the United States has substantially leaped forward, generating what I've dubbed, the modern day Reparations Movement. It was the perfect storm. The Black Power Movement was open and receptive to a broad-based approach to further the issue of reparations. The Black legal community sanctioned the largely Black Nationalist effort . . . . I am appreciative that leaders in the New Afrikan Independence Movement had the humility to tone down their analysis and distinct ideological position in favor of facilitating broader acceptance of the concept of reparations and allowing new voices to come to the fore." (pp. 174-179)

Nkechi Taifa continues in Reparatios on Fire:

“Broad national attention to the call for reparations for descendants of Africans enslaved in the U.S. unquestionably accelerated with the 1987 founding of N’COBRA. . . . Our presentation both at the Haarvard convening and in our co-authored 1987 book [Reparations Yes!] were replete with historical precedents for reparations. New Afrikan Political Science, and analysis of international law including our revolutionary fervor promoting the right to self-determination. Indeed, we felt the issue of self-determination for the descendants of Africans held as slaves in the U.S. to be key and central to a reparatory justice remedy. After the enslavement era Black people never had the opportunity to decide what our future would hold, with full appreciation of our options and reparations to put our choices into reality. Would we repatriate back to Africa? If so, how? Would we settle in the independent Haiti Republic or somewhere else in the diaspora? Would we accept the U.S. offer of 14th amendment citizenship into the new white nation it was developing and strive to make a multiracial democracy real? Due to severed homeland ties, would we plant our own flag in the ground in this country that we worked and built, negotiated with Native peoples, and establish our own independent Black Nation on soil claimed by the U.S.?

Our theory was that a reparations settlement must include the manifestation of each of these options through a national plebiscite, inclusive of both direct and group benefits. For those who wish to repatriate, we wrote that they should have sufficient resources to make that reintegration a reality, as well as for those who seek to emigrate elsewhere. For those who wish to force this country to respect our rights as full citizens, that option must be accompanied by transformative changes in policies and practices, closure of the Black/white wealth gap, elimination of educational and health disparities, cessation of mass incarceration disproportionately impacting black people, and release of Black political prisoners and prisoners of war. And for those who wish to establish an independent New Afrikan nation-state on this soil, following the model of five states in the Deep South or elsewhere, should likewise have the economic resources and political diplomatic recognition to make that self-determination choice a reality. . . .

‘Making’ a free people citizens without their informed consent is a limitation on that people’s freedom. If the informed consent exists from the population in question, then the population is ‘made’ citizens, but have become citizens under their own volition.

The imposition of US citizenship on New Afrikans without their express consent offends our human right to self-determination, and leaves true realization of other human rights in doubt and/or in jeopardy. The distinction making us citizens of the U.S. and voluntary choice of such citizenship, by New Afrikans desiring the same, is important. First, many of us do not want to be citizens of the United States. In fact history suggests that this has been the case since the inception of the United States (i.e Denmark Vesey, Gabriel Prosser, Nat Turner, Henry Garnett, Afrikan Blood Brotherhood, Marcus Garvey, Nation of Islam, etc.).

Second, it should be noted that an imposition on those of us (New Afrikans) not desiring the same is a badge of slavery. But fo our enslavement no such ‘citizenship’ could be imposed. 

Third, imposed citizenship offends the 13th Amendment. It limits the freedom declared by that amendment, and subjects many so called free persons to an unwanted political status, merely by virtue of their presence in the United States - a presence which emanates from the enslavement that the 13th Amendment is purported to have abolished. No person or population so disposed can be said to have received full reparation for slavery.

The political essence of slavery is not merely found in economic exploitation of labor, but in the illegal and imposition of United States jurisdiction on the slave, or the slave’s descendants. Full reparation must relieve those imposed upon of any political status forced on them. Recall that Sister Collins has appropriately defined reparation as ‘redress for an injury, or amends for a wrong inflicted.’ A wrong doer certainly cannot amend for a wrong inflicted by inflicting another wrong. . . . 

Black Reparations Commission President Dorothy Benton Lewis, . . . who worked closely with the Republic of New Afrika and the African National Reparations Organization. . . Working closely with the RNA and its Foreign Affairs Task Force, . . . urged Brother Imari to convene a national gathering on reparations to discuss how to increase its exposure in the U.S. and make the issue of reparations a household word. I credit Brother Imari Obadele for downplaying the New Afrikan independence politics outlined in Reparations Yes! and agreeing to issue the call for reparations-loving people to convene in Washington to discuss, among other agenda items, dealing with an independent Black foreign policy, how to move the issue of Reparations for Black people in the U.S. forward. . . . Obadele could have demanded that the diverse organizations and individuals he summoned to Washington had to refer to Black people as ‘New Afrikans.’ But he didn’t. He could have demanded that the only way forward must be ‘nation-to-nation’ reparations. But he didn’t. . . . .The higher ground was taken, and Obadele made the unifying national call for a mass-based gathering of activists not beholden to any specific ideology, and it was out of that historic September 26, 1987 gathering, that N’COBRA was born, bringing diverse groups under one umbrella.”

Here it must be emphasized that Imari Obadele, the RNA, and the Nationalists in general made a concession for the sake of unity and moving forward. Downplaying the Nationalist position did not mean abandoning it. Now that reparations is, indeed, a household word, the reparations movement owes a debt to the Republic of New Afrika to fervently pursue the manifestation of each of the options through a national plebiscite which would include, on equal footing, the nationalist demand for land and independence. 

Again, both logic and the data show that this is the only way to establish a Reparations United Front with maximum COMPELLING FORCE. This is especially true due to the division in the Reparations movement that occured with the emergence of #ADOS and Foundational Black Americans (FBA) movements.



Reparations: A Proposed Act Submitted to Some Members of Congress in September 1987

The REPARATIONS: A PROPOSED ACT TO STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND COMPENSATE, IN PART, FOR THE GRIEVOUS WRONGS OF SLAVERY AND THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT WHICH ACCRUED TO THE UNITED STATES THEREFROM prepared by President of the PGRNA Imari Obadele (September 1987) proposed the following, simple and logical formula for reparations:

1. One-third of the annual sum shall go directly to each individual;

2. One-third of the annual sum shall go directly to the duly elected government of the Republic of New Afrika and to any other state-building entity of New Afrikan people; and

3. One-third of the annual sum shall be paid directly to a National Congress of Organizations. And all of this to be framed and manifested through a PLEBISCITE.



PROPOSED REPARATION AMENDMENT

  1. All descendants of Afrikans (New Afrikans, Liberians, etc) previously held in slavery within the United States and its occupied territories during any period of time when the laws of the United States, or any states thereof, protected and/or permitted this enslavement and all descendants of Africans transported in slave commerce permitted under United States law, or the law of any state which is part of the United States shall be entitled collectively and individually, to reparations from the United States government and full compensation for all physical, educational, economic, political, cultural, and mental loss and injuries that such Afrikan descendants have suffered as a consequence of their Afrikan ancestor’ enslavement. All such persons shall also be collectively and individually entitled to reparations from the United States government and full compensation for injury and loss due to all other violations of their human rights, or the human rights of their ancestors, by the United States government, by any state of the United States, or by individuals subject to United States or state laws, whose commission of such violations were allowed by, and kown to, or which should have been known to officials of the United States government, or to government officials of a state of the United States. 

  2. This Amendment shall require payment of reparations by the United States Government directly to individual Afrikan descendants entitled under the Amendment, to representatives of Organizations, chosen by the entitled persons and to the Afrikan states and Nations in the Western Hemisphere and Afrika to which the entitled persons belong. In addition to reparations payments received on behalf of entitled individuals, and groups, the Republic of New Afrika and any Afrikan state shall be entitled to reparations for any damages suffered as a nation or state, because of slavery, the slave trade and other human rights violations perpetrated by the United States or one of its states against the nationals of these nations or states, or against their ancestors. This Amendment shall allow such nations or states reparation for belligerent acts committed against them by the United States, or any state organization, or individual operating under United States authority or protection, where the Act was designed to facilitate the continuation of slavery, the slave trade or other human rights violations against Afrikans, or their descendants. 

  3. Reparations under this Amendment shall be paid and money with interest, and machinery, technology, land and in any other appropriate form as determined by the United States Congress, after consultation with representatives of the Afrikan Nations, states, and individuals entitled to reparations payments. The amount to be paid shall also be determined by Congress after such consultation. 

  4. The United States and each state of the United States and each individual under its jurisdiction shall hereafter recognize and respect the human rights of all persons and nations, including those entitled to reparations under this Amendment. Such recognition and respect shall include an absolute recognition of the right of Afrikan descendants (New Afrikans) in the United States and its occupied territories, to self-determination.Thus neither the government of the United States or the various states, nor individuals under the jurisdiction shall restrict the right of New Afrikans to (a) repatriate to Afrika, (b) emigrate to another country, (c) become full citizens of the United States, or (d) establish an independent nation state in the New Afrikan territory in America.

  5. The United States, the states of the United States, and individuals under United States jurisdiction shall make no effort to impose United States citizenship on Afrikan descendants in America and elsewhere.

  6. To the extent that any prior provision of this constitution is inconsistent with this amendment it is hereby repealed.

  7. Congress shall have the power to enact the appropriate legislation and take necessary steps to implement and enforce the provisions of this amendment.

SUMMARY

The following should now be clear:

1. The people captured from their homelands in Africa and brought to the American colonies were not Christian. Most black Americans trace their ancestry to areas of Africa that, centuries ago, were not primarily part of the Christian world. However, nearly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) identify as Christian. This means that one of the tragic effects of surviving the middle passage was religious conversion under conditions of violence and trauma that persists until today.

2. Oral history, slave songs (coded), and modern scholarship record that the desire of the enslaved was to return to Africa or to escape to liberated territory and NOT to integrate into the Anglo American colonies..

3. The enslaved people from Africa were willing to rebel, revolt, risk death and kill their white Christian enslavers in order to obtain their freedom.

4. Christianity was formally introduced to the enslaved  in 1847 following the Nat Turner Rebellion TO PREVENT INSURRECTIONS AND TO ENCOURAGE DOCILITY, OBEDIENCE TO THE WHITE SLAVE MASTER, and INTEGRATION while COLONIZATION was adopted for the same purpose by removing free blacks who were considered the most troublesome segment of the population as well as slaves who desired to return to their homelands.

5. The indoctrinated Christian free colored people held meetings which the enslaved population could not do, and based on a Christian idealism and an extremely naive understanding of the US Constitution, decided that the white slave masters would be persuaded to grant them all the rights and privileges provided for in the U.S Constitution. 

6. The United States, through the American Colonization Society, were prepared to grant the desire of the slaves and begin returning them to Africa (repatriation as a form of reparation). Rightfully suspect and critical of the Society’s motives,  some indoctrinated Christian free Negroes, led by Frederick Douglass, used their advantage of position to propagandize and misrepresent the will of the vast majority of slaves and free Negroes. These indoctrinated Christian free Negroes sabotaged the return of tens of thousands of slaves just prior to the Civil War.

7. So-called Black Leadership, instead of working together to see that all interests were advanced, instead fought bitterly against each other.

8. The current #ADOS movement is making the same arguments and the same mistakes as the first #ADOS movement.

9. The lesson to be learned is that what is needed is enough COMPELLING FORCE to exercise SELF-DETERMINATION so that all groups and interests are achieved. Black people, African American people - whatever you want to call them - must stop framing all the issues as EITHER/OR and instead frame them as EACH/AND/ALL. Such a framework and corresponding organization/centralization of political energies, could bring about the long desired, never achieved UNITY of black people in America.

10. THE FRAMEWORK FOR UNITING BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA IS THROUGH A UNITED NATIONS SPONSORED PLEBISCITE FOR SELF DETERMINATION FOR THE DESCENDANTS OF PEOPLE WHO SURVIVED THE CRIMINAL AND GENOCIDAL MIDDLE PASSAGE TO THE COLONIES WHICH BECAME THE UNITED STATES. Such a process will unite all the diverse political energies around the four basic natural choices: (1) US citizenship with ALL rights, privileges and protections, (2) return to Africa, (3) emigration to another country and (4) the creation of a new African nation on American soil.

Excerpt from WAR IN AMERICA by Imari Obadele, first drafted in October 1966 and revised and published January 1968.

THE ANSWER TO FEDERAL OPPOSITION

“THE answer to federal opposition to black state power is a complex of studied moves POLITICAL, DIPLOMATIC, ECONOMIC, AND MILITARY.

The crucial first step is the early acceptance of an essential and inevitable decision by those who seek black state power. This is the decision to withdraw the state (ultimately, withdraw the entire, new, five-state union of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina) from the United States and establish a separate nation.

This is necessary because the inevitable opposition of the federal government would be irresistible so long as it operates within the state; it must be put OUTSIDE the state.

Of first importance are the diplomatic moves. As Malcolm X taught, the black man’s struggle must be INTERNATIONALIZED, for it is only within the United States that we are a minority. Joined with other peoples of color beyond the American borders, black men bestow upon white men the status of a minority.

The struggle must be internationalized for an even more basic and directly negotiable reason: we must draw to our cause the moral and material support of people of good will throughout the world; this support, correctly used, could impose upon the United States federal government an amount of caution sufficient, when coupled with the military viability of the black state itself, toprotect that state from destruction beneath certain and overwhelming federal Power.

In short, the effort to win public support for the black struggle from the Afro-Asian nations, started in earnest by Malcolm X and maintained so resolutely by Robert Williams, MUST BE CONTINUED AND INTENSIFIED; we must, moreover, continue and intensify the effort to raise serious, substantial questions concerning the status of black people in the United States and bring these questions before the United Nations and the World Court. Fortunately, the groundwork for this effort has already (by 1966) been faithfully laid by such men as Robert A. Brock, founder of Los Angeles’ SELF-DETERMINATION COMMITTEE, and Baba Oserjeman Adefumi, founder of the New York-headquartered YORUBA COMMUNITY.

As Adefumi, Brock, and their fellow workers have shown, the central questions to be brought before the United Nations and the World Court are Two:

A. THE RIGHT OF BLACK PEOPLE AS FREE MEN TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WISH TO BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

This right was never exercised: freed from slavery by constitutional provision, black people were given no choice as to whether they wished to be citizens, go back to Africa or to some other country, or set up an independent nation. Instead, the OBLIGATIONS of citizenship were automatically conferred upon us by the white majority, while the RIGHTS of citizenship for black people were made conditional rather than absolute, circumscribed by a constitutional provision that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," and subjected to 90 years of interpretation and reinterpretation by the courts, the Congress, and the state legislatures.

Adjudication of this question must bestow upon those black people wishing it a guarantee of their right to be free of the jurisdiction of the United States and assure that their right to freedom shall not have been jeopardized by the payment of taxes, participation in the election process, or service in the military during the period before adjudication. These later acts are participated in by the blacks in America who seek adjudication, only under coercion and as defensive measures.

B. THE RIGHT OF BLACK PEOPLE TO REPARATIONS FOR THE INJURIES AND WRONGS DONE US AND OUR ANCESTORS BY REASON OF UNITED STATES LAW. 

Reparations have never been paid to black people for the admitted wrongs of slavery (or since slavery) inflicted upon our ancestors with the sanction of the United States Constitution — which regulated the slave trade and provided for the counting of slaves — and the laws of several states. The principle of reparations for national wrongs, as for personal wrongs, is well established in international law. The West German government, for instance, has paid 850 million dollars in equipment and credits, in reparations to Israel for wrongs committed by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe. Demands for reparations, funneled through a united black power Congress, must include not only the demand for money and goods such as machinery, factories and laboratories, but a demand for land. And the land we want is the land where we are: MISSISSIPPI, LOUISIANA, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, and SOUTH CAROLINA.

The bringing of the first question to the United Nations — the question of black people’s right to self-determination — creates a substantial question demanding action by that world body and puts the black power struggle in America into the world spotlight where the actions of the United States against us are open to examination and censure by our friends throughout the world. It provides these friends, moreover, with a legal basis for their expressions of support and their work in our behalf.

The raising of the demand for land, as part of the reparations settlement, infuses needed logic and direction into the American black struggle and increases the inherent justice of our drive for black state power and the separation of the new five-state union from the United States.

The separation is necessary because history assures us that the whites of America would not allow a state controlled by progressive black people, opposed to the exploitation and racism and organized crime of the whole, to exist as a part of the whole. Separation is necessary because black people must separate ourselves from the guilt we have borne as partners, HOWEVER RELUCTANT, to the white man in his oppression and crimesagainst the rest of humanity. Separation is possible because, first, it is militarily possible.

When the 13 American colonies declared their independence from Britain, they also forged an alliance with France, which not insignificantly contributed to the colonies’ victory. When the Confederacy separated from the United States, it formed alliances with Britain and other European powers, and these alliances might have sustained her independence had not this creature been so severely weakened by sabotage and revolts of the slaves themselves and their service in the Union Army. In more recent times the state of Israel was created in 1948 and maintained against Arab arms by her alliances with the United States and Britain. In 1956 the independence of Egypt was maintained against invasion by Israel, supported by France and Britain, by her alliance with Russia: Russia threatened to drop atomic missiles on London if the invaders did not withdraw. In 1959-1960 an independent, anti-capitalist Cuba was saved from invasion and subjugation by American might (as American might would invade and subjugate another small Caribbean island republic, the Dominican Republic, in 1965) because, again, of an alliance with Russia.

The lesson is clear: black power advocates must assiduously cultivate the support of the Afro-Asian world. MORE, that moment when state power comes into our hands is the same moment when formal, international alliances must be announced. Indeed, these alliances may prove our only guarantee of continued existence.”

Excerpt from Imari Obadele speech to the Toward a Black University Conference at Howard University, November 1968:

Government Must Be By Consent

“Ever since the American Declaration of Independence an accepted principle of international law has been that men need only be bound by government that arises from the consent of the governed. That is to say, a group of persons must consent - must agree - to be governed by a government or else that government is a creature of oppression and its rule is tyranny. A group of people has a right - indeed, they have a duty to throw off such tyrannical government and institute such new government and new forms as to themselves seem most likely to assure their future happiness and success.

Thus, because the founders of the Republic of New Africa understood that the government of the United States rules black people without our studied consent, and because the founders understood, therefore, that for black people the United States government is tyranny and an exercise in oppression, we created a new government - The Republic of New Afrika - to which black people can freely and with great hope and justification, give their consent. The new forms which we are instituting to assure our future happiness and success are those to which black people throughout the United States have traditionally aspired, in order to achieve freedom, justice, prosperity, progress, and brotherhood. And they are spelled out in the ‘Aims of the Revolution’ contained in the Republic’s Declaration of Independence (March 31, 1968).

Primary Objective of the Republic of New Afrika: Win Consent of the People

Therefore, the primary objective of the government of the New Republic of of New Africa, in our peaceful campaign to win soverignty over lands on the continent that righfully belong to black people, has been to create opportunities for black people to show that the government of the United States does not have our consent, and that the Republic of New Africa does have our consent.

This continues to be our policy and the primary strategical objective of the Republic of New Africa. Wherever our Consulates and pledged citizens exist - whether in our subjugated colonies in the Northern cities or our subjugated territories in the South - the policy is the same and constantly pursued: to create the means for black people to express their consent to be governed by the Republic of New Africa.

Massive Mis-Education of Black People in America Concerning Citizenship and Building a Separate Independent Black Nation

Because of the massive mis-education of black people in America concerning rights and obligations, the Republic’s campaigns for consent are often described as, and often become campaigns to win consent. For most black people do not understand that their present evidences of consent (payment of taxes, voting, serving in the Army, etc.) have been forced from us by a tyrannical government that has never allowed us a free choice - free consent - in the matter of citizenship. . . . 

To break through the massive mis-education of our people . . . it is necessary to make them understand - not just in their brains but in their gut-bottom emotions - that the only answer to ending the oppression and misery under which they daily live is to join in building a separate, free, powerful black nation of our own right now, right here on this continent. The next step  is to convince them that it can be done.

But the first, most difficult, but most important step is to convince them that our new nation is the only answer to misery and oppression.

Winning Consent for the Republic of New Afrika is Dangerous Work

This work - the work of convincing people anywhere in our subjugated areas within the United States, that our separate nation is the only answer and to join us in building it - is fraught with danger wherever we conduct it.

Even though the Republic’s official pronouncements have made it clear that (1) we wish to negotiate a peaceful settlement of our differences with the United States and that (2) we do not seek to overthrow the United States government or alter its form but only to set up our own independent government - despite this, the United States government is fully capable (though wrong under its own law and international law) of harassing and jailing our workers and leaders. Indeed, the likelihood of this happening increases geometrically as we become more successful and as mis-informed whites (the majority in America) feel tht we are seriously threatening their prestige and power (that is: their white supremacy and white domination).

Moreover, every state in the Union has its own laws on subversion, overthrow, syndicalism and the like. In the five states of the South these laws could be used against us with considerably more justification than similar federal laws - and almost certainly will be. . . . Then, there is the use of uniformed and uninformed white violence.

Workers and officers of the Republic face all these dangers . . . merely for organizing people to express their free consent for a government. It can be no other way. And because we understand the call of history, we can do nothing else but to press on for the freedom of our people, along this certain course: Independence.

Excerpt from Revolution and Nation Building; Strategy for Building The Black Nation in America, by Imari Obadele, 1970:

Eight Strategic Elements

“There are eight strategic elements which are required for the successful establishment of an independent black state on the American mainland. They are these:

  1. Brains

  2. Labor

  3. Natural Resources

  4. Internal Domestic Support

  5. International Support

  6. A Limited Objective

  7. Inherent Military Viability

  8. A Second-Strike Capability

The combination of brains, labor and national resources is what produces wealth, without which no country can contemplate true independence. . . . 

Non-New Afrikan Blacks in America Must Support the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika

“Non-New Afrikan blacks in America must support us in a variety of ways. Support of the campaign for reparations is essential. Black Congressmen must take the lead in campaigning through Congress for a reparations settlement which includes substantial payment to the black nation, to the Republic of New Africa, even if it includes direct payments to individuals. But we are completely against reparations payments which go to whites or to U.S. government agencies to use for us - this is no reparations at all. We are also against using funds from our reparations settlement to pay capitalists for the plants and mines which we take over in the South. If at all, payment for these should be arranged in negotiation with our government. But the cold cash of our reparations settlement, and the trading credits, must be largely used to acquire the machine, to improve and expand industrial plants.

The support of non-New African blacks in America must, obviously, include sending dollars and gold, silver and diamonds, which we have in abundance in our jewelry to New Africa so that however long it takes to achieve a meaningful reparations settlement with the U.S. or however destructive our warfare in the South, we will not be without acceptable media for acquiring the machine through international trade. Blacks remaining within the U.S. must also - and importantly - use their influence, so long as it exists, to restrain the hand of the United States in using its court and military establishments against us. Indeed, to put this positively, blacks remaining in the U.S. must exert every influence to help us force the United States to settle with us justly - on the basis of plebiscites and international law - our claims to sovereignty and reparations.

International Support is Equally Important

But international support is equally important in staying the hand of the U.S. government against us. International Support is a crucial factor in assuring that our war for independence will neither be interminable nor unsuccessful.  It is not only a matter of direct material or arms aid; just as the deployment of United States forces on alert status in such places as the Sea of Japan and Korea has been of some value to the VIetnamese, so the same or similar deployments would be of value to us. Too, on the military side, the possibility - however remote, however logistically difficult -that Chinese troops might, if asked by us, make an appearance in the United States such as Alaska or Hawaii, or at some oversees point where the United States has military commitments; the possibility that African nations in retaliation for U.S. military action against us might take action against the U.S. within their countries, which could include breaking off relations, seizures of property and concerted military action  against . . . . allies of the U.S. and supported by and relied upon by the U.S. - these two possibilities count as major elements in our calculated use of foreign support to stay the hand of the U.S. against us and move that government toward a peaceful settlement with us.

Thus, in New Africa we have upon us the obligation to cultivate unilaterally and through regional associations the support of foreign powers. Ultimately we look to the United Nations as the power where world opinion  - supported by the pressures generated by the operation of these eight strategic elements which we are discussing - will validate our independence and our claim against the United States for reparations. But it seems clear that the enforcement of our claims, whatever validation we receive beyond these shores, will depend on our own success at arms.

We follow a classic principle of political science; that for a small nation (us) to maintain itself against a big nation (the United States), it is necessary for the small nation to have an alliance with another big nation (China) or groups of nations (the anti-imperialist nations of Africa and Asia).

The Sixth Strategic Element - the Limited Objective - Has a Clear and Undeniable Importance

This success is made not alone on the battlefield, or even in the very important - indeed vital - preparations behind the battlefield. It is made also through the terms of the war, through the objectives being sought or defended. The sixth strategic element - the Limited Objective - has a clear and undeniable importance.

What we are talking about here is that instead of seeking the overthrow of the U.S. government of the control of 50 states or even 25 states, we seek merely five states. This is only one-forth of the states, and we are one-tenth of the population. Together they are five of the poorest states in the Union. They have great numbers of black people, suffering both a relative and absolute educational poverty, severe health and nutritional problems, and, in many areas, an endemic culture of poverty. They are underdeveloped. In short, the land we seek is an area which white Americans may feel is well worth giving up - once they have reached the point where giving up something seems inevitable or, at least, a better course than destruction and death.

Military Viability

Now, how do we get white people to this point? We would hope that polemics and reason would do it. We would hope that things like this book and diplomatic and political pressures would do it. Unfortunately history seems to teach us otherwise. We would love to be wrong. Yet what we learn from history is the unmistakable promise that the white man will fight us. And so, we must be prepared to fight him - and win - for our limited objective. We must have, therefore, an inherent Military Viability. Our army and our people must be able to survive destruction, and survive not just for a day or a few days but for many weeks and months, for years, if necessary, to establish our independence. And we must at the same time be able to inflict severe damage upon the enemy.

Sometimes the will of our people to suffer through war and persevere for years for our freedom - as the Vietnamese have done, as the black Angolans are doing, as the white American colonists did in the past - is doubted. So many of us are such comfortable slaves. Only time will tell. But if we do not have the will, if we do not persevere we will not win our freedom. It is that simple. Foreign aid and foreign alliances will not win it for us. Only  through our own will. Only through our own perseverance in war, in the midst of suffering, deprivation, and death. Only out of this.

And the role of the people is crucial. In the South, where we must ultimately deploy the Black Legion as our main-force army, our strategy has to include the people on the land and in the cities as a vital element. The Army must be able to move in secret and conceal itself. It must be able to depend on the people for reconnaissance and intelligence information, against the enemy. And it must be able to depend on the people to deny to the enemy food, general supplies, transport and sanctuary in order to maximize for the enemy his supply, concealment, and logistical problems. 

Finally, beyond the South, the black man’s SECOND STRIKE CAPABILITY must be believable. The second strike capability is the Underground Army, the black guerillas in the cities. So long as black people are able to remain in the cities - and there are over 120 major cities where the brothers have used the torch - and retain relative freedom of movement, the black man has, or can develop, the means for destroying white industrial capacity and - if need be - white America in general as mercilessly as a missile attack.

Although the Republic of New Afrika neither directs nor controls these guerrillas - nor is in anyway more positive than the rest of you that they even exist - to the extent that they do exist and support the national policy and objectives of the Republic of New Africa, and to the extent that their power is believable, to these extents is the war foreshortened and more quickly will come the success of our independent black state on the American mainland.”



Excerpt from FOUNDATIONS OF THE BLACK NATION by Imari Obadele, 1971:

“We know whence the ‘start-money’ for the nation should come. It SHOULD come from the nation of our former slave masters, from the United States, whose wealth today is ALL derived, in essence, from the tri-cornered trade - that is to say, from the body and exploitation of the African slave. Repayments for this is what is known as reparations.

The principle of reparations is well established in international law. Nations pay reparations to nations. They pay reparations for the damage to each other, such as for accidental sinking of a ship in time of peace. They pay reparations for war: Germany to France, after World War I. They pay damages for crimes against people, for genocide: after World War II, for instance, Germany not only paid reparations to France for war, Germany paid reparations (over $800 million) to Israel for having slaughtered six million Jews not only during but before the war.

This last is particularly important to us, because the state of Israel, founded in 1948, did not even exist when the Nazis abused the Jews. The Jews used their reparations for economic development, as all reparations are intended to be used. New Africa’s use of reparations will be for precisely the same purpose. We have proposed a settlement to the United States federal government: $10,000 per individual descendant of slaves, some 300 billion dollars. (The US defense budget every year is well over 70 billion dollars.) Because of the special nature of our oppression and a belief within the RNA Government that economic development would best be advanced this way, we have proposed that 40% - $4,000 of the $10,000 - go directly to the individual.

From every state government with a black population, for demonstrable discrimination and oppression in the years after slavery, We are demanding $15,000 for every family which comes to a New African New Community in the South or already lives in the five states. All of this would be used to build the New Community ($7,500,000 for every community of 500 families).”




𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐀𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐊𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐓 𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐁𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐄 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐒𝐄𝐋𝐅 𝐃𝐄𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐁𝐄 𝐎𝐑𝐆𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐙𝐄𝐃

See: NADCSC Presentation to the ADN National Plebiscite Teach In

Just after being sworn in as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PGRNA, Siphiwe Baleka presented the plan for organizing the 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐧 & 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 at the National Plebiscite Teach - In on January 14, 2024. This followed the Plebiscite Workshop at the New Afrikan People's Convention, December 30, 2023.

See: https://www.balanta.org/nadcsc-presentation-to-the-adn... and https://www.balanta.org/.../plebiscite-workshop-at-the...

A plebiscite vote of all eligible black voters in the United States - approximately 29 million people of voting age - will require a campaign. A campaign will require a campaign machine in each of the ten regions of the United States.

The New Afrikan Diplomatic and Civil Service Corps (NADCSC) is a private group that provides consulting and diplomatic service to the nation of New Afrikan people in the United States in their exercise of self determination in pursuit of freedom, independence and justice. Its ultimate strategic goal is expressed in its 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐒𝐓 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐀𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐊𝐀𝐍 & 𝐀𝐅𝐑𝐎 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐓 𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐁𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒 which would establish an objective, qualified national body constituted to take responsibility for conducting the plebiscite.

The NADCSC plebiscite campaign is divided in several phases which are: 

1. Exploratory;

2. Pre-Congress;

3. Preparation and convening of the First New Afrikan & Afro Descendant Plebiscite Congress in the United States;

4. Campaign for and conducting the Plebiscite which will allow the people to vote on the 4 options

5. The Convening of the Second New Afrikan & Afro Descendant Plebiscite Congress  in the United States and other activities during the transitional phase after the Plebiscite to determine the implementation of all four of the Plebiscite options;

IMPORTANT REMINDER:

Contrary to mobilizing the masses of the people, 𝒂 𝒄𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒈𝒏 𝒎𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒂 𝒍𝒐𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒏𝒐𝒊𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒃𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒕. This is comparable to building an army. First, you recruit generals who look for staff officers. Then, the hierarchy and the officers put together the troops to be trained for the war later on.

𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐏 𝟏: 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐁𝐔𝐓𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋

Collect signed 𝑪𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝑵𝒆𝒘 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒌𝒂𝒏 & 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒐 𝑫𝒆𝒔𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝑷𝒍𝒆𝒃𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 and return to newafrikandiplomaticcorps@gmail.com.  An online version is available here: https://www.balanta.org/nadcsc-call-for-plebiscite-campaign 

𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐏 𝟐: 𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐁𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐓𝐄 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐕𝐄𝐘

Complete NADCSC-PEC online Initial Plebiscite Survey https://www.balanta.org/nadcsc-initial-plebiscite-survey After completing the survey, you will receive the 𝑩𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑶𝒖𝒓 𝑪𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒈𝒏 𝑴𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑫𝒐𝒄𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕

𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐏 𝟑: 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐎𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐀𝐍 𝐑𝐂𝐂

Anyone who completes the “Call” and checks “Organizer” and completes the Initial Plebiscite Survey is invited to “𝑳𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒑 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏” with NADCSC Coordinator and at least one member of the PEC. The training session will be no more than two hours and have two parts: 1) Fundamentals of the NADCSC and 2) Profile and Process for assigning individuals to key leadership positions in the NADCSC Plebiscite Campaign structures. Upon completion of the training, sign the “𝑻𝒆𝒏𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑶𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝑨𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕''. At this point, the person becomes a member of the PEC for his region. As soon as a region has 5 Coordinators, that region is active. The RCC’s are responsible for establishing the SCCs and MCCs using the same 3 step process.

Strong teams - municipal coordinating committees (MCCs) - need to be set up in the top one hundred cities with the largest population of Black people to conduct the Initial Plebiscite Survey; other teams may be set up wherever 5 or more people agree to do so.

Collecting a minimum of 10,000 completed Initial Plebiscite Surveys - 1,000 from each of the ten regions - will complete the exploratory phase and provide the basis to determine the viability of the campaign and its marketing strategy.

In the process of collecting Initial Plebiscite Surveys, the PEC should establish at least 3 RCCs and 10 MCCs - the requirement for holding the Pre-Congress for the First New Afrikan & Afro Descendant Plebiscite Congress in the United States

CULTURAL CARRYOVERS, EPIGENETICS AND CONNECTING THE DOTS: BALANTA, PALMERES AND THE REPUBLIC OF NEW AFRIKA - A TRADITION OF LIBERATION, INDEPENDENCE AND REPARATIONS

Introduction: African Cultural Carryovers and Epigenetics

The central point of this study is to show that the Balanta tradition of resisting all forms of foreign domination by migrating to unoccupied territory and establishing decentralized organized society based on egalitarian and communal agricultural-based economics while engaging in armed self defense and second strike capacity has been retained in the Americas and is proved by the direct link between Balanta communities in their ancestral homeland, the establishment of the Republic of Palmares in the seventeenth century concurrently with their role in confraternities that pursued  a legal case at the Vatican in 1686, and the establishment of the New Afrikan Independence Movement in the United States including the current leadership of both the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika and the global Afrikan Reparatory Justice movement emanating out of the State of Illinois. By examining these, it will show a positive Balanta epigenetic endowment that manifests as an irresistible and irreversible desire for freedom and willingness to escape and/or directly confront alien oppressors, and that this genetic expression is a cultural carryover of Balanta people into the Americas.

Cultural Carryovers

It is a common understanding that Africans have, since the early settlement of the Americas, influenced Americas’ (North, South and Central) language, manners, religion, literature, music, art, and dance. The forms of worship, family organization, music, food, and language developed by Africans held in  American slavery can all be seen to bear the signs of African traditional culture, as can the architecture, art, and handcrafts they left behind. However, it is rarely acknowledged that political and military dispositions are also evidence of African traditional culture.

In the abstract for NATIVE AFRICAN ARTS & CULTURES IN THE NEW WORLD; A CASE STUDY OF AFRICAN RETENTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by Omokaro A.Izevbigie of the Department of Fine/Applied Arts, Faculty of Arts, University of Benin, it states, 

“Despite the different languages, and cultures in Africa, there is commonality in religious, artistic and musical traditions. Did the native Africans sold into slavery retain any of the traditions in the “New World” in general and in the United States of America in particular? There is considerable retention in the Latin American countries, because the slaves had many more rights in South America than in the United States. Consequently, the African slaves in the United States of America gradually lost contact with his past. However, there are certain church rituals and some aspects of the black American music which have been identified as cultural carry-overs in the United States.”

Chikodiri Nwangwu writes in Preserving African cultures amid globalization: Lessons from the enslaved communities in the Americas,

“the preservation of cultural identity among the enslaved Africans in the Americas was a key feature of the resistance against cultural assimilation. It is also a testament to their resilience, creativity and adaptability. In his review article published by the University of Chicago Press, R. L. Watson attributed the survival of much of that culture to, among other things, the ratio of blacks to whites, the organization and operation of the plantations, and the predominance of rural settings. Beyond these, however, the will to resist cultural assimilation, which seems absent in many African countries today, was the determining factor. Despite oppressive and harsh working environments, the enslaved Africans devised various ways to maintain their cultural practices, traditions, languages, religions and values.”

But what about the will to resist the actual oppressive agents?

The Balanta example will show that their cultural resistance meant political and military resistance which safeguarded the Balanta cultural value of sovereignty. Importantly, this Balanta cultural expression that preserves independence can be explained by epigenetics. 

Transgenerational Epigenetic Effect of Balanta Freedom

What humans inherit from ancestors that makes one unique in personality and behavior, is the genetic and epigenetic material that regulates genetic expression. This genetic material responds to environmental conditions.

In 2020, Dr. Kenneth Knave's published Competent Proof: The Legal Standing for African Americans in the Battle for Reparations  reviewing Judge Norgle's decision in the Farmer-Paellmann v. Fleetboston Financial Corp case. In that book, Kenneth S. Nave, MD states, 

“Science has proven that environmental conditions shape the structure and function of highly specialized cells in key areas of the body. These changes occur in an extension or appendage to the gene known as the epigene. The epigene is an extension of the gene that responds to biochemical signals emanating from the environment. These signals cause changes to the gene. These epigenetic changes to the gene influence and change the cellular genetics of the cell. . . . Under certain environmental conditions, the epigenome programs or ‘reprograms’ the genetics of the cells of the limbic system which, in its most fundamental definition, is the center of all human thought, emotion, behavior, learning and, when present, psychosocial pathology. . . This environmental shaping is usually pathologic leading to physical disease, social dysfunction, and mental illness. Most significantly to the plight and social conditions of the descendants of former slaves is the scientifically proven fact that the changes to the epigene created by environmental pathology is passed down to the descendants of those initially impacted by environmental gene shaping. . . . As it relates to the cells of the brain, this cellular shaping can lead to problems with learning, memory, and mental health. As it relates to cells of the heart and cardiovascular system, these changes can lead to heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failure. Endocrine cells genetic shaping can lead to diabetes and metabolic syndrome. . . . This environmental shaping of the gene is well confirmed and is also recognized to be transmissible at least to the fourth generation of one’s descendants and beyond. That means that any environmental hardship experienced by your ancestors and causing this genetic environmental shaping could possibly, and is probably, transferred down to you, their descendant, and likewise your progeny, for generations. This is The Transgenerational Epigenetic Effect (TGEE).”

EPIGENETICS AND NEUROSCIENCE

The limbic system of the brain is a group of structures that include the amygdala, hypothalamus, the thalamus, and the hippocampus. These brain regions work in concert with one another in the processing of information gathered through the sense organs which are stored as memories which later are processed as the evolving human begins to interact with the environment.  Dr. Nave continues, 

“Liken the limbic system of the brain to the central processor, or hardware, of a computer (human beings are the computer), and the genes of the cells which make up this region, to the software which operates the computer. The epigenome would then be the software programmer, the brain’s Information Technology Specialist, that writes, or rewrites, the genetic program that controls the operation of the cells of the limbic system. Under certain environmental conditions, the epigenome programs or ‘reprograms’ the genetics of the cells of the limbic system which can then lead to pathologic genetic expression, or function, of the cells of this region. The end result of this altered genetic expression is mental illness and/or pathologic social behavior. . . . The limbic system, in its most fundamental definition, is the center of all human thought, emotion, behavior, learning and, when present, psychosocial pathology. . . “

The epigenome possesses within it coding, or programming, that is inherited from a person’s ancestors. Once an environmental stress acts upon the epigene of a person the epigene can be changed permanently. Thereby, epigenetic changes that cause disease states [or mental pathologies] can and will be passed onto an impacted persons’ offspring. The children of a person carrying epigenetic markers for disease [or mental pathologies] will then be susceptible to said disease if exposed to the environmental stressors that can initiate epigenetic activation of the gene. We see this expressed in experiments with mice subjected to electroshocks when they attempt to escape their cage through an open door. Eventually, the mice, fearing harm, stop attempting to leave through the open door. What’s interesting is that their offspring who themselves have never been subjected to the electroshock, will also not try to leave through the open door. Hence a pathology or behavior was epigenetically imprinted and expressed by the offspring.

Additionally, according to neuroscience, when faced with a threat—real or imagined, physical or emotional—the most primitive parts of the brain go into action to determine if the threat is a credible one. If it finds that yes, the threat is real, it will then go into survival mode and determine if you should stay and fight or run away—whichever one will most likely result in survival.

After surviving the trauma of the middle passage, for example, the most primitive parts of a brain are already triggered to enter the most extreme fight or flight condition which are both ACUTE and CHRONIC. Already in a state of physical, emotional and spiritual abuse and degradation,the constant threat of violence made fighting and escaping both unsuitable choices for  survival for most African peoples, especially those who came from societies with classes [unlike Balantas] where subservience to a Chief or King was already epigenetically encoded behavior. For most of the African people disembarking from middle passage ships, submission and obedience proved to be the only choice likely to result in survival. Over time these tactics become imprinted on their brains. They become the brain’s go-to fix when it feels threatened. This then became a pattern. One didn’t have to think about these tactics. They just become part of one’s comfort zone and one’s automatic response to feeling unsafe or uncomfortable. 

These types of tactics are referred to as familiarity heuristic. In other words, the brain reverts to what it’s familiar with when faced with a threat. Remember, the brain’s job is to keep you safe and make sure you survive. What the brain considers safe is what is familiar. After all, what you’ve done to this point has kept you alive. You’ve survived so far, so as far as your brain is concerned, what it’s done to date to keep you safe has worked. For the Balanta, the familiarity heuristic is to escape to remote places, grow one’s own food, defend one’s own territory, and engage in second strike actions against foreign invaders. As we will see, this Balanta familirarity heuristic led to Balanta escaping foreign domination by establishing the Republic of Palmares in 1595 and leading the Republic of New Afrika in 2023.

While TGEE is often used to explain the negative effects of the environment, and in this case, the chattel enslavement environment, TGEE can also be used to explain positive effects of the environment. Following the early descriptions of the Balanta and the later work by Amiclar Cabral and Walter Rodney, Siphiwe Baleka has shown in his three-volume history of the Balanta that 

“. . . the origin of our family’s migration from the land of Ta-Nihisi just prior to the conquest of Menes and the unification of Ta-Nihisi and Ta-Meri to form the first Kemetic (Egyptian) dynasty around 3100 B.C..  . . . From Ta-Nihisi we migrated along the route from Darb el-Arbeen to Wadai and further west to Lake Chad. Somehow, our Balanta ancestors avoided war, capture and enslavement by migrating west to escape the invasion from the east and keeping to the southern Sahel corridor to avoid the invasion from the north. In this way we maintained our freedom for over 4,300 years and did not violate our Great Belief against successive persecutions from the Mesinu (followers of Horus at Edfu), Theme (Libyans), the Shashu and Habiru (Hyksos), Soninke of Wagadu (Ghana), Tuareg (Berbers), Almoravids in Wagadu (Ghana), Keita Clan (Mali), the Sunni Dynasty (Songhai), the Askia dynasty (Songhai), the Moors, fulbe (Fulani coming from the West), and lastly, by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Bijago, Papel and the Manding of the Kaabu Kingdom. Because we did not develop hierarchical state societies nor written records, much of that 4,300-year history also remains shrouded in mystery.”

Shrouded in mystery, yes, but encoded epigenetically!

I am proposing that this multi-millennial history of Balanta migration, resistance and freedom was triggered by the environmental conditions of enslavement by the Portuguese and resulted in pathologically-produced liberation movements by the enslaved Balanta first in Portugal in the Confraternity of Our Lady of the Rosary of Black Men (1496), then in the communities of Salvador (1549)  and Jaguaripe (Santidade movement in the late 1500’s)) in Brazil, then in the establishment of the Republic of Palmares (1595), and much later in the civil rights movement and New Afrikan Independence Movement in the United States (1960s) up until the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika today and exposes the distortion that only benign cultural carryovers such as dancing and cooking were transferred by the Africans from their homelands to the Americas, but so too did political and military cultural practices.

Connecting the Balanta Through Historic Liberation Movement in the Americas

Outline

  1. Balanta pursued Reparations through second-strike actions during their resistance against the Mali Empire.

When the Mandinka of the Mali empire raided the Balanta villages, the Balanta would flee, leaving their cattle behind. Later, they would go and retrieve their cattle. This is called “Reparations”, not theft.

2. People from territory in Guinea Bissau, including Balanta, were kidnapped and captured as prisoners of war and trafficked to Portugal and enslaved in the 1450’s. 

From the perspective of the Europeans, all the Papal bulls from 1452 to 1493 gave both Spain and Portugal the legal right to capture and enslave Africans at will. When the Portuguese returned from their sixth expedition to Guinea, they brought with them about 653 enslaved, some of which included the Balanta, known for their fierce love of freedom and resistance to foreign domination.

3. People from territory in Guinea Bissau, including the Balanta, formed a brotherhood in Portugal in 1496  for the purpose of liberation. 

The Confraternity of Our Lady of the Rosary of Black Men - was created in Lisbon at the Monastery of Sao Domingos on 14 July 1496, forty years after the Portuguese had arrived in the region of modern Guinea-Bissau. By 1526 the confraternities had been granted the right, via their compromisso or constitution, to liberate their members from slavery or buy them from captivity.

4. People from territory in Guinea Bissau, including the Balanta were sent to Brazil from 1500 - 1600.

From 1570 - 1600, an annual average of 3,000 African captives were shipped largely from Quinara, an important Biafada kingdom in pre-colonial Guinea-Bissau situated between the Geba and Rio Grande de Buba rivers, and about half of the slaves were sent to Brazil. From 1600-1650, about 4,000 slaves from the Upper Guinea coast were exported annually to Brazil and elsewhere (about 200,000 for this period). Balanta had the lowest number of captured prisoners of war because of their effective resistance. 

5. People from territory in Guinea Bissau, including the Balanta, came as free Africans to Salvador, Brazil in 1549 and developed an extensive trans-Atlantic trading and communications network.

From its inception as a city in 1549, Salvador (Brazil) served as a link to Pernambuco, Paraiba and Sergipe in the north of the country and the isles, Porto Seguro, Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Vicente and Buenos Aires in Argentina to the south. Ships brought “free Africans from the region of modern Guinea Bissau, Cacheu, who were hired to work as carpenters.”

6. People from territory in Guinea Bissau, including the Balanta, started the Santidade movement against the Portuguese in the late 1500s. 

In the late sixteenth century Guineans, probably led by Balanta, helped form the Santidade movement in Jaguaripe (Bahia, Brazil). It resisted Portuguese ideology that marginalized both Indigenous and Africans in Bahia. 

7. People from territory in Guinea Bissau, including the Balanta, started the Quilombo of Palmares in 1607.

The community at Palmares (Brazil) started when forty Guinean men, former enslaved people from Pernambuco and some of them most likely freedom-loving and fiercely resistant Balanta, left for Palmares and formed a republic there that existed as a safe haven from 1607 to 1695. It is unlikely that it was the Beafada and Brame Guineas, or any other peoples from the same region, that led this movement since they were dependent on Balanta for farming and did not have the heritage of resistance and decentralized social structure like the Balanta.

8. Palmares inspired Imari Obadele, principal founder and former President of the Provisional Government of the  Republic of New Afrika.

Imari Obadele wrote ten pages on the Republic of Palmares in his Doctoral dissertation, NEW AFRICAN STATE-BUILDING IN NORTH AMERICA: A Study of Reaction Under the Stress of Conquest

9. The Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika is led today by two Balanta descendants. 

Balanta descendant Krystal Muhammed is the current President  of the PGRNA while Balanta descendant Siphiwe Baleka serves as its Minister of Foreign Affairs. Siphiwe Baleka also created the Decade of Return Initiative in Guinea Bissau and is the first Balanta to return and receive citizenship in his ancestral homeland, making him the first Dual Citizen of the Republic of New Afrika and the Republic of Guinea Bissau.

EARLY DOCUMENTATION OF BALANTAS

Table I: Earliest Evidence

Table II: Upper Guinean Origin of Slaves in the Americas 1560-1600


Early description of Balanta people and communities as “cruel”, “savage”, and “barbarous”

The first documented Balanta to be trafficked and enslaved is recorded in 1510. From the 1570’s - 1600, an annual average of 3,000 African captives were shipped largely from Guinala (or Quinara, an important Biafada kingdom in pre-colonial Guinea-Bissau situated between the Geba and Rio Grande de Buba rivers) in Guinea-Bissau by the lancados and Tangomaos; about half of the slaves are sent to Brazil. From 1600-1650, about 4,000 slaves from Upper Guinea coast were exported annually to Brazil and elsewhere (about 200,000 for this period).

The low number of documented enslaved Balantas (7) as compared to others in the same region such as Biafara (Beafada 167) and Brame (Buramos 212) from 1569 to 1577 is likely a testament to the Balantas effective resistance to foreign domination.

In Planting Rice and Harvesting Slaves: Transformations along the Guinea-Bissau Coast, 1400-1900, Walter Hawthorne writes,

“By forging ties of kinship with local women and through them local communities, Portuguese and Luso African merchants linked local systems of production with a broad Atlantic economy and orchestrated the shipment of slaves from Guinea Bissau. . . . It is partly due to the success of Portuguese and Luso African brokers that the volume of the slave trade from Guinea-Bissau’s shores grew, particularly in the years after Christopher Columbus’s first voyage to the New World in 1492. . . . Diversity and unpredicatablity fueled the wars and encouraged the raids that produced thousands of captives. On this Rio de Sao Domingos [a small tributary of the Cacheu] Almada wrote in the late sixteenth century, ‘there are more slaves than in all the rest of Guinea since they take them [from] these nations - Banhuns, Buramos, Cassangas, Jabundos, Falupos, Arriatas and Balantas.’ Each of these groups was located within the ria coastline and close to the frontier of the powerful and expanding interior state of Kaabu. . . . In the early sixteenth century, the Rio Cacheu was situated on the frontier of the Casa Mansa (or Casamance) kingdom and possessed a mixed population of Cassanga, Mandinka Floup, Balanta, Brame and Banyun. . . . By about the mid-sixteenth century, the Cassanga king had become wealthy by directing military and judicial institutions toward producing slaves who were sold to Atlantic merchants. Andre Alvares de Almada noted that, with ‘spears, arrows, shield, knives and short swords, as well as thick clubs ‘of up to three hand-spans long,’ Casa Mansa’s armies attacked Banyun, Brame, and Balanta communities between and around the Rio Casamance and Rio Cacheu, making slaves of many people. . . . In the closing years of the century, Cacheu replaced Sao Domingos as the most important entrepot on the Rio Cacheu. . . . About 125 kilometers upriver from Cacheu, Farim was also an important port on the Cacheu. Farim sat at the ria coastline’s edge and attracted a great number of Mandinka merchants, who dubbed the town Tubabodaga, or ‘White Man’s Village.’ There lancados met with Mande-speaking traders, most of whom were from Kaabu. . . . This was a period of expansion of both the Kaabu empire and the Atlantic slave trade. Slaves taken in Kaabu wars were sold to lancados at Farim and then shipped west to Cacheu, where they were put aboard vessels bound for the Cape Verde Islands and points beyond. . . . As the violence connected with the Atlantic slave trade proliferated on the coast at the end of the sixteenth and start of the seventeenth century, many Balanta found living in dispersed morancas to be very dangerous. Hence morancas began to ‘concentrate’ into defensive tabancas, many of which were surrounded by large stockades. . . . For example, Adelino Bidenga Sanha stated, ‘the tabanca grew rapidly because of the wars of the Fula. For this, Balanta liked to agglomerate so as to make groups for war or to counter attacks of Fula and Mandinka who at times attacked Balanta. After this Balanta began to marry among themselves. This contributed to the enlargement of this and other tabancas. . . . By the seventeenth century, Guinea Bissau’s ports of Cacheu and Bissau had emerged as the most important commercial centers on the Upper Guinea Coast. The slaves departing from these points found themselves forced to labor beside Africans from elsewhere on the continent on plantations, in mines, and in cities across the New World.’”

Wlater Rodney continues in Upper Guinea and the Significance of the Origins of Africans Enslaved in the New World,

“Portuguese slave traders regarded the river Cacheu as a slaver’s paradise, for within the narrow compass of that river basin, they encountered five people’s - Djola, Papel, Banhun, Casanga and Balanta each of whom was divided into several political units. Neither the Djola nor the Balanta took any active part in the slave trade, but they were nevertheless to be found among slave cargoes because they were exposed to attacks and man stealing by their neighbors. The Bijago who resided in the islands off the Cacheu and Geba estuaries, were particularly noted for their piratical activities, and steadily supplied the Portuguese with Djola, Papel, Balanta, Beafada and Nalu captives. Bijago hostilities were at their height at the turn of the seventeenth century, when the raids of their formidable war canoes forced the three Beafada rulers of Rio Grande de Buba to appeal to the king of Portugal and the Pope for protection, offering in turn to embrace Christianity. Long after this peak period, the inhabitants of the tiny Bijago islands were still supplying over 400 captives per year, all taken from the coastal strip between the Cacheu and the Cacine. . . . The most significant partnership was between the Europeans and the Mandinga, among the latter of whom were the principal agents of the trans-atlantic slave trade in Upper Guinea.”

The earliest account of the Balantas by name in written records is recorded by Valentim Fernandes, Descripcam, in 1506:  “There was very little stratification in Balanta society. Everyone worked in the fields, with no ruling class or families managing to exclude themselves from daily labor.”  Andre Alvares Almada (Trato breve dos rios de Guine, trans. P.E.H. Hair -) wrote in 1594, “The Creek of the Balantas penetrates inland at the furthest point of the land of the Buramos [Brame]. The Balantas are fairly savage blacks.” In 1615, Manuel Alvares commented, ‘They [Balantas] have no principle king. Whoever has more power is king, and every quarter of a league there are many of this kind.’ In 1617 more than 2,000 African captives were shipped from Cacheu. In 1627, Alonso de Sandoval wrote that Balanta were ‘a cruel people, [a] race without a king.’ 

Describing the Balanta as farmers and cattle herders with an organized, decentralized egalitarian political system

The terms “cruel” and “savage” used to describe Balanta can easily be qualified as political terms used to demonize them for their fierce and effective resistance to domination and enslavement. According to Amilcar Cabral, “because of their type of society, a horizontal (level) society, but of free men, who want to be free, who do not have oppression at the top, except the oppression of the Portuguese. The Balanta is his own man.” Walter Rodney agrees. During this period from the 1570’s to 1776, Rodney writes in A History of The Upper Guinea Coast 1545 to 1800,  

“Indeed, some tribes displayed chronic hostility towards the Europeans; The Djolas were in this latter category. . . . Another group, the Balantas, were so hostile that the belief was widespread among the Europeans on the coast that the Balantas killed all white men that they caught.“

According to John Horhn’s They Had No King: Ella Baker and the Politics of Decentralized Organization Among African Descended Populations, 

“Furthermore, the Balanta were extremely mistrusting of outsiders not from their own lineage or tabancas. This was true even when applied to members of their own ethnic group and resulted in a culture that held loyalty to the tabancas above all else. Therefore, it was impossible for outside forces to gain influence over Balanta culture without direct conquest and the commitment of military resources. The fact that the Balanta possessed very little material culture and existed in dispersed settlement patterns would have discouraged the notion of any such conquest.”

Walter Hawthorne also writes in Strategies of the Decentralized, 

"One of the most important strategies was abandoning places that were easily accessible and therefore vulnerable to attack. . . . As interior states began to form before the fifteenth century and to harvest captives for sale to Atlantic merchants in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, many groups saw migration as the best way to avoid enslavement and subjutgation. . . . One strategy was to seize captives and to ransom them back to the villages from which they had come. Myriad Balanta communities that were reluctant to have direct trade contacts with Europeans pursued this strategy. For example, in 1927, Alberto Gomes Pimentel wrote that when the Balanta seized people they were often held until ‘relatives’ paid some price for the freedom of their kin.  Cattle, he said, were often demanded as payment, but other items were also requested. Oral narratives also give us a picture of what might have been a typical transaction. Speaking of Balanta raids, one informant said that ‘prisoners were tied to the branch or trunk of a cabeceira tree for some time.  Those of strength communicated to the families of the prisoners that they should pay a ransom for the prisoners if they were to be freed.’ Others spoke of the exchange of captives for a ransom. Through ransoming, some Balanta communities avoided entry into the regional trade in slaves but managed to increase the wealth of their communities and to gain valuable items such as iron, that they needed for defense against slave raiders.”

In Planting Rice and Harvesting Slaves: Transformations along the Guinea-Bissau Coast, 1400-1900, Walter Hawthorne writes,

“Faced with the proliferation of violence associated with slave raids, Balanta living in dispersed morancas or households, began concentrating into tabancas in secluded areas near coastal rivers where they could better defend themselves. . . . As late as 1732, European sailors were loath to venture up the Rio Geba for fear of coming in contact with Balanta age-grade warriors. . . . Portuguese and French officials on the coast left many complaints about Balanta stealing cattle at the same time they were capturing people. ‘They are all great thieves,’ Manuel Alvares noted in the early seventeenth century, ‘and they tunnel their way into compounds to steal the cattle. They excel at making assaults . . . taking everything they can find and capturing as many persons as possible.’. . . Spanish Capuchins specifically mentioned that Balanta ‘play a certain instrument that they call in their language bombolon’ to ‘announce the attack.’ . . .

Oral narratives are not the only places we can find evidence  . . . Occupying lands next to some of the most important interregional trade routes (the Rio Geba, Rio Cacheu, and Rio Mansoa), Balanta staged frequent attacks on merchant vessels. During such assaults, Balanta seized passengers to sell back to the communities from which they had come, ‘to black neighbors,’ who took them to Bissau or Cacheu . . .

If Balanta staged raids on villages and merchant vessels, what did they do with those they seized? Like people in other parts of Africa, Balanta exercised several options with captives. They sold, ransomed, killed, and retained them, and they did these things for reasons inexorably linked to the logic of Balanta communities.

Balanta typically divided captives into two groups: whites and Africans. Whites were often killed, dismembered, and displayed as trophies by bold young men who returned to their villages with members of their age grades to celebrate a victory. Capuchin observers noted this behavior:

‘The Balanta only hold the blacks to sell them, but as for the whites that they seize, unfailingly, they kill them. Immediately, they cut them to pieces, and they put them as trophies on the points of spears, and they go about making a display of them through the villages as a show of their valor, and he who has murdered some white is greatly esteemed.’

Barbot also left a description of Balanta killing white merchants. The inhabitants of the banks of the Rio Geba, he wrote, ‘are more wild and cruel to strangers than themselves; for they will scarce release a white man upon any conditions whatsoever, but will sooner or later murder, and perhaps devour them.’ La Courbe told a similar story. Balanta, he warned, ‘are great thieves. They pillage whites and blacks indiscriminately whenever they encounter them either on land or at sea. They have large canoes and they will strip you of everything if you do not encounter them well armed. When they capture blacks, they sell them to others, with whites they just kill them.’ . . .

In part, the Balanta and other coastal groups resisted enslavement by exploiting the advantages offered by the region in which they lived. Put simply, the coast offered more defenses and opportunities for counterattack against slave-raiding armies and other enemies than did the savanna-woodland interior. In the early twentieth century, Portuguese administrator Alberto Gomes Pimentel explained how the Balanta utilized the natural protection of mangrove-covered areas – terrafe in Guinean creole – when they were confronted with an attack from a well-organized and well-armed enemy seeking captives or booty:  ‘Armed with guns and large swords, the Balanta, who did not generally employ any resistance on these occasions. . . . pretended to flee (it was their tactic), suffering a withdrawal and going to hide in the ‘terrafe’ on the margins on the rivers and lagoons, spreading out in the flats some distance so as not to be shot by their enemies. The attackers. . . . then began to return for their lands with all of the spoils of war’. Organizing rapidly and allying themselves with others in the area, the Balanta typically followed their enemies through the densely forested coastal region. At times, the Balanta waited until their attackers had almost reached their homelands before giving ‘a few shots and making considerable noise so as to cause a panic.’ The Balanta then engaged their enemies in combat, ‘many times corpo a corpo’. . . . 

Having assembled in what the Capuchins called ‘a great number,’ Balanta warriors struck their stranded victims quickly and with overwhelming force. ‘Upon approaching a boat,’ the Capuchins said, ‘they attack with fury, they kill, rob, capture and make off with everything.’ Such attacks happened with a great deal of regularity and struck fear in the hearts of merchants and missionaries alike. Others also commented on the frequency of Balanta raids on river vessels. On March 24, 1694, Bispo Portuense feared that he would fall victim to the Balanta when his boat, guided by grumetes, ran aground on a sandbar, probably on the Canal do Impernal, ‘very close to the territory of those barbarians.’ . . . .

Faced with an impediment to the flow of trade to their ports, the Portuguese tried to bring an end to Balanta raids. But they were outclassed militarily by skilled Balanta age-grade fighters.

Portuguese adjutant Amaro Rodrigues and his crew certainly discovered this. In 1696, he and a group of fourteen soldiers from a Portuguese post on Bissau anchored their craft somewhere near a Balanta village close to where Bissau’s Captain Jose Pinheiro had ordered the men to stage an attack. However, the Portuguese strategy was ill conceived. A sizable group of Balanta struck a blow against the crew before they had even left their boat. The Balanta killed Rodrigues and two Portuguese soldiers and took twelve people captive.”

However, these same “savages” and “barbarous” people were also the most organized farmers and cattle herders with a collective system of land ownership and government as first observed by Valentim Fernandes in 1506. Rodney writes in A History of The Upper Guinea Coast 1545 to 1800,

“The earliest European reports disclose that the Balantas had a multiplicity of petty settlements consisting of family lineages (Fernandes, 80)... The Balantas had quantities of prime yams…. The best farmers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries - the Balantas, the Banhuns, and the Djolas- all had cattle and goats …. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Andre Dornelas pointed out that Balanta territory was free from heavy vegetation. It was these very Balantas who reared the most livestock in the area, and it was they who provided supplies of foodstuffs for their neighbors…. That peoples who were far superior producers of food than the Mande and Fula are consistently dubbed ‘Primitives’ is due solely to the contention that they did not erect a superstructure of states.... It is only the Balantas who can be cited as lacking the institution of kingship. At any rate there seemed to have been little or no differentiation within Balanta society on the basis of who held property, authority and coercive power. Some sources affirmed that the Balantas had no kings, while an early sixteenth-century statement that the Balanta ‘kings’ were no different from their subjects must be taken as referring simply to the heads of the village and family settlements  as in the case of the Balantas, the family is the sole effective social and political unit. . . .The distribution of goods, to take a very important facet of social activity, was extremely well organized on an inter-tribal basis in the Geba-Casamance area, and one of the groups primarily concerned in this were the Balantas, who are often cited as the most typical example of the inhibited Primitives. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Portuguese realized that the Balantas were the chief agriculturalists and the suppliers of food to the neighboring peoples. The Beafadas and Papels were heavily dependent on Balanta produce, and in return, owing to the Balanta refusal to trade with the Europeans, goods of European origin reached them via the Beafadas and the Papels. The Balantas did not allow foreigners in their midst, but they were always present in the numerous markets held in the territory of their neighbors. . . . Among the Balantas, who are to be classed as a ‘stateless society’, the system of land tenure is different. The Balantas are all small landowners, working their lands on the principle of voluntary reciprocal labour.”

Amilcar Cabral in an excerpt from Part 1 The Weapon of Theory, Party Principles and Political Practice adds,

“The Balanta have what is called a horizontal society, meaning that they do not have classes one above the other. The Balanta do not have great chiefs; it was the Portuguese who made chiefs for them. Each family, each compound is autonomous and if there is any difficulty, it is a council of elders which settles it. There is no State, no authority which rules everybody. . . . Each one rules in his own house and there is understanding among them. They join together to work in the fields, etc. and there is not much talk. . . . Balanta society is like this: the more land you work, the richer you are, but the wealth is not to be hoarded, it is to be spent, for one individual cannot be much more than another. That is the principle of Balanta society. . . . As we have said, the Fula society, for example, or the Manjaco society are societies which have classes from the bottom to the top. With the Balanta it is not like that: anyone who holds his head very high is not respected any more, already wants to become a white man, etc. For example, if someone has grown a great deal of rice, he must hold a great feast, to use it up. Whereas the Fula and Manjaco have other rules, with some higher than others. This means that the Manjaco and Fula have what are called vertical societies. At the top there is the chief, then follow the religious leaders, the important religious figures, who with the chiefs form a class. Then come others of various professions (cobblers, blacksmiths, goldsmiths) who, in any society, do not have equal rights with those at the top. By tradition, anyone who was a goldsmith was even ashamed of it - all the more if he were a ‘griot’ (minstrel). So, we have a series of professions in a hierarchy, in a ladder, one below the other. The blacksmith is not the same as the cobbler, the cobbler is not the same as the goldsmith, etc.; each one has his distinct profession. Then come the great mass of folk who till the ground. They till to eat and live, they till the ground for the chiefs, according to custom. This is Fula and Manjaco society, with all the theories this implies such as that a given chief is linked to God. Among the Manjaco, for example, if someone is a tiller, he cannot till the ground without the chief’s order, for the chief carries the word of God to him. Everyone is free to believe what he wishes. But why is the whole cycle created? So that those who are on top can maintain the certainty that those who are below will not rise up against them. . . . In the societies with a horizontal structure, like the Balanta society, for example, the distribution of cultural levels is more or less uniform, variations being linked solely to individual characteristics and to age groups. In the societies with a vertical structure, like that of the Fula for example, there are important variations from the top to the bottom of the social pyramid. This shows once more the close connection between the cultural factor and the economic factor, and also explains the difference in the overall or sectoral behavior of these two ethnic groups towards the liberation movement. . . . In this bush society, a great number of Balanta adhered to the struggle, and this is not by accident, nor is it because Balanta are better than others. It is because of their type of society, a horizontal (level) society, but of free men, who want to be free, who do not have oppression at the top, except the oppression of the Portuguese. The Balanta is his own man. . . . “

Additionally, In Planting Rice and Harvesting Slaves: Transformations along the Guinea-Bissau Coast, 1400-1900, Walter Hawthorne writes,

“Like most in the coastal reaches of Guinea-Bissau, Balanta society was politically decentralized. In such societies, the village or confederation of villages was the largest political unit. Though a range of positions of authority often existed within villages and confederations, no one person or group claimed prerogatives over the legitimate use of coercive force. In face-to-face meetings involving many people, representatives from multiple households sat as councils threshing out decisions affecting the whole. At times, particularly influential people emerged, sometimes wielding more power than others and becoming ‘big men’ or ‘chiefs’. However, no ascriptive authority positions existed. Consensus was king. Whereas state-based systems concentrated power narrowly in a single ruler or small group of power brokers, in decentralized systems, power was more diffuse. Decentralized systems relied on unofficial leaders, but they lacked rulers. . . . 

[B]alanta, like many people living in decentralized societies, have not recorded their history on paper, and have few formalized and structured oral narratives. . . . Balanta frequently exchanged ideas and material goods with people with whom they came into contact. Such exchanges often took place in regional markets where Balanta yam, salt, and cattle producers met and mingled with merchants, some of whom offered expensive items not found locally but carried from other ecological zones. Competing for these items with other coastal dwellers, most of whom produced the same mix of goods, Balanta purchasing power was weak. Their ability to accumulate long-distance trade items, particularly iron, which was valuable for reinforcing agricultural implements needed in the production of particular crops, was very limited. 

Regularly meeting with others to trade, Balanta just as frequently resisted attempts by area groups, most importantly Mandinka from the powerful state of Kaaba, to dominate them politically. The decentralized nature of Balanta political and social structures and the physical environment that they inhabited facilitated this defense. Balanta, then, never became, as some scholars argued, ‘layers within the large section of the population which labored for the benefit of the [Mandinka] nobility.’ They struggled, often successfully, to maintain the independence of their households. . . . Resisters, then, refused to recognize Mandinka authority, uprooting their communities and taking refuge on the coast.”

Thus, from the 1500s to the 1750s, the Balanta people were exceptional farmers and cattle herders that had a heritage of fleeing foreigners attempting to dominate them and successfully defending and maintaining the independence of their households, unlike the other peoples living in the territory of Guinea. As we will see, Balanta would carry-over these things to Brazil and lay the foundation for the establishment of the Republic of Palmares (1607-1695). Likewise, Portugal would carry-over its dehumanization from Guinea to Brazil. However, on this point of demonizing the Balanta as “savages” and “barbarous”, consider:

President of the Republic of New Afrika, Imari Obadele writes in Revolution and Nation Building: Strategy for Building the Black Nation in America (1970):


“All of you who are New Africans have probably heard people ask what kind of political system and economic system will you have? They are attempting to get you to answer in terms of capitalism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism, democracy. What they don’t understand, and what you must understand, is that all of those terms are too limited to describe the African experience and what you as a New African are attempting to build.

Now why is that? One reason, of course, is that these terms were, for the most part, developed by Europeans in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries as they strove to make the world in which they lived understandable to them. The special meanings which we today associate with the terms communism, socialism, and capitalism were developed by Marx and Engels and, later, by Lenin, because they needed a theory - a complete world-view - which they felt to be scientific, to interpret the world and explain their revolution and help provide a method of action for the revolution they were dealing with. But the meanings came out of the European experience.

At the time they wrote, the theories of Darwin were beginning to enjoy a certain popularity. Today we take the theory of the evolution of man more or less for granted, but in those days they didn’t. To the scientists of that time it was a very exciting theory. Once Darwin, who was a biologist, had been able to demonstrate that man was a product of development through physical stages - that is to say, from Pithecanthropus Erectus (a very ape-like type), through Neanderthal man (a less ape-like type) to Homo Sapiens (modern man), Marx and other social scientists of his day, having looked at this type of progress, thought that it might be possible to look at the kinds of societies in which men live, the kinds of governments they have, and explain all this by use of a similar theory of evolution, of progress. As a result, they said that human society develops by passing through three main stages: savagery to barbarism to civilization. That was the game they played in those days. And they said, naturally, that white people represented the civilized world and everybody else was in a state either of barbarism or savagery. 

These so-called social scientists - historians and political scientists - developing their theories in the Nineteenth Century, were writing at a time when the slave trade had barely ended. Remember the Civil War began in 1861 - Darwwin’s ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES had appeared in 1859, and while Marx’s COMMUNIST MANIFESTO had appeared a decade earlier, Marx organized the International Workingman’s Association in 1864 and published the first volume of his DAS KAPITAL in 1867. What Marx and these other writers came heir to, the kind of literature they had to deal with at the time, was literature written by people who tried to justify the slave trade. In other words, it was written by white Europeans who were saying to other white Europeans that Africans were savages, therefore you should conquer them, enslave them, and civilize them. Remember, that was one of the very early excuses for African slavery; they were going to civilize us. And so all fo the books about other societies in the world outside of Europe tended to portray us as living in stages of savagery or barbarism. We NEEDED to be civilized.

Now, this construct - savagery to barbarism to civilization - is just like most of the other ‘rules’ and constructs of a social science: it is merely a hypothesis and not a law. And it is fundamentally untrue. So, too, with the specific progression that Karl Marx tacked onto the savagery-barbarism-civilization construct - the progression from primitive communalism to capitalism to socialism to communism. This was and is an interesting tool for helping us to understand, in some ways, some things that have happened in society and some things that are going on. But it is a hypothesis and not a law. Societies do not, first of all, all conform to the criteria which Marx established for defining primitive communalism.

What these early writers tended to do was to look at African society and say this is primitive communalism because, for instance, the land is held by the tribe. They would then rank African society at the bottom of the scale - of BOTH scales: we would be both savages and primitive communalists. (Occasionally the better studied African societies would be ranked barbarous and feudal - a step higher.) The truth is that most of the African societies to which they made reference were barked by two characteristics not at all primitive. One was a very elaborate theology, cosmology, and religion. The other was a highly organized political system.”

Dehumanization language used to to eliminate Balantas in Brazil

From 1550 to 1690 most Brazilian slaves (prisoners of war) resided on sugar plantations in the northeast provinces of Maranhão, Pernambuco, and Bahia and in the southern province of Rio de Janeiro. Jose Lingna Nafafe writes in Lourenco da Silva Mendonca and the Black Atlantic Abolitionist Movement in the Seventeenth Century, 

“The city of Salvador was not a pleasant place for the colonial elite during the years of the royals’ stay, threatened as it was by Indigenous people and the fugitive enslaved Africans. The most important event of the war against the residents was also predicated on the idea that both enslaved Africans and Indigenous Americans joined forces to attack the city. The Indigenous Americans were associated with Africans in Palmares (Guineans, probably Balanta since they established Palmares). . . .  The attack on the city was not unilateral, but rather bilateral, with the Africans joining forces with the Natives. The threat from the Indigenous Americans and Africans worried the City Council, who associated it with Palmares . . . . Palmares was equated with the violence that the ‘non-tamed’ or ‘unseasoned - non conquered’ Indigenous people usually carried out on the Portuguese settlements. The Africans of Palmares (Guineans, probably Balanta) were believed to have a collaboration with the Indigenous people against the Portuguese. . . . In Bahia, it was clear that the Indigenous people and the Africans were seen as threats to the interests of the settlers. So, the council’s petition to the king of Portugal or regent was to ask for support, but also for the license to eliminate the Indigenous people from Bahia: ‘if you were to look at evil things that have been caused to the State of Brazil by the Natives, it was not only that they were made captives, but also to decree that they be eliminated once and for all’. As Marques put it, the category of ‘Indigenous’ underwent a profound change; the Indigenous came to be described as ‘barbarous’, giving the conquistadores a right to make a claim that their actions against them were justifiable. The desired elimination of the Indigenous people required a rhetoric that justified it even while the real objective for repressing them was the appropriation of their resources. . . . On 9 September 1672, the City Council of Salvador requested support from the Crown in Lisbon to destroy Palmares.”

Thus, the dehumanizing language and narrative of “savages” and “barbarous” were used on both sides of the Atlantic, to justify warfare and genocide against the Balanta in their homelands and in Palmares.” 


KIDNAPPED BALANTAS RESIST PORTUGUESE ENSLAVEMENT

Nafafe continues,

Portugal

“The historical evidence I found has shown that the popes were in favour of and even encouraged slavery. . . . The pope represented the very institution, the Vatican, which had passed bulls to the Iberian kings (of Portugal and Spain), enjoining them to conquer Africans in the name of the Christian God. . . . Several bulls to this effect had been sent to the Portuguese Crown in the fifteenth century. There was the aforementioned bull of 1452 issued by Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas. In 1455, Pope Calixtus III confirmed the monopoly over all lands in Africa to King Afonso V of Portugal. On 3 May 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued the Inter Caetera bulls, granting the West Africa region, and also Brazil, to the Portuguese monarchy, and the Americas to Spain. The boundaries between Portugal and Spain were then settled at the Treaty of Tordesillas on 7 June 1494. All the bulls gave both Spain and Portugal the legal right [Note: in their mind] to capture and enslave Africans at will. Munzer stated clearly that when the Portuguese returned from their sixth expedition to Guinea, they brought with them about 653 enslaved, some of whom they sold in Portugal, while others were given as a present to the pope and the remaining were given to other people.” ( pp 372-373)

“Many enslaved Africans were brought to Portugal. Even in the fifteenth century, Jerome Munzer, a German medical doctor who visited Portugal from 26 November to 1 December 1494, claimed that he ‘saw an enormous forge with many ovens, where anchors and columns were made’, and that ‘there were a great many Negroes working near these ovens . . . . Indeed, there were so many Blacks in Lisbon, that he exclaimed: ‘Of how large the number of Negro slaves in Lisbon these days brought out of Ethiopia’. On 26 March 1535, a Flemish priest, Nicholas Clenardo, wrote from Evora to his friend Latimo that:

‘... the slaves swarm in every part. All the work is done by captive Negroes and Moors. . . . I believe that in Lisbon male and female slaves are more than the free Portuguese. It is difficult to find a house where there is not at least one of these female slaves . . . . the wealthier have slaves from both sexes, and there are people who make good profit with the sale of the slaves’ children born in the house.’

Resende, a Portuguese historian and chronicler, was critical of the number of enslaved Africans in Portugal: ‘we bring into this kingdom a growing number of captives and if the Natives go, that is, if it goes this way, they will be more than us, in my opinion.’ By 1550, in Lisbon alone there were 10,000 Africans, constituting 10 percent of the population. By the mid-eighteenth century 15 -17 percent of Lisbon’s population was of African descent, and 800,000 Africans had been brought to the Iberian Peninsula.” (pp.302 - 303)

As we have seen above, Cacheu was the Portugues main commercial port in Guinea where many Balanta were trafficked as prisoners of the war and invasion launched by Pope Nicholas in which Bijago, Papel, Fula and Mandinka from the Kaabu empire, became enemy combatants against the Balanta.

Confraternities

“So there were many Africans living in Portugal before Mendonca reached the country, and among them were both enslaved and free Africans who had gone to Portugal on their own initiative as students, ambassadors, priests and businessmen. These groups constituted the members of the confraternities, the first of which - the Confraternity of Our Lady of the Rosary of Black Men - was created in Lisbon at the Monastery of Sao Domingos on 14 July 1496, forty years after the Portuguese had arrived in the region of modern Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone and Senegal.” (pp 303-304)

“By 1526 the confraternities had been granted the right, via their compromisso or constitution, to liberate their members from slavery or buy them from captivity. . . . Furthermore, to comprehend the membership of the confraternities, there is a need to recognize the privileges that the constitution awarded them, in terms of belonging, legal rights and their relationship with the political and religious authorities in the lands in which they were situated.

At the center of the confraternities was the legal framework, the compromisso or constitution that allowed the confraternity members to belong to the community of the free, liberated them from slavery and allowed them to engage in business transactions. By virtue of their membership of a confraternity, members were freemen, the act of becoming a member of a confraternity was an act of freedom. By joining confraternities members exercised their right to freedom. The confraternities were clubs for the free, regardless of their status - be they Africans, Indigenous Brazilians, White Europeans, Blacks, male, femal, Jews, Moors - all could be members. The privileges, particularly those around freedom, afforded to the confraternities via the constitution provided the legal framework in which Mendonca was operating . . . . “ (pp 300-302)

“By the seventeenth century there were many confraternities, or Brotherhoods of Black people, in Portugal. According to Gray, they were seen as ‘a respectable alternative to the revolutionary quilombos or settlements formed by slaves,’ which were more militant in outlook. The confraternities were the centres from which enslaved Africans and free Black, whether born or liberated, living in Portugal could voice their concerns about their position in Portuguese society.” (pp 303-304) [Note: the confraternities were like the early NAACP in the United States while the quilomobos were more like the UNIA]

“The Black Brotherhoods, particularly from Spain, Portugal and Brazil . . . urged the pope to take punitive action against the ‘sellers’ and ‘buyers’ of Africans, and to demand that orders be given to the overseas officials in Africa to prohibit the slave trade inthose regions: ‘It suggested that to repair the situation first, the following is to be done: ministers of Guinea are to order that the sale of kidnapped Black Brotherhoods or those taken from the fields with fraud be prohibited.’ The kidnappers were deploying various tactics to acquire slaves, including capturing them from agricultural fields. Kidnappers went to these places knowing that the Africans would be exposed and an easy target for slave-traders. The Blacks’ statement demonstrates the injustice of the slave trade in seeking captives through easy means, rather than through the alleged wars that were believed to be the legal source of the enslaved.” (p. 358)

Santidade in Bahia

“In the late sixteenth century the Santidade movement arose in Jaguaripe (Bahia). This was described by Ronaldo Vainfas as an Indigenous movement or sect created in response to Portuguese violence in the region. As a movement, it was political as well as religious. It resisted Portuguese ideology that marginalized both Indigenous and Africans in Bahia. Vanifas states that: ‘the Santidade movement was looming in plain sight in its haven in Jaguaripe, inciting revolts, setting Bahia on fire’. As a movement its members included fugitive enslaved Africans and White Europeans. Vanifas declares: ‘there is still no shortage of news about the adhesion of Blacks from Guinea, Mamelukes and even White people who converted to Santidade and practiced their ceremonies.’” (p. 247)

Salvador

“From its inception as a city in 1549, Salvador served as a link to Pernambuco, Paraiba and Sergipe in the north of the country and the isles, Porto Seguro, Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Vicente and Buenos Aires in Argentina to the south. Ships from India, Angola, the Gold Coast, Guinea and Cape Verde, as well as England, France and Portugal all stopped in Salvador to trade, as Dampier, an English merchant reported in the seventeenth century. The city was home to people from many different nations and included traders, enslaved Africans from West Central Africa, Angola, and form elsewhere on the West African Coast, ‘for the most part, in Senegambia and Guinea-Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe (the so-called Guine [Guinea] enslaved people) among its inhabitants. There were free people from Angola, who were there as soldiers, free Africans from the region of modern Guinea Bissau, Cacheu, who were hired to work as carpenters. Many of them were not employed in the sugar plantations, but as domestic workers, street hawkers, cooks and fishermen, while some of the women became wives or mistresses., or transport workers who carried their masters through the streets of Salvador. The nature of their work meant that both enslaved persons and the free constituted a powerful network throughout the city of Salvador and other regions of Brazil.” (pp 214-215).

Palmares

“According to Sebastiao da Rocha Pitta (1660-1738), a Bahian born in Salvador and a historian, the community at Palmares started when forty Guinean men, former enslaved people from Pernambuco, left for Palmares and formed a republic there. Pitta was a contemporary of the Palmares War (1695). His father, Joao Velho Gondim was a captain, although it is not known whether he took part in the conquest of Palmares. What is certain is that Pitta’s account of the events at Palmares is the most contemporary one that we have. According to him, the men living there were formerly enslaved people, but they had not been ill-treated by their owners, which remains a moot point. In other words, these were men who had voluntarily decided to form a republic of their own with other men with a similar vision to live ‘free of any domination’. Pitta saw their community as a robust republic that was not based on Greek principles or ideology, but on their own African ideals, hence an African republic in Brazil. The group at Palmares was a league of friends, family and relatives or macamba who established a community in which to live and engage in business with the local people. [Siphiwe note: this is the very description of Balanta society back in Guinea] Indeed, the word macamba (meaning friends, family, relatives in Kimbundu) would be a more fitting name than mocambo, as there was no sense that the group set itself up as a military encampment, even though it became necessary for them to engage in armed fighting. It would not be far-fetched to suggest that it was the Portuguese who used the term mocambo rather than macamba to describe the community for political reasons and to encourage support and justify their war against it. 

Histories of Palmares have so far made no connection between members of Palmares with their homes in Africa and with the Brazilian-born political elites. What is known is that former enslaved Africans inhabited Palmares and formed a community there. . . . 

Antonio Luis Coutinho da Camara, the governor of Bahia from 1690 to 1694, and later a viceroy of India, considered it his key mission to destroy the existing mocambo or quilombos in the region. . . . Like Camamu, Palmares was destroyed in 1695 because it posed a constant and very serious threat to the Portuguese authorities economic interests in the region. . . . 

Indeed, an examination of the law regarding war captives in Angola, particularly in Mbundu society, throws light on the dynamics of runaway enslaved people in Brazil. As mentioned in Chapter 2, there was amnesty law used in Mbundu society in the seventeenth century and Angolan customary practices were underpinned by three principles: the Principle of Return or the Principle of mucua; the Principle of Safe Haven; and the Principle of Asylum.

First, the Principle of Return or Mucua was based on the law of liberty, and on the ability of captives to exercise their liberty to gain independence, with the protection of the law. In his Kimbundu grammar, published in 1697, the Jesuit Priest Pedro Dias translated the term mucua into Portuguese as abode, which means a place of habitation. Thus the Principle of Return, that is, of returning home, was not simply about having the independence to achieve freedom, but about having the legal resources to free one’s self when there was a legal precedent to achieve it. This legal framework was the original place, a place of citizenship, home - mucua - and guaranteed nbata rinene or ‘a great house’ or community to which an enslaved could return. According to Thiongo, home is a place of being, where we are taught the values of our legal system, philosophy, history, economy and our identity, in other words, who we are. Accordingly, mucua is a site of Mbundu identity, which is not based on the Cartesian philosophy of being cogito ergo sum  (‘I think, therefore I Am’), but on the African philosophy ‘I think therefore we are’. Crime was dealt with in this original place. If an accused was found guilty, his or her sentence and punishment were dealt with locally, and the guilty would repair the damage of the crime by either serving the plaintiff or giving gifts to make up any losses.The soba ensured that any punishment was fair for both parties. This legal system has survived in Angola until today. 

Second, the Principle of Safe Haven details the amnesty that applies to a fugitive who finds refuge with a powerful lord or a king. The fugitive may feel that legal process had not been followed in events leading to his or her capture or that the legality of his or her capture had not been proven. Seeking amnesty is fundamental to the captive achieving freedom, and amnesty could be sought from a powerful lord, who would use his power to protect the fugitive.

Third, the Principle of Asylum covers cases where the accused could seek to leave his or her community after being found guilty or simply after being accused if there was not enough evidence to support his or her prosecution. The accused might leave his or her original location and move to another province, in which case amnesty would also apply, but she or he could never return to the location where she or he were accused of the crime, particularly in cases of crimes such as murder and witchcraft. Running away in such circumstances is not based on personal whim; there must be protection and a legal network in place to achieve it. IF a fugitive did not know a powerful lord directly, she or he needed to be introduced to one by a representative. 

In Brazil, the Principle of Safe Haven and the Principle of Asylum were applied by the runaway enslaved people through the formation of quilombos or macambos, which entailed the use of these principles. Thus, to run away from one’s captivity was not done in a vacuum; one needed a safe haven. The first principle appears to have been used more frequently than the last in Brazil. Antonil noted that enslaved people, once guilty, could run away or commit suicide, but they normally sought reconciliation with the owners by reuniting with them.

Quilombo dos Palmares could not have existed as a safe haven for as long as it did (1607-1695) without some form of legal space allowing for it. I argue that Brazil, in particular Palmares, was not a terra nullis (‘unowned land’) nor was it res nullis (‘unowned things’); it was not a kind of ‘nobody’s land’. On the contrary, it belonged to the Indigenous Brazilians, who befriended Africans in the region. If it were not for their alliance with the Indigenous Brazilians, who allowed Palmares to exist, there would not have been a safe haven for Africans at Palmares. . . . 

Palmares was macamba and not mocambo, it became mocambo by necessity. The intention of its forty founding runaway enslaved people was to form a community and not a military camp, and any military side to the community was only meant to be temporary and for a specific purpose. The claim that Palmares was mocambo was made by the Portuguese to justify a ‘just war’ aimed at its destruction. A mocambo was formed for the purpose of war and not as a permanent state.  Palmarists did not see themselves as mocambo, but rather as macamba. Palmares might possibly have survived as an independent state in Brazil, however, had it not been for Viera’s interpretation of it and the theologically infused economic/moral case he made against it. . . . 

Palmares was a refusal to submit to the Portuguese, a declaration of independence, and a symbol of insubordination. Resistance provided a space for negotiation as it created an absence in the balance of power between Palmares and the Portuguese Crown. Palmare’s resistance to Portugal’s economic interests was only an option because there was no scope for negotiation. The Palmarists opted for a non-negotiable relationship with the Portuguese. Palmares was a rejection and at the same time an inversion of the colonial values around slavery and the treatment of enslaved people as non-human. However, the Palmarists pursued other things in Palmares, exploring resources, power, wealth, control, collection of taxes and protection. The region of Pernambuco provided the Plmarists with alternative ways to pursue the kind of life that they knew best, the African way of life, with the flexibility to adapt to the local Brazilian environment in which they found themselves.” (pp 241-272)

“Quilobos would not have existed if they were not afforded protection from the so-called ‘untamed’ Indigenous people, the “indios Bravos’ also known as ‘Tapuyas Bravos - Pira-Tapuia. . . . There were two particularly fierce groups of Native fighters in the region - the Cupinharoz and Precatiz. These Indigenous Brazilians could have fought against the Africans in Palmares if they wanted, but they never did; at least we do not have documentary sources to suggest that they did. . . . What is interesting is that the so-called untamed Tapuyas never saw Quilombo de Palmares or Africans in general as their enemies. Instead, they turned their attacks on the Portuguese residence in Peauhy and other areas of Pernambuco. Indigenous people and Africans lived together in Caninde. They supported each other in a fight for survival: they worked together in the fields, herding cattle and trading.” (p. 246)

“To understand the logic of running away from captivity in Brazil, I look at the Angolan legislation covering runaway enslaved people and argue that it was deployed against those who took refuge in Quilombo dos Palmares. . . . Palmares was both a political and social space. It was not only a refuge for enslaved fugitives but also a place in which those born free came together and formed a community parallel to that of the Portuguese enslavers. It was an alternative power structure, with a different economic model. At the time, it was viewed as militant, and a menace to the Portuguese establishment in Brazil who attempted to destroy it by force of arms. Brazilian historiography has seen Palmares as an ‘African state’ in Brazil. More recently there are those who view Palmares as a creolised State.

Based on that, I argue that Palmares created its own economy, which provoked the governing authorities in Bahia . . . . (pp )

“Palmaritsts were the new colonizers of Brazil, and if they were afforded freedom, this ‘would be the total destruction of Brazil, since the other blacks knowing that through this means they could be free, each city, each town, each place, each sugar mill, would soon become other Palmares, fleeing and going to the forests with all their stock, that is nothing more than their own body.” (pp 268-269).

Thus, when Nafafe writes, “according to Sebastiao da Rocha Pitta (1660-1738), a Bahian born in Salvador and a historian, the community at Palmares started when forty Guinean men, former enslaved people from Pernambuco, left for Palmares and formed a republic there” there is a great probability that Balanta where included in those forty Guinean men and that their love of freedom was a driving force behind it since it is unlikely that it was the Beafada and Brame Guineas, or any other peoples from the same region, that led this movement since, back in their ancestral homeland, they were dependent on Balanta for farming and did not have the heritage of resistance and decentralized social structure like the Balanta.



BALANTA EXAMPLE OF PALMARES INSPIRES IMARI OBADELE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NEW AFRIKA 

In Black Power, Black Lawyer: Memoir of Nkechi Taifa it is stated, 

“Ever since our ancestors were snatched from our homeland of Africa, there have always been people who fought back and fashioned resistance movements to regain freedom and independence. Brother Imari [Obadele] taught that it was military forces nurtured in the hills of Santo Domingo that brought independence to Haiti. One-hundred seventy-five years before that, we revolted and established the legendary Palmares Republic, which lasted over 100 years, located in what is now Alagoas, Brazil, bordering Bahia. Even today, there are more people of African descent in that region than there are in the U.S. This maroon state stood as the greatest challenge to European rule in so-called Latin America.

The Quilombos of Palmeres had hundreds of homes, churches, and shops. Its fields were irrigated African-style with streams. It was a structured society that had courts to carry out justice for its thousands of citizens. It was an elected republic of free, united people, living communally and in prosperity. Unlike the colonizer’s sole emphasis on sugar cane for export, in Palmares, maize, beans, potatoes and vegetables were also planted. Ownership of land was collective, a tradition Blacks brought from Africa. 

Periodically, the people of Palmares ventured from the hills to rescue others who were enslaved, obtain arms, powder, and tools and also to mete out justice to overseers. Despite military expedition after expedition, the Republic of Palmares remained independent and was not destroyed by the Portuguese until nearly a hundred years later..

After a 42-day siege, many of the warriors flung themselves over a cliff rather than surrender to the Portuguese. The ruler, Ganga Zumbi, was captured and beheaded by the enemy. In a case of sheer terrorism, his head was barbarically displayed ‘to kill the legend of his immortality,’ according to the ‘civilized’ Europeans. For generations, the Republic of Palmares had united many people under an African form of government and culture, and had successfully defended itself from invaders. After each victory, they returned to planting and harvesting abundant crops, and continuing the quest for sovereignty.

It was clear to me that Brother Imari idolized the Palmares model of an independent government and military system, despite it having occurred during the eras of enslavement and colonialism. He emphasized that in the U.S., free communities set up by escaped Africans in Florida, Georgia, and elsewhere in territory claimed by the United States, were also continuously sought out for destruction.

He stated, ‘Every time we ran away, it didn’t matter whether we went away quietly in the night like Harriet Tubman. It didn’t matter if we organized elaborate insurrections like Denmark Vesey. It didn’t matter if we fled to Pennsylvania or New York - they always came after us, with their armed forces, paddy rollers, militia, and dogs.’

‘Why didn’t it matter?’ Brother Imari would stridently quiz.

‘Because the White folk had decided they were going to live here!’ he thundered in response to his own query. ‘Wasn’t gonna be no 100 years of Palmares liberation.’

When Nkechi Taifa wrote that, she was unaware that she was writing about Balanta ancestors!

Imari Obadele Studies Palmares in his Doctoral Thesis

In May 1985, Imari Obadele  submitted his thesis, NEW AFRICAN STATE-BUILDING IN NORTH AMERICA: A Study of Reaction Under the Stress of Conquest, to the Temple University Graduate Board in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In it he writes, 

“The greatest achievement in New African state-building during slavery, next to the triumph of Haiti, was the Palmares Republic in Brazil. Like the Kingdom of New Koromanteen, it lasted for more than 100 years.

In Brazil, the war of European conquest against the Amerindian and the New African, with the European - here, the Portuguese - relentlessly seeking unconditional hegemony, was played out as graphically as anywhere. This remarkable, raging passion of the European not to compromise or share power with the Amerindian or New African but to reduce them each utterly, socially and politically, beneath European hegemony was everywhere present in the Americas. The Kingdom of the Koromanteens had checked it, this passion, and the British had spent huge treasure and the lives of many soldiers, over 75 years, trying not to believe what was happening to them. The Haitians had checked this passion in the French. The Palmares republicans too checked it in the Portuguese - but only for a while. For, in Brazil the passion of the Europeans, the Portuguese, for total social and political hegemony over the Amerindians and the New Africans has been, so far, enormously fulfilled. . . . 

As I have indicated, persons held as slaves escaped the harsh conditions and humiliations of slavery, often, by establishing or fleeing to the ubiquitous freedom communities in the interior, which lasted virtually until the end of slavery in 1888. The fact is that these communities were populated not only by escaped slaves but also by free persons, black and mulatto, who also left the reach of the Brazilian state because of oppression and humiliation and who, above all, wanted freedom and opportunity. Not all of the emancipated slaves in Brazil possessed the skills needed, for them, to overcome the obstacles imposed on peoples of color, once they were liberated. . . . 

The annals of African slavery in the New World contain instances of slaves in North America and in South America who fled from plantations not to set up permanent new communities in the forest but to protest conditions of work and to return on promise of improved conditions (this was in the nature of a labor strike), or who fled simply as a method of gaining a vacation from the plantation routine before returning. Thomas Flory even suggests that some plantation owners in Brazil may have tolerated the existence of nearby quilombos - freedom villages - as a means of maintaining a reserve labor force during the slack seasons without costs to the plantation, since the escaped Africans would grow their own food in the quilombos and might return to the plantation to work during planting and harvesting, much like contract workers.

Whether or not Flory’s speculation is probable, and however un-rare slave labor negotiations may have been, it is certain that many thousands of Africans in the Americas escaped from slavery with the preconceived determination of departing that condition forever. History makes us equally certain that - although this reality is purposely underplayed in the literature, hastily reported, and generally denigrated - thousands of Africans sought not only abstract freedom but the building of states. 

The first of the communities which would ultimately become the Palmares Republic was established in northeastern Brazil about 1595. It was known during the governorship of Diogo Botelho (1602-1608), and while the Dutch seized and held the Portuguese town of Recife and its environs, that determined freedom village - or, quilombo - suffered at least two major attacks by the Netherlanders. The last was particularly devastating When, therefore, a major new group of Africans arrived in 1650, the community made the decision to move the settlement deeper into the forest of the Captaincy of Pernambuco, far beyond the white frontier.

The 50 new arrivals of 1650 had risen against their masters and taken all the arms and provisions which they could manage, before retiring to Palmares. 

At the new location the Republic steadily grew. Early on, a detachment of men was dispatched to secure wives. It swept through the nearest plantations and brought back all the women who came within their reach - black, mulatto, and white. The were secure against successful reprisal or attack at Palmares not only because of the remoteness of the Republic’s settlements but also because each of the towns was well fortified, surrounded by high massive walls made of high tree trunks, with broad gates. (three for the capital city of Palmares) surmounted by observation platforms. Especially were they secure because, toward the end of the seventeenth century, the Palmares Republic could field an army of 10,000 fighting men. Palmares, the capital city, was estimated by then to have had a population of 20,000. Charles Chapman estimates the population of the Republic as 30,000. In addition to the self-freed Africans (including mulattos), the smattering of kidnapped white women, and a number of free blacks and free mulattoes who had come, the population also included some free whites seeking a better life in the industrious communities of Palmares. There were Indians also in the population.

In classic African fashion this New African state was governed by a king and a council of elders. The King was elected  from among African (and mulatto) men whose right to candidacy arose from their exemplary conduct and bravery. Thus, any man of African descent could aspire to this highest political honor.

To assure domestic tranquility, even while on a constant war footing, the Councils passed laws approving the death penalty for murder, adultery, and robbery. Persons who arrived at Palmares freely having achieved their freedom by revolt or flight or purchase or having been otherwise free, remained free. But those slaves taken from plantations by Palmares raiders continued as slaves within the Republic. However, such persons could attain their freedom by inducing other slaves to escape. Clearly, the Palmares Republic placed a premium on freedom - and on those who, though held as slaves, still loved freedom enough to risk life for it. . . . 

At first the men of Palmares would repeatedly cross the frontier to raid the European plantations and highways for provisions and arms and women. But, as in almost all quilombos, the people of Palmares had early turned to an effort at self-sufficiency agriculture and, like some other quilombos, rapidly produced a surplus.  The products included sugar cane, beans, maize, tobacco, cotton, rice and manioc (used for making flour). In short time, particularly as some whites, seeking new lands, pushed the frontier closer and closer to the land claimed by the Republic - and Russell-Wood has put the Palmares land at 4,500 square leagues, or approximately 13,500 square miles, an area larger than Belgium - the proud free people of Palmares entered into regular and peaceful trade with the whites. The trade provided those goods which the towns of Palmares did not produce themselves.

The Palmareans were no junior partners in this relationship. Thomas Flory has reported on Brazilian court records, chronicling a dispute in later days, between whites, over the land of the Palmares Republic. These records indicate that the Palmares Republic had rented land to free white settlers over a period of years. These tenants had rendered their rents, at least in part, in the form of tools, gunpowder, shot, and arms. The records further indicate that the Palmareans had, indeed, evicted some of these white tenants when their rents fell unacceptably in arrears. There is little doubt that the military strength of Palmares was a major factor in the peace and stability which marked most of a half-century of relations between the Palmares Republic and the nearby white settlements.

But that peace did not extend to relations with the Portuguese government and its official colonial structures in Brazil. 

With a territory more than three-fourths the size of the Netherlands and with well functioning political and social structures and a promising economy, the Palmares Republic offered the Europeans of Brazil an opportunity to fashion peaceful relations with a capable, politically democratic, neighboring state. The Portuguese-Brazilians did not accept this opportunity. Instead, across 50 years up to 1696, the Portuguese launched 14 major expeditions against this strong New Afrikan state. These all failed, usually with severe losses for the Portuguese-Brazilians. But a further expedition organized in 1696 by the governor of the Pernambuco Captaincy, Caetano de Mello, was composed of 7,000 heavily armed men, mercenaries from Sao Paulo, who had been promised land from the vast territory of Palmares if they succeeded in overwhelming the Republic.

This expedition brought sufficient cannon to breach the walls of the towns and mercilessly savage the inhabitants. The attackers were forced by the resisters in the capital city of Palmares to lay siege. When they were finally able to enter the city, they were required to fight foot-by-foot. ‘At last the defenders came to the center of Palmares, where a high cliff impeded further retreat. Death or surrender were now the only alternative. Seeing that his cause was lost, King Zumbi hurled himself over the cliff, and his action was followed by the most distinguished of his fighting men. 

It could be argued that the Portuguese and Brazillians are due no special condemnation for refusal to make peace with the Republic of Palmares: after all, they also drove out the Dutch, Europeans, who in the early seventeenth century had invaded and held territory claimed by the Portuguese-Brazilians around Recife. And yet the Dutch would hold Suriname, a 60,000 square-mil territory on the northwest coast of Brazil, and the British at Guyana and the French at Guiana would hold similar territories on either side of Suriname - all without suffering the persistent efforts at destruction which the Portuguese-Brazilians imposed upon Palmares.

The refusal to co-exist with a New African state seems of a piece with the campaigns of destruction which Europeans waged against Indian and New African states throughout the Americas because they were Indian and New African states. The social stratification in the Dutch, British, and French colonies with respect to Indians and Africans was in gross result the same as that established in Brazil. In this respect the Dutch, British, and French colonies offered no challenge to the system imposed by the Portuguese colony. Palmares, on the other hand, with its muti-racial composition and its great attraction for free Africans and some whites, unquestionably represented a challenge to the Portuguese system. Its population growth, in time, might have surpassed Brazil’s. Palmares represented, above all, a magnificent achievement by people ripped from their homeland and brought helpless and culturally assaulted into the hostile environment of Portugal’s oppressive American slave system. Major industrial machinery was not possessed and certainly not yet manufactured in Palmares. But quilombos in Brazil were discovered in some places to have been equipped with sugar refining machinery and to have been producing heavy cloth. Yet other countries have overcome the deficits of being landlocked and agricultural - although perhaps never without achieving access to the sea. (Switzerland, for instance, did not remain dependent on the industrial forces of South Africa.)

The destruction of Palmares was a tragic loss for humanity, it was a fascinating promise aborted. Thereafter Brazilian hegemony gradually extended itself throughout the land, with no substantial challenge. Quilombos would continue to arise ubiquitously. A century after the fall of Palmares, for instance, a quilombo in the Andrahy Mountains in Bahia had 1,000 inhabitants in a township with ‘elaborate defenses’ and a king and captains. About 1824 another quilombo in Bahia was found with a plantation containing over 60,000 manioc plants and much prepared flour. There were, as opposed to the farming quilombos, those which were established in new mining lands and produced ore and gems. These quilombos, like the farming communities, obviously traded these large surpluses with white middlemen and communities. But none of them rose to the power - and challenge - of Palmares.”

Balanta Maroons in the Great Dismal Swamp

At the same time as Balanta and other Africans were escaping to the Republic of Palmares in Brazil towards the end of the seventeenth century, so too were they escaping to the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina for the next 100 years. In A History of African Americans in North Carolina, Jeffery J. Crow, Paul D. Escott, and Flora, J. Hatley explain:

“Slaves had been shipped directly from Guinea to Virginia and North Carolina as early as the 1680’s, but most of the colony’s slave trade originated elsewhere. With its dangerous coastline, North Carolina depended on overland trade from Virginia and South Carolina to meet its needs in slaves and other commodities. . . . Fugitive slaves from Virginia and North Carolina turned the Great Dismal Swamp into a sanctuary. The swamp was an ideal hideout. According to a 1780’s traveler, runaways were ‘perfectly safe, and with the greatest facility elude the most diligent search of their pursuers.’ Blacks had lived there ‘for twelve, twenty, or thirty years and upwards, subsisting themselves…upon corn, hogs, and fowls….; The runaways cultivated small plots of land that were not subject to flooding but ‘perfectly impenetrable to any of the inhabitants of the country around….’ In 1777, during the Revolutionary War, another observer reported that the Dismal Swamp ‘was infested by concealed royalists, and runaway negroes, who could not be approached with safety. . . . 

Before the Revolution, Africans comprised perhaps half of the runaways. Shocked and bewildered by their enslavement, Africans defected at the earliest opportunity. They were the least acculturated slaves, still bearing the marks and scars of African rituals. . . . The Balanta ethnic group has a recorded presence in the Portuguese colonies of Suriname and Brazil. Their presence in the British colonial areas of the Carolinas and Virginia are evident in the history of those regions rice production industry.

The Guinea-Bissau region produced a disproportionately large number of captive Africans from the early-18th century until 1810, populations which were distributed throughout the Chesapeake region, Carolinas, and Georgia. The evidence reflects that the majority of African captives taken from Guinea-Bissau were sourced from the coastal littoral regions inhabited by the Balanta and other acephalous societies.  A large percentage of these captives were therefore ethnic Balanta, Diola, and Bijago, ethnic groups who were renowned for their tidal rice farming techniques. Their presence in North America not only brought change to rice industry, but also affected the political economy of early America, when escaped African captives began to form maroon societies.”

Wikipedia adds,

“At the beginning of the 18th century, maroons came to live in the Great Dismal Swamp. . . . Most settled on mesic islands, the high and dry parts of the swamp. Inhabitants included people who had purchased their freedom as well as those who had escaped. Other people used the swamp as a route on the Underground Railroad as they made their way further north.Some formerly enslaved lived there in semi-free conditions, but how much independence they actually enjoyed there has been a topic of much debate. Nearby whites often left maroons alone so long as they paid a quota in logs or shingles, and businesses may have ignored the fugitive status of people who provided work in exchange for trade goods.

Herbert Aptheker stated already in 1939, in "Maroons Within the Present Limits of the United States", that likely "about two thousand Negroes, fugitives, or the descendants of fugitives" lived in the Great Dismal Swamp, trading with white people outside the swamp.] Results of a study published in 2007, "The Political Economy of Exile in the Great Dismal Swamp", say that thousands of people lived in the swamp between 1630 and 1865, Native Americans, maroons and enslaved laborers on the canal. A 2011 study speculated that thousands may have lived in the swamp between the 1600s and 1860. While the precise number of maroons who lived in the swamp at that time is unknown, it is believed to have been one of the largest maroon colonies in the United States. It is established that "several thousand" were living there by the 19th century.

Fear of slave unrest and fugitive slaves living among maroon population caused concern amongst local whites. A militia force with dogs went into the swamp in 1823 in an attempt to remove the maroons and destroy their community, but most people escaped. In 1847, North Carolina passed a law specifically aimed at apprehending the maroons in the swamp. However, unlike other maroon communities, where local militias often captured the residents and destroyed their homes, those in the Great Dismal Swamp mostly avoided capture or the discovery of their homes.”

THE BALANTA INFLUENCE IN THE TRANSITION FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT TO THE NEW AFRIKAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT

Balanta people played a significant role in the global Black liberation struggle in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. While Balanta people formed The African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) and initiated an eleven-year armed struggle against the Portuguese, in the United States, Balanta people were also in the forefront of the liberation struggle in America.

Ella Baker, SCLC, SNCC and RAM

Ella Baker, a Balanta descendent, was a friend and advisor to Martin Luther King and played an instrumental role in shaping the American civil rights movement. The dynamic activist was affectionately known as the Fundi, a Swahili word for a person who passes skills from one generation to another and the "godmother of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee".

Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) founder, Muhammad Ahmad (Maxwell Stanford), writing in We Will Return in the Whirlwind: Black Radical Organizations 1960 - 1975, writes, 

“[Ella] Baker became disillusioned with the NAACP, because it was directed from the top down rather than by the branches. Baker wanted the branches to be more active and in complete control. . . . When the bus boycott erupted in Montgomery, Alabama, Baker and Stanley Levison offered assistance to the boycott movement. Baker, who had worked with Rosa Parks during her NAACP fieldwork in Alabama in the mid-1950s, collaborated with civil rights activist Bayard Rustin to found a new organization in New York called "In Friendship;' which provided financial and organizational support to African-Americans who were fighting discrimination in the South, including the participants in the Montgomery (Alabama) bus boycott. Supporting the boycott was consistent with Baker's belief in building strong mass movements in the South that would pursue a more confrontational course of direct action than had been pursued by the NAACP, which Baker felt had become increasingly "hung up in its legal successes." It was Ella's and the In Friendship group's influence that convinced Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other southern civil rights leaders that the Montgomery bus boycott mobilization should be used as a foundation to form a mass organization built on mass confrontation with Jim Crow and the racist capitalist system to advance democratic rights for the masses of African-Americans. . . . 

Baker felt that there was a need for a new organization. Her consistent arguments with Dr. King contributed to the founding of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957, with Dr. King as its president and Ella Baker as its interim executive secretary. . . . Baker consequently exhorted the leadership of the Montgomery Improvement Association to continue its fight against widespread racial injustice, not for just the desegregation of buses. Through Baker's efforts, in 1957 the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) was formed to fight all types of racial injustice. Baker built up the SCLC's organizational structure; set up office in Atlanta, hired staff, worked with the community to prepare voter registration drives, created the SCLC newsletter, ‘The Crusader;' and organized the 1958 Citizenship Crusade, the massive campaign to educate African-Americans in the South on how to participate in the electoral process. She began to work closely with her coworker, Septima Clark. Baker came into conflict with the chauvinist African-American preachers, who dominated the SCLC structure. She felt SCLC was too centered on the charisma of Dr. King (single leadership oriented) and that the movement should have group-centered leadership. Instead of trying to develop people around a leader, efforts should be made to develop leadership out of the group. [Siphiwe note: decentralized leadership is a hallmark of Balanta culture] . . . 

In 1960, the sit-in movement to desegregate lunch counter facilities in restaurants in the South broke out mobilizing 50,000 African American students to participate in non-violent direct action protests against the Jim Crow system. Ella Baker, realizing the movement's potential, borrowed $500 from SCLC and asked Dr. King's permission to call a conference of the sit-in leaders. The conference was held at Ella Baker's alma mater, Shaw University on April 14-17, 1960 (Easter weekend). It drew two hundred and fifty leaders and their supporters. Upon Ella Baker's insistence that the students had something no one could match, they formed themselves into the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and became an independent action oriented civil rights organization instead of affiliating with Dr. King's SCLC. . . . 

According to Ella Baker a basic goal of SNCC was to make it unnecessary for the people to depend on a leader. SNCC's hope was to develop leadership from among the people. At the Highlander Folk School (1960) meeting the decision was made to go into hardcore rural areas under minority rule. During the meeting a split occurred between those who favored non-violent direct action mass demonstrations and those who favored voter registration. Those favoring non-violent direct action feared the movement would be corrupted and compromised if SNCC concentrated on voter registration. Diane Nash from the Nashville, Tennessee student movement and the freedom rides proposed that SNCC split into two separate organizations. Fearing that would weaken SNCC and serve the purpose of the enemy, Ms. Baker opposed the split. Charles Jones was chosen as the director of voter registration and Diane Nash director of non-violent direct action. Charles Sherrod would later be proved correct when he said you couldn't possibly have voter registration without demonstrations. Julian Bond said that tensions within SNCC were about an organizing approach. The debate was whether to proceed as a vanguard approach versus a pedagogic direction to organizing. He felt northerners were better able to articulate their ideas. This caused tensions in the organization between those who thought of themselves as organizing a faceless mass and those who thought you ought to let the faceless mass decide what to do.  SNCC began to grow with the movement, as did its leaders. One of the main people involved with the state of Mississippi was Bob Moses. Bob Moses was a math teacher in New York who had graduated with a Masters degree from Harvard University. He met a SCLC worker who asked him to come to Mississippi for the summer. Moses did and was asked by Ella Baker to stay on and help recruit people for a SNCC conference. Bob Moses went into Mississippi in early summer 1960 to recruit 42 black students to come to the SNCC October 1960 meeting. While in Southwest Mississippi local people asked Moses to give them some help in trying to start a voter registration campaign. From there he also traveled to Alabama and Louisiana. This is what led to his involvement with SNCC. Moses would become a powerful leader in Mississippi. Moses established the pattern that SNCC followed for the next four years: involving local people in all phases of the movement, depending on them for support and protection. On October 14-16th the second conference of SNCC took place in Atlanta, Georgia. There were present ninety-five voting delegates, plus SNCC staff, which voted, plus thirteen alternates. There were probably about a dozen whites out of the ninety-five delegates and there were ninety-eight registered observers, twelve of whom represented eleven different groups or publications. SNCC began a voter registration drive in McComb Mississippi. Several organizers were severely beaten and a crisis situation developed with mass arrests of students and SNCC activists. After the October 14-16, 1960 SNCC conference in Atlanta, On October 19, 1960, King and the students asked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to join them in sit-in demonstrations.  Some fifty other African-Americans were arrested for sitting in at the Magnolia Room of Rich's Department Store in Atlanta. The others were released but King was sentenced to four months of hard labor in the Reidsville State Prison. On October 26, Kennedy called Mrs. King and expressed his sympathy and concern. His campaign manager and brother, Robert F. Kennedy telephoned the Georgia judge who had sentenced King and pleaded for his release. On the following day King was released. The news of the action of the Kennedy brothers swept through the African-American community, plus distribution of one million pamphlets telling of their deed. In November 1960, the closest presidential election of the century occurred in which African-Americans felt their vote was decisive in the election of Kennedy. . . . Within two years, 70,000 persons had demonstrated and over 3,600 demonstrators spent time in jail. . . . 

Baker left SCLC to become a staff organizer/advisor for SNCC. It was through her guidance that SNCC operated in rural counties in the deep racist South and organized the "Mississippi Freedom Summer" project in Mississippi in 1964. SNCC conducted successful voter-registration drives and raised the political consciousness of poor African-Americans to the point where they formed the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and challenged the racist Mississippi democrats in Atlantic City. . . . Ella Baker often said, ‘Hitting an individual with your fists is not enough to overcome racism and segregation. It takes organization, it takes dedication, it takes the willingness to stand and do what has to be done when it has to be done.’. . . 

The Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM) evolved from the southern civil rights movement of the early 1960s and the black nationalist movement in northern cities. As a result of the sit-ins, students in northern cities organized solidarity demonstrations. Traditional civil rights organizations like the NAACP and CORE held mass rallies in northern African-American communities. African-American and white students demonstrated against Woolworth stores and along with progressive clergy led economic boycotts. Black students with more radical leanings in the north, while supporting SNCC, had a tendency to reject its non-violent philosophy. Some of these students joined CORE to participate in direct action activities.' . . . 

In the summer of 1961, at the end of the freedom rides, Robert F. Williams, president of the Monroe, North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, issued a nation-wide call for African-Americans to arm for self-defense and come to Monroe for a showdown with the KKK. Williams also called for freedom riders to come to Monroe to test non-violence. Within the white left, the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), planned to form a student branch called Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). SDS was to hold a conference on the new left at the National Student Association (NSA) conference (summer, 1961) in Madison, Wisconsin. SNCC was also represented at the NSA conference. During the conference, news of Williams' flight into exile reached movement circles. Discussions among African-American SNCC and CORE workers and independent African-American radicals took place as to what significance the events in Monroe, North Carolina, had for the movement. African-American cadres inside of SDS met and discussed developing an African-American radical movement that would create conditions to make it favorable to bring Williams' back into the country. This was a small meeting of four people. . . . 

During the fall of 1961, an off-campus chapter of SDS called Challenge was formed at Central State. Challenge was an African American radical formation having no basic ideology. Its membership was composed of students who had been expelled from southern schools for sit-in demonstrations; students who had taken freedom rides and students from the north, and some had been members of the Nation of Islam and African nationalist organizations. . . . 

 In September of 1962, I went to the National Student Association headquarters in Philadelphia. There I met Marion Barry from SNCC, who was in Philadelphia to help raise funds for SNCC. Wanda Marshall transferred to Temple University and began working with African-American students there. I began studying with Mr. Thomas Harvey, president of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). In the process of working with SNCC, I met most of the African American left in Philadelphia. . . . During this time, I had discussions with Marion Barry about the direction of the civil rights movement. One night while listening to discussion in the NSA office, Miss Ella Baker encouraged me to continue to develop my ideas. . . . 

Through the NSA coordinator on civil rights, I secured Ethel Johnson's phone number and immediately after going home called her. Mrs. Johnson was receptive to talking to me and invited me to visit her. I went to visit Mrs. Ethel Johnson (Azelle), who had been a coworker with Robert Williams in Monroe, North Carolina and who was now residing in Philadelphia. Little has been written of Azelle (Ethel Johnson). All that I know is that Ethel Johnson was married and that she and her husband had agreed that she would do political work ( civil rights) while he would maintain income for the family in Monroe, North Carolina, and that they had one son, Raymond Johnson. Johnson lived within the same block or next door to the Williamses (Robert F. and Mable Williams). They recruited Johnson as a co-worker in the Monroe, North Carolina branch of the NAACP. Johnson helped Williams with his newsletter, The Crusader, and also participated along with Mable Williams in the community self defense efforts of the African-American community against racist attacks from 1957 to 1961. 

Johnson had visited the Williamses in Cuba in 1962 and served as a barometer for the Williamses of what the masses of African-Americans were thinking in the early 1960s. . . . Johnson (Azelle), as she was affectionately called, was a good friend of Septima Clark; had worked with her on citizenship schools in the South and also knew Ella Baker and Queen Mother Audley Moore. . . . 

Towards the end of 1962, Wanda and I called together a group of African-American activists to develop a study/action group. I notified Azelle (Mrs. Ethel Johnson) of our decision and she said she would help guide the group. Within a month's time, key African American activists came into the study/action group that was guided by Azelle. The three central figures were Wanda Marshall, Stan Daniels and me. After a series of ideological discussions, the Philadelphia study/action group decided to call itself the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM). It decided it would be a revolutionary black nationalist direct action organization. Its purpose would be to start a mass revolutionary black nationalist movement. By using mass direct action combined with the tactics of self-defense, it hoped to change the civil rights movement into a black revolution. RAM decided to work with the established civil rights leadership in Philadelphia and eventually build a base for mass support. . . . RAM members felt the movement needed a voice that was independent of the existing civil rights groups. RAM assessed that all of the civil rights groups-except SNCC-were bourgeois in orientation. RAM believed that full integration was impossible within the capitalist system. It believed that all of the civil rights groups were seeking upward mobility in capitalism and were not seeking a structural transformation of the system. On the other hand, RAM felt SNCC would move toward trying to change the system, because it was mobilizing the grassroots masses in the south.”

Stephen Hobbs and the Chicago Black Panther Party 

In The Black Panther Party Was Founded on This Day in 1966: Here’s What We Don’t Learn About the Black Panther Party in Our Schools — but Should Adam Sanchez and Jesse Hagopian note that,

“The Panthers didn’t develop out of thin air but evolved from their relationships with other civil rights organizations, especially the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). The name and symbol of the Panthers were adopted from the Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO), an independent political organization SNCC helped organize in Alabama, which was also called the “Black Panther Party.” Furthermore, SNCC allied with the Panthers in 1968 and although the alliance lasted only five months, it was a crucial time for the growth of the Panthers.”

According to Hobbs family genealogist Joshua Roberts:

“Born to S.L. Hobbs and Bertha Hobbs, my Uncle Stephen was S.L.’s first born son and the second child of Bertha. My uncle and his older brother Donald were born and raised on the west side of Chicago. He had four other siblings, his baby sister (my grandmother) being the closest. My uncle was said to be very grumpy but had a warm heart. A powerful man who never sugar-coated any information. Super smart and a master chess player, this is the story of the Balanta descendant and Black Panther Steven Hobbs.

My uncle was special and had the spirit of a thousand generations within him. A very boisterous, commanding, and authoritative man. While he was stubborn he had a heart and was very protective of his family and especially the females. He was a father figure to many of his nephews and nieces. According to my father when he first met my uncle he thought that uncle Steven was their father until my mother and aunties made it obvious that he was their uncle.

During his teenage years uncle Stephen went to St. Mel High School. The school would eventually become  Providence St. Mel today. The school merged eventually and he was able to unite with his sister.   She said the girls had to go all the way to the top floor while the boys had it easier due to them being on the lower levels. During high school Stephen was on the basketball team at St. Mel and was said to be very talented but his high school career was cut short due to his revolutionary spirit. It is to be noted that his younger sister Lynette went to Providence which was an all girl school at the time. The two were extremely close during their childhood. Almost like best friends considering all things, telling her secrets that he wouldn't tell his other siblings.

During the mid 60s the America experienced one of the most powerful movements in its history. The civil rights movement seen many future black icons stepping up into leadership positions to combat social injustices against Black people. When Stephen was about 15 or 16 decided that he wanted to run away from home so he could support the movement. Uncle Steven ran away in broad daylight and only told his sister Lynette. He told her not to tell their parents what had transpired. My great grandfather S.L didn't realize what had happened until a few days later when he realized Steven was gone. When Stephen left home he joined the Chicago Chapter Black Panther Party where he was one of their first members as he ran away prior to the official founding of the Chicago Chapter in 1968.

Fred Hampton and my uncle were good friends according to my grandmother. Hampton gave my late uncle his own office on Pulaski Rd between Van Buren and Jackson. The office was a complete wreck (debris and rubble, torn walls), however my uncle worked hard and eventually cleaned up the office very well and made it organized.

The Black Panther Party emerged on the city’s west side in the fall of 1968. As one of the 45 Black Panther chapters in the U.S, the IL chapter gained over 300 new members within 4 months.

By the middle of 1969, the Chicago Panthers ideology roots helped them form alliances with the Latino and white Chicagoans called the rainbow coalition. This coalition targeted Chicago’s structural inequalities by placing programs like the free breakfast and free legal consultation for Chicago’s disadvantaged.

Stephen was responsible for opening up the church and doing the breakfast club. Grandma sometimes went to support her brother. She had to do it behind her mothers back (Bertha Hobbs). “I wasn’t an official member of the Party but I worked for the party-we sold papers (BPP) and served food”. She said the children looked so beat up and sad, realizing just how impactful the breakfast club was making on the black youth. She always went to help her brother before school.

The militant image of the Panthers eventually made conservative members leave due to the alienation and negative press. Richard J Daley was afraid of the Panthers due to them having more influence than city hall. Eventually the Panthers got raided on 3 separate occasions. All in 1969, to look for illegal weapons.

My uncle was one of the militant members and was a hardcore Panther.  He even traveled to Michigan and Ohio for a few Panther affairs and missions. However during the late 60s, my Uncle Stephen was back in the city doing the breakfast program. While he was heading to the church something happened.

Grandma who went to help realized that the church doors were locked. “The day was cold, it was freezing outside”. There had been police scouts spying on my uncle for sometime now. The Chicago police kidnapped my uncle and planned to assassinate him out south. However the plan didn't fall through because the cop in the passenger seat wasn't ok with it and didn't feel comfortable, which saved him. However while out south they took all his belongings and he had to walk home all the way to the west side from the south side.

The final raid crippled the organization when Fred Hampton was assassinated.

Uncle Fred was a good friend of my late uncle Stephen. Fred is a year older than my uncle. Chairman of the BPP of Chicago, Hampton formed an alliance with the Young Patriots and Young Lords and several gangs in Chicago. Due to this influence the U.S government and FBI saw Hampton as the most dangerous of the Panthers and was a target alongside Huey Newton and other Civil Rights leaders. (Martin Luther King and Malcolm were already assassinated by the time Hampton rose to power.)

J Edgar Hoover used COINTELPRO to disrupt Hampton’s movement and my uncle was a direct victim of that.

December 3rd-4th 1969

My uncle Stephen Hobbs and several other panthers were supposed to be bodyguards for Fred and his girlfriend Akua Njeri who was pregnant with Fred’s son.

On the evening of December 3, Hampton taught a political education course at a local church, which was attended by most members. Afterward, as was typical, several Panthers went to his Monroe Street apartment to spend the night, including Hampton and Deborah Johnson, Blair Anderson, James Grady, Ronald "Doc" Satchell, Harold Bell, Verlina Brewer, Louis Truelock, Brenda Harris, and Mark Clark. There they were met by O'Neal, who had prepared a late dinner, which the group ate around midnight. O'Neal had slipped the barbiturate sleep agent secobarbital into a drink that Hampton consumed during the dinner, in order to sedate Hampton so he would not awaken during the subsequent raid. O'Neal left at this point, and, at about 1:30 a.m., December 4, Hampton fell asleep mid-sentence talking to his mother on the telephone.

The day of the raid Fred decided to send my Uncle on a last minute assignment. Stephen was at Fred’s house as a form of protection several times in 1969. “China”, a female Panther and also an ally of my uncle, was at the house with Fred and Mark. My Uncle Stephen told me he wanted to go to the house that night to support his friend and help secure the house. Nevertheless with Hampton’s growing power and with him being in line to become the head man for the Central Committee and the national spokesman of the BBP, the United States government and Chicago police decided to raid Hampton’s home that same night my uncle wasn't at the house. There was a massive shootout at Hampton’s home that killed Fred Hampton at point blank and Mark Clark. Everyone else was wounded including Akua.

At 4:00 a.m., the heavily armed police team arrived at the site, divided into two teams, eight for the front of the building and six for the rear. At 4:45 a.m., they stormed into the apartment. Mark Clark, sitting in the front room of the apartment with a shotgun in his lap, was on security duty. The police shot him in the chest, killing him instantly. An alternative account said that Clark answered the door and police immediately shot him. Either way, Clark's gun discharged once into the ceiling. This single round was fired when he suffered a reflexive death-convulsion after being shot. This was the only shot fired by the Panthers.

Hampton, drugged by barbiturates, was sleeping on a mattress in the bedroom with his fiancée, Deborah Johnson, who was nine months pregnant with their child. She was forcibly removed from the room by the police officers while Hampton still lay unconscious in bed. Then, the raiding team fired at the head of the south bedroom. Hampton was wounded in the shoulder by the shooting.

Fellow Black Panther Harold Bell said that he heard the following exchange: "That's Fred Hampton."

"Is he dead?... Bring him out."

"He's barely alive." "He'll make it."

The injured Panthers said they heard two shots. According to Hampton's supporters, the shots were fired point blank at Hampton's head. According to Deborah Johnson, an officer then said: "He's good and dead now."

Krystal Muhammad, Chair of the New Black Panther Party and President of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika

According to Wikipedia,

“The New Black Panther Party (NBPP) is a . . . . black nationalist organization founded in Dallas, Texas, in 1989. . . . The NBPP traces its origins to the Black Panther Militia. . . . In 1987, Michael McGee, an alderman in Milwaukee, threatened to disrupt white events throughout the city unless more jobs were created for black people. He held a "state of the inner city" press conference in 1990 at City Hall to announce the creation of the Black Panther Militia. Aaron Michaels, a community activist and radio producer in Dallas, Texas established a chapter of the Black Panther Militia in 1992, but chose to refer to his chapter as "The New Black Panther Party". . . . Michaels became increasingly radical, and so too did the group. . . . Aaron Michaels lost control of the leadership of the group to Khalid Abdul Muhammad, a former leading member of the Nation of Islam, who proceeded to fill the ranks of the New Panthers with ex-Nation of Islam members and other Black Muslims. Under Khalid Abdul Muhammad and his successors' leadership, the New Panthers shifted radically from the ideology of the original Black Panther Party towards an extremist form of Black nationalism. . . . 

In 1998, Khalid Abdul Muhammad brought the organization into the national spotlight when he led an armed group of NBPP members to provide armed protection to the family of James Byrd Jr., who had just been murdered in Jasper, Texas by three white supremacists. Events escalated into a confrontation between the NBPP and the Ku Klux Klan. . . . Muhammad continued to seek out high profile and confrontational events, and that same year sought to organize a "Million Youth March" in Harlem, New York City. . . . The March went ahead on 5 September 1998 and Muhammad gave a racist and anti-semitic speech to an audience of 6,000. When the police attempted to end the march at the designated end time, Muhammad encouraged those in attendance to physically confront them, leading to a riot. It was in this same time period that Muhammad and the NBPP featured in an episode of Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends entitled "Black Nationalism". . . .

Khalid Muhammad died of a brain aneurysm on February 17, 2001, and was succeeded by Malik Zulu Shabazz, a protege of Muhammad's as well as his personal attorney. Malik Zulu Shabazz announced on an October 14, 2013 online radio broadcast that he was stepping down and that Hashim Nzinga, then national chief of staff, would replace him. This move created a schism within the group. A vote was held and Krystal Muhammad, a Balanta descendant, was elected leader of the group. However, those loyal to Nzinga left and formed a splinter group called the "New Black Panther Party for Self Defence" or "NBPP SD".

The Southern Poverty Law Center notes,

“The New Black Panther Party (NBPP) believes black Americans should have their own nation. In the NBPP’s “10 Point Platform,” which is taken from the original Black Panther Party, the NBPP demands that black people be given a country or state of their own within which they can make their own laws. They demand that all black prisoners in the United States be released to “the lawful authorities of the Black Nation.” They claim to be entitled to reparations for slavery from the United States, all European countries and “the Jews.’

On July 7, 2016 black nationalist Micah Johnson killed five police officers at a Dallas, Texas, rally protesting police shootings. Johnson was a former member of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, but news outlets assumed it was NBPP and [NBPP President] Krystal Muhammad found herself having to clarify that she had never seen or heard of Johnson before. She followed it up by giving a tacit endorsement of his actions, telling Voice of America, “My moral judgment is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. What happened in Dallas, who knows, this could be happening all across America. Because people are fed up. You cannot continue to brutalize human beings and think that some human beings are going to fall for it.”

In April 2016, NBPP went to Dallas to stand guard in front of the local Nation of Islam Mosque that the Anti-Muslim group Bureau of American Islamic Relations (BAIR) planned to protest. They also protested the death of Kendole Jackson in the city of Gretna, Louisiana, after which [Krystal] Muhammad boasted online that “WE SHUT THE CITY OF GRETNA PIG DEPARTMENT DOWN.” 

During the summer of 2016, [Krystal] Muhammad represented NBPP at the World Wide Pan-African Convention in Soweto, South Africa. During her presentation she called the civil rights movement “a scheme and a scam” and told the audience Jim Crow laws were “the cracker doing that … our people have always fought against the cracker.” She followed this up with an interview on RT (formerly Russia Today) to discuss the group and racism in America.

The next month, on July 5, 2016, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, local Alton Sterling was shot and killed by members of the Baton Rouge Police Department. The NBPP arrived on site almost immediately, ready to protest what they called the “Baton Rouge Pig Department.” Some members were arrested at the protest. In October 2016, [Krystal] Muhammad held a press conference to announce that the group would be filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Department, the Baton Rouge Police Department and the Louisiana State Police because the charges against NBPP members and over six dozen others had not been dropped.

In May 2017, the group organized an event described as a “New Black Panther Party call for National Day of Action for Justice for Alton Sterling”. During a May 2 protest, the group attempted to block Airline highway in Baton Rouge, and three people were arrested including [Krystal] Muhammad, who was charged with aggravated obstruction of a highway, failure to disperse, resisting an officer and illegal carrying of a weapon because she had a concealed revolver in her handbag.

Muhammad made her way to Jackson, Mississippi, to take part in another protest at the state capitol. The June 14 event was a call for justice for two recently slain men, Phillip Carrol and Jeremy Jackson. The NBPP vowed to keep boots on the ground and continue investigating their deaths themselves.

The group was back in Baton Rouge in July 2017 for the anniversary of Alton Sterling’s death where they marched to the police station and were met by officers who commanded them to disperse. As the police began to put up a barricade, a scuffle broke out. An officer and an NBPP member were both shot with stun guns and multiple members, including [Krystal] Muhammad, were arrested.

On August 19, 2017, Muhammad and other NBPP members were in Houston, Texas, reacting to Charlottesville’s ‘Unite the Right’ rally by joining a Black Lives Matter rally to ‘Destroy the Confederacy.’”

Back in 2014, as President of the NBPP, Krystal Muhammad ran for the Presidency of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika (PGRNA). Despite receiving 94% of the vote, corrupt election officials in the PGRNA announced that the incumbent President Alvin Brown has won the election. The NBPP filed a CIVIL COMPLAINT OF VOTER SUPPRESSION AND DISCRIMINATION  and eventually a Special People’s Court was established to resolve the issue. Unfortunately, corrupt election officials and other government officials waged a campaign against Krystal Muhammad and the NBPP wherein their members were all disqualified as candidates and their votes discarded in connection with the 2014 ,2017, 2018, 2020 and 2023 elections. This prompted the convening of a New Afrikan People’s Convention in 2023 which elected Krystal Muhammad as Interim President of the PGRNA. In March, 2024, a nationwide special election was conducted in the Republic of New Afrika and Krystal Muhammad was again elected President. She appointed Balanta descendant Siphiwe Baleka to serve as her Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Siphiwe Baleka, Founder of the Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika

A complete biography of Siphiwe Baleka is available at https://www.balanta.org/about-the-president On September 28, 2010, Siphiwe Baleka received his patrilineal dna test results from African Ancestry that showed a 100% match with the Balanta people of Guinea Bissau. Since then, he has written a three-volume history of the Balanta people, established the Balanta B’urassa History and Genealogy Society in America (BBHAGSIA), Coordinated the Lineage Restoration Movement, repatriated to his Balanta ancestral homeland, established the country’s Decade of Return Initiative and Citizenship Program, becoming the first Balanta to return and receive citizenship. Siphiwe Baleka serves on the National Coalition of Blacks in America (NCOBRA) Health Commission and International Affairs Commission. In 2023, H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori Quao appointed him the Coordinator for the 8th Pan African Congress part 1. Siphiwe Baleka has been leading the effort at the United Nations Permanent Forum on People of African Descent (PFPAD) to bring the case of the New Afrikan Independence Movement before the International Court of Justice. As Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PGRNA, he has initiated at the African Union the renewal of the observer status that was granted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to Malcolm X and the Organization of Afro American Unity (OAAU - a precursor to the PGRNA). A thorough compilation of Minister Baleka’s efforts is available at https://www.balanta.org/news/the-board-as-i-see-it-developments-concerning-global-afrikan-strategic-litigation 

Kamm Howard, Founder of Reparations United and Former National Co-Chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA)

The https://reparationsunited.org/  website states,

“Kamm Howard is a national and international reparations scholar and activist working for over 20 years building grassroots movements to obtain reparations for African descendants in the United States.  From 2006-2022, he served as the National Co-Chair of The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, or N’COBRA.  While at N’COBRA, he assisted in forming the vision and developed, led, and implemented many significant actions pushing forward and keeping alive the fight for redress and repair for the intergenerational harm inflicted on black people and the anti-black policies sanctioned by local, state, and federal governments affecting us to this day.  In 2022,  Howard founded Reparations United to further his mission for obtaining reparations.  He provides advisory and leadership to coalitions and activists in the movement.  Currently, he serves as a Commissioner of the National African American Reparations Commission where he led in revising the federal legislation H.R. 40.; a bill to establish a commission to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans.  Also, he sits on the Board of First Repair – founded by Robin Rue Simmons of Evanston, Illinois, Global Black started by Dr. Amara Enya, and he sits on the advisory councils of the Advisory Council of the African American Redress Network (AARN) and the Descendants of the St. Louis University Enslaved, or DSLUE.”

In June, 2021, Kamm Howard joined Siphiwe Baleka in their Balanta homeland of Guinea Bissau to help launch the Decade of Return Initiative. In July, 2022, Kamm Howard traveled to the Vatican and delivered the PRESENTMENT TO THE HOLY SEE IN FURTHERANCE OF REPARATIONS to Bishop Paul Tighe, Secretary of the Pontifical Council of Culture. The PRESENTMENT details the historical record that affirms that the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned, through the use of Apostolic edicts known as “Papal Bulls”, the destruction of African kingdoms, the plunder of African wealth, and resources, total war on African people, and the perpetual enslavement of Africans and their descendants. “These Bulls and others”, states the PRESENTMENT, “provided the justification for the trafficking and enslavement of Black African human beings, as well as European imperialism and colonization in Africa—all in the name of Jesus Christ.'‘ Since then, Kamm and Siphiwe continue to work together as leading figures in the Global Afrika Reparatory Justice Movement.

Robin Rue Simmons, Founder of First Repair, and Former Alderwoman Responsible for the First Municipal Reparations Settlement in Evanston, Illinois.

The https://firstrepair.org/ website reports,

“Robin Rue Simmons is the Founder and Executive Director of FirstRepair, a not-for-profit organization that informs local reparations, nationally. Previously, Rue Simmons was the 5th Ward Alderman for the City of Evanston, IL, when she led, in collaboration with others, the passage of the nation’s first government- funded Black reparations legislation.

Rue Simmons is a 2023 University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, Pritzker Fellow.

To date, $20 million has been committed to reparations by the City. She serves as the chairperson of the City’s Reparations Committee which oversees its initial Restorative Housing Program. It began disbursements in January 2021. Several other governmental entities across the country are actively seeking to follow Evanston’s example.

Rue Simmons was born and raised in the largely segregated 5th Ward of Evanston, a city of 75,000 on the shores of Lake Michigan on the northern border of Chicago.

She laid the foundation for her life’s work in 1998 when she became a residential real estate broker. Troubled by the wealth disparities and concentrated poverty she witnessed locally and saw in other communities, she wanted to help young adults begin to build wealth through homeownership.

As an entrepreneur, she has launched and operated multiple businesses, including a bookstore in the 5th Ward, that also offered free after-school programming. She started a construction company in Evanston that employed Black tradespeople and developed dozens of affordable houses funded by the Illinois Neighborhood Stabilization Program. She continues to manage a handful of residential and commercial properties that she owns in Evanston. Until she started FirstRepair in 2021, Rue Simmons was the Director of Innovation and Outreach for Sunshine Enterprises, a not-for-profit on Chicago’s South Side, which has supported over one thousand entrepreneurs (virtually all African American and three-quarters women) in launching or growing their own businesses.

Rue Simmons served as an Evanston alderman from 2017-2021, serving on multiple committees and chairing several. During her tenure, she prioritized improving the lived experiences of and expanding opportunities for Black residents in Evanston, most notably through her work on reparations.

Rue Simmons is also a commissioner of the National African-American Reparations Commission (NAARC), a board member of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA), and a board member of Evanston’s Connections for the Homeless. She previously served as a board member for the National League of Cities’ National Black Caucus of Local Elected Leaders and as the President of the Evanston Black Business Alliance.

Rue Simmons has received numerous awards for her reparations and other public service work including from the City of Evanston; Evanston/North Shore NAACP; Urban One; Dearborn Realtists Board; Democratic Party of Evanston; Route Fifty; Realtists Women’s Council of Illinois; Family Focus; Chessmen Club of the North Shore; Distinguished Alumni – Evanston Township High School and the recipient of the prestigious 2022 American Association for Access, Equity, and Diversity (AAAED) (pronounced triple A ED) Rosa Parks Award.

She has been covered in numerous national and international publications, on television and radio, and in podcasts including The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio, The Guardian, ABC’s Nightline, and CNN. Rue Simmons is also featured in The Big Payback, a documentary that premiered at the Tribeca Festival in June 2022 and began airing nationally on PBS on Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, January 16, 2023.”

On May 24, 2023, the State of Illinois House of Representatives 103 General Assembly passed Resolution 292. The Resolution “Calls upon the State to immediately, through its African Descent-Citizens Reparations Commission (ADCRC), provide matrilineal and patrilineal DNA testing through African ancestry to determine the ancestral lineages and territories of origin of its Black residents so that they can seek citizenship in their ancestral homelands, if so desired. Calls upon the State to become the first to conduct a repatriation census in preparation for honoring President Abraham Lincoln's desire for voluntary repatriation with compensation and to make conducting the repatriation census its immediate priority."

Additionally, the resolution states,

“WHEREAS, Additionally of note is the fact that Robin Rue Simmons, Kamm Howard, and Siphiwe Baleka have all taken African ancestry DNA tests and discovered they are each descendants of the Balanta people of Guinea Bissau; they subsequently traveled together to their ancestral homeland to launch the country's Decade of Return Initiative in 2021; and 

WHEREAS, The spirit emanating from Illinois initiated both the first and latest PACs, and it has championed the recent Reparations movement's calls for further action; therefore, be it RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED THIRD GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we declare that the State of Illinois should take the lead on issues of Pan-Africanism, citizenship in Africa, and reparatory justice . . . .”

José Lingna Nafafé, Leading the Historical Legal Reparations Research


José Lingna Nafafé, a native Balanta, is Senior Lecturer in Portuguese and Lusophone Studies and co-Director of Teaching for Hispanic, Portuguese and Latin American Studies at University of Bristol. Dr Lingna Nafafé’s academic interests embrace a number of interrelated areas, linked by the overarching themes of: the Black Atlantic abolitionist movement in the 17th Century; the Lusophone Atlantic African diaspora; seventeenth and eighteenth century African, Portuguese and Brazilian histories; slavery and wage-labour, 1792-1850; race, religion and ethnicity; Luso-African migrants’ culture and integration in the Northern (England) and Southern Europe (Portugal and Spain); ‘Europe in Africa’ and ‘Africa in Europe’; and the relationship between postcolonial theory and the Lusophone Atlantic.

In 2022, Cambridge University Press published Nafafé’s  Lourenço da Silva Mendonça, and the Black Atlantic Abolitionist Movement in the 17th Century, which subsequently won the award for the best scholarship 2024 for the African Studies Association in the UK (ASAUK). In the Introduction Nafafé writes, 

“Legal, moral, ethical and political debate on the abolition of slavery has traditionally been understood to have been initiated by Europeans in the eighteenth century - figures such as Thomas Buxton, Thomas Clarkson, Granville Sharp, David Livingstone, and William Wilberforce. To the extent that Africans are recognized as having played any role in ending slavery, especially in the seventeenth century, their efforts are typically confined to sporadic and impulsive cases of resistance, involving ‘shipboard revolts’, ‘maroon communities’, ‘individual fugitive slaves’ and ‘household revolts’. Studies of these cases have never gone beyond the obvious economic disruptions caused by enslaved people resorting to poisoning, murder and attacks on plantations and their masters’ household properties. Even those former enslaved Africans who gained their freedom through sheer endeavor and subsequently argued in the strongest terms for the abolition of slavery in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, such as Olaudah Equiano and Ottobah Cugoano, were seen as limited in scope, without international impact and reliant on their European counterparts. Curiously, to date, no historian of slavery of West Central Africa, Africanists or Atlanticists have researched the Black Atlantic abolition movement in the seventeenth century; and those who have attempted to engage with the debate often conclude that any action driven by Africans was a localized endeavor. No historian has yet provided an in-depth study of the highly organized, international-scale, legal court case for liberation and abolition spearheaded by Lourenço da Silva Mendonça, or as Mendonça called it the ‘complaint . . . .

In this book, I examine in detail how Mendonça and the historical actors with whom he was involved - such as Black Christians from confraternities in Angola, Brazil, Caribbean, Portugal and Spain - argued for the complete abolition of the Atlantic slave trade well before Wilberforce and his generation of abolitionists. . . . It reveals, for the first time, how legal debates were headed not by Europeans, but by Africans.’ . . .”

As it has already been shown above in Nafafé’s work, Balanta were present in Portugal and Brazil and played a significant role in the resistance to Portuguese domination. It is not much of a stretch to conclude that Balanta played an important role in the confraternities that assisted Lourenço da Silva Mendonça. 

SUMMARY

Here, then Balanta has come full circle: in the same period as the Republic of Palmares, the most important legal challenge to Catholic and Portuguese domination was made, assisted either directly or indirectly by Balanta and Balanta culture of freedom and resistance, only to be forgotten by global scholarships until three and a half centuries later, the Balanta scholar José Lingna Nafafé resurrected the case during the same period that Balanta descendant Robin Rue Simmons was winning the first reparations battles at the municipal level in the United States, Balanta descendant Kamm Howard was leading the battle at the national level in the United States, Balanta descendant Siphiwe Baleka was revolutionizing the legal battle at the international level, and Balanta descendant Krystal Muhammad took over the Presidency of the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika.

This can be explained scientifically as the result of the transgenerational epigenetic effects and expression of Balanta behavior manifested in their cultural expression of resistance to foreign domination, the tendency to migrate to new territory and establish free, egalitarian communities while engaging in armed self defense and second strike actions to defend their sovereignty. But it can also be explained simply as the work of Balanta ancestors’ vital life force energy.

THE UNITED STATES AND ITS COLONIAL EMPIRE

excerpts from Course 3 of the New Afrikan Diplomatic and Civil Service Corps’

Certification Course in New Afrikan Diplomacy


CONSIDER:

Various African peoples were trafficked as prisoners of war to *several British colonies* that legalized slavery: Massachusetts in 1641; Connecticut in 1650; Virginia in 1657 and Maryland in 1663 leading to The United States of America officially entering the Dum Diversas War trafficking of people from Guine (Africa) after the American pro-slavery counter revolution in 1776 that established the first apartheid state in history; and  . . .

Importantly, General Sherman’s Fourth request was worded, “State in what manner you would rather live - whether scattered among the whites *or in colonies by yourselves*_ . . .” Sherman’s Special Field Order Number 15 defined and established de facto “self-governing colonies” . Additionally, General Rufus Saxton was appointed Inspector of Settlements and Plantations and was required to make proper allotments and give possessory titles and defend them until Congress should confirm his actions. . . . Saxton testified: ‘General Sherman’s Special Field Order No. 15 ordered their *colonization* on forty-acre tracts . . .” Here then is our basis of the argument that at Emancipation in 1865, concentrations of New Afrikans were referred to as colonies. DuBois referred to America’s “distinctly colonial” racial state. Mary McLeod Bethune, a last-minute addition to the NAACP’s consultant team at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, spoke forcefully on how the UN Conference had painted in ‘bold relief’ that ‘common bond’ between African Americans and the colonial peoples” . If anything, Bethune remarked, the UNCIO had made it very clear that the ‘Negro in America’ held ‘little more than “colonial status in a democracy*.’ The similarities were appallingly clear. The fight for colonial self-determination paralleled the battle to overturn the South’s racist voting restrictions. The efforts to revise the UN’s ‘domestic jurisdiction’ clause matched the assault on the states’ rights philosophy of the South.  And the dissatisfaction with a trusteeship plan that denied colonies the right to lay their grievances before an international tribunal mirrored the opposition to America’s separate and unequal system of justice.

THE QUESTION MUST BE ASKED AND ANSWERED: WHEN AND HOW DID THE NEW AFRIKAN PEOPLE, ORIGINALLY ENSLAVED IN COLONIES AND THEN COLONIZED BY GENERAL SHERMAN’S SPECIAL FIELD ORDER NO. 15 CEASE BEING AN INTERNAL DOMESTIC BLACK COLONY BY 1945-1960?  

WHY WERE AFRICANS UNDER ALIEN RULE ON THE CONTINENT CONSIDERED “COLONIES” BUT AFRICANS UNDER ALIEN RULE IN THE WEST, ESPECIALLY THE UNITED STATES, NOT CONSIDERED AS COLONIZED PEOPLE?

The question was answered in REPARATIONS YES! A Suggestion Toward the Framework of a Reparations Demand and A Set of Legal Underpinnings by  IMARI ABUBAKARI OBADELE, CHAIRPERSON, THE PEOPLE’S CENTER COUNCIL (NATIONAL LEGISLATURE) OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NEW AFRIKA, SEPTEMBER 1987:

“THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH INSTANCES OF ARMED CONFLICT AND ARMED SUPPRESSION OF SUSPECTED MILITANTS BY THE UNITED STATES, DURING AND AFTER SLAVERY. MOREOVER, THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SLAVERY MAKE CLEAR ALSO THAT *WE WERE SUBJECT DURING THE SLAVERY ERA TO ‘COLONIAL DOMINATION AND ALIEN OCCUPATION.’* . . . .  IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CHARGE OF WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES THAT WE WERE STILL AN OCCUPIED AND OPPRESSED NATION IN THIS PERIOD BETWEEN THE CIVIL WAR AND 1968. *WE WERE A COLONY LIVING ON TERRITORY CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES* , SUBJECT UNTIL 1968 TO A BODY OF LEGISLATION AND COURT DECISIONS WHICH DEFINED OUR *SUBORDINATION TO THE WHITE NATION AND FACILITATED THE WHITE NATION’S ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL EXPLOITATION OF US, AND OUR SOCIAL DEGRADATION.”

                                                                                                                          

MAP OF THE ‘GREATER UNITED STATES’ AS IT WAS IN 1941

“At the turn of the 20th century, when many territories were acquired - Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaii, Wake - their status was clear. They were, as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson unabashedly called them, colonies. That spirit of forthright imperialism didn’t last. Within a decade or two, after passions had cooled, the c-word became taboo. “The word colony must not be used to express the relationship which exists between our government and its dependent peoples,” an official admonished in 1914. Better to stick with a gentler term, used for them all: territories.”

- Daniel Immerwahr, How the US has hidden its empire 

***********************************

THE UNITED STATES UNDERSTANDING OF COLONIALISM

The United States Representative, James J. Wadsworth, speaking to a plenary session of the U.N. General Assembly on 6 December 1960 made the following extraordinary remarks - which, of course, under U.S. constitutional principles, are deemed to be the words of the U.S. President and an authoritative statment of international law as the United States sees it:

‘First let me say what we mean by colonialism…. It is the imposition of alien power over a people, usually by force and without the free and formal consent of the governed. It is the perpetuation of that power. It is the deniel of the right of self-determination - whether by suppressing free-expression or by withholding necessary educational, economic, and social development.*** Obviously not all colonial regimes have been the same…. But, however important these differences, the fact remains that colonialism in any form is undesirable. Neither the most benevolent paternalism by a ruling power nor the most grateful acceptance of these benefits by indigenous leaders can meet the test of the charter or satisfy the spirit of this age.

***********************************

“The history of the U.S. settler-colonial project is characterized by the ethnic cleansing, mass displacement and dispossession of Indigenous peoples and the enslavement of African peoples to consolidate white power over land and capital. Settlers, in the words of scholar Mahmood Mamdani, ‘are made by conquest, not just by immigration.’ Seeking to ‘eliminate the Native,’ settler-colonizers deployed strategies of removal and replacement to violently uproot Indigenous peoples and create a racialized and gendered labor system to establish domination and extract profit from stolen land.

In undertaking overseas expansionism at the turn of the 20th Century, the United States employed many of the same strategies of racialized dispossession and oppression it had employed across the continent and in Hawaiʻi. At the same time, while island possessions like Guam and Puerto Rico were seen as strategically important, they were not viewed as suitable homelands for white settlers. Thus, rather than incorporating the territories into the settler-colonial Union, the United States developed a system of administration that afforded the federal government immense power over the territories but very little responsibility for the well-being of territorial inhabitants. The doctrine of territorial incorporation, announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of racist decisions, known as the “Insular Cases,” provides that because the “alien races” of the territories are “savage” and “different,” the territories “belong to” but are “not a part of” the United States and, accordingly, the Constitution does not apply of its own force therein. Instead, the territories remain subject to the plenary power of Congress, which determines the extent to which the Constitution applies and when and if the territories shall become more than mere possessions. To this day, the doctrine of territorial incorporation has been upheld and defended by the Supreme Court and every presidential administration as an appropriate framework for administering the territories. It was on this basis that, in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court held that territories, unlike states, have no independent sovereignty. Rather, under U.S. domestic law they are considered to be under the total dominion of the federal government. - Towards Decolonization & Repair: U.S. territories, self-determination, and the incompatibility of colonialism and human rights NGO Shadow Report before the United Nations Human Rights Committee 139th Session, Geneva, 9 October - 3 November 2023

IN 1945, THE UNITED NATIONS WAS FOUNDED. ACCORDING TO THE UN CHARTER, CHAPTER XI, ARTICLE 73 REGARDING NON-SELF GOVERNING TERRITORIES, THE UNITED STATES WAS OBLIGATED TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FORMER SELF-GOVERNING NEW AFRIKAN TERRITORIES THAT REVERTED TO NON-SELF GOVERNING TERRITORIES AS A RESULT OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN’S ASSASSINATION AND SUBSEQUENT US GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGN OF FRAUD AND TERROR LIMITING THE NEWLY-FREEDMEN’S POLITICAL RIGHTS. ALTERNATIVELY, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DECLARED THESE NEW AFRIKAN TERRITORIES AS TRUST TERRITORIES, UNDER UN CHARTER, CHAPTER XII ARTICLE 77.1.C TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM (SEE BELOW). HAD THE UNITED STATES DONE SO, THEN THESE NEW AFRIKAN TERRITORIES - NAMELY, THE BLACK BELT -  COULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES (GA RESOLUTION 1514 (XV) OF 14 DECEMBER 1960). THE QUESTION OF SELF-DETERMINATION, SELF-GOVERNMENT AND INDEPENDENCE FOR NEW AFRIKAN/AFRODESCENDANT PEOPLES IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD THUS HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION, OR C-24 ESTABLISHED IN 1961 BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY (GA) AS ITS SUBSIDIARY ORGAN DEVOTED TO THE ISSUE OF DECOLONIZATION, PURSUANT TO GA RESOLUTION 1654 (XVI) TO 

  • EXAMINE THE APPLICATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES (GA RESOLUTION 1514 (XV) OF 14 DECEMBER 1960; AND

  • TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROGRESS AND EXTENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION. 

THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT MALCOLM X TRIED TO BRING BEFORE THE WORLD COURT BEFORE HIS ASSASSINATION IN 1965. THIS IS THE CASE THAT STILL MUST BE DECIDED. 

THE UNITED STATES TERRITORY IS AN ACQUISITION OF LEGAL TITLE BY CONQUEST THAT HAS BEEN REJECTED AS ANACHRONISTIC AND CONTRARY TO THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS. AFRO DESCENDANT/NEW AFRIKAN PRESENCE ON SAID TERRITORY IS THE RESULT OF A DECLARATION OF TOTAL WAR AND THE SUBSEQUENT “TRANS ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE” THAT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEGED AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY BOTH NOW AND THEN. TERRITORIAL ACQUISITIONS OR OTHER ADVANTAGES GAINED THROUGH THE THREAT OR WRONGFUL USE OF FORCE CANNOT HAVE LEGAL EFFECT, BECAUSE INTERNATIONAL LAW CANNOT CONFER LEGALITY UPON THE CONSEQUENCES OF WRONGFUL ACTS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARTER. IN SUCH CASES, THERE SHOULD BE FULL RESTITUTION. TO CLAIM THAT OUR STATUS IS “AMERICAN CITIZEN” IS TO CONFER LEGALITY ON AN ACQUISITION OF TERRITORIAL LEGAL TITLE BY CONQUEST, A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, AND A CAMPAIGN OF FRAUD AND TERROR BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN AND THE 14TH AMENDMENT).

AT ISSUE IS: WILL THE UNITED STATES’ INTERNAL DOMESTIC BLACK COLONY BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH?”

**************************************************************************************************************

NEW AFRIKAN STATEMENTS ON OUR COLONIAL STATUS

Mary McLeod Bethune, a last-minute addition to the NAACP’s consultant team in San Francisco, spoke forcefully on how the UN Conference had painted in ‘bold relief’ that ‘common bond’ between African Americans and the colonial peoples. If anything, Bethune remarked, the UNCIO had made it very clear that the ‘Negro in America’ held ‘little more than colonial status in a democracy.’ The similarities were appallingly clear. The fight for colonial self-determination paralleled the battle to overturn the South’s racist voting restrictions. The efforts to revise the UN’s ‘domestic jurisdiction’ clause matched the assault on the states’ rights philosophy of the South.  And the dissatisfaction with a trusteeship plan that denied colonies the right to lay their grievances before an international tribunal mirrored the opposition to America’s separate and unequal system of justice.


Harold Cruse: Revolutionary Nationalism and the Afro-American (1962): “From the beginning, the American Negro has existed as a colonial being. His enslavement coincided with the colonial expansion of European powers and was nothing more or less than a condition of domestic colonialism. Instead of the United States establishing a colonial empire in Africa, it brought the colonial system home and installed it in the Southern states. When the Civil War broke up the slave system and the Negro was emancipated, he gained only partial freedom. Emancipation elevated him only to the position of a semidependent man, not to that of an equal or independent being. . . .The Negro is not really an integral part of the American nation beyond the convenient formal recognition that he lives within the borders of the United States. . . The only factor which differentiates the Negro's status from that of a pure colonial status is that his position is maintained in the "home" country in close proximity to the dominant racial group. . . . Of course, the national character of the Negro has little to do with what part of the country he lives in. Wherever he lives, he is restricted. His national boundaries are the color of his skin, his racial characteristics, and the social conditions within his subcultural world.. . . Unlike the situation in the colonial area, the Negro could not seize the power he wanted nor oust "foreigners. . . . Their rejection of white society is analogous to the colonial peoples' rejection of imperialist rule. The difference is only that people in colonies can succeed and American Negro nationalists cannot . The peculiar position of Negro nationalists in the United States requires them to set themselves against the dominance of whites and still manage to live in the same country.”

 The Provisional Government of the African American Captive Nation (PG-AACN) Declaration of Self-Determination of the African American Captive Nation by “Chief” Oseijeman Adefunmi President; Robert F. Williams, Prime minister; Abdul Rahman, First Deputy Prime Minister; Audley Moore, Second Deputy Prime Minister:

“Be it further resolved that all the land south of the Mason-Dixon line where our people constitute the majority, be partitioned to establish a territory for Self-Government for the African nation in the U.S.A.; and Be it further resolved that the United States Government take full responsibility for training our people for self-government in all of its ramifications, and Be it finally resolved that the Provisional Government of the African American Captive Nation be recognized by the Government of the United States as of now.”

Malcolm X:

“Every nation in Asia gained its independence through the philosophy of nationalism. Every nation on the African continent that has gotten its independence brought it about through the philosophy of nationalism. And it will take black nationalism -- that to bring about the freedom of 22 million Afro-Americans here in this country where we have suffered colonialism for the past 400 years.”

“America is just as much a colonial power as England ever was…what do you call second-class citizenship? Why, that's colonization. Second-class citizenship is nothing but 20th (century) slavery. How you gonna to tell me you're a second-class citizen? They don't have second-class citizenship in any other government on this Earth. They just have slaves and people who are free! Well, this country is a hypocrite! They try and make you think they set you free by calling you a second-class citizen. No, you're nothing but a 20th century slave.”

-Malcolm X, The Ballot or the Bullet

Max Stanford:

“There are two conflicting views; the first sees our people as citizens denied their rights and believes that they will be assimilated or integrated by revolution, reform, or other means into the White American way of life; which means exploitation of non-white peoples. The other sees our people as a nation within the boundaries of another nation, a nation in captivity striving to obtain independence, self-determination, or national liberation. . . . By the proportion of the population - in the South especially - AfroAmericans constitute a nation within a nation.”

Donald Freeman:

“Further the conference [1964 AfroAmerican Student Movement conference at Fisk University] maintained that the federal government's refusal to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments renders AfroAmericans slaves or a colonized Black Nation, not American citizens, thus relegating them to a position analogous to that of Afro-Asian and Latin American nations under Western imperialism.”

Eldridge Cleaver, Head of the International Section of the Black Panther Party, stated,

“We have, in the United States, a ‘Mother Country Working Class’ and a ‘Working Class from the Black Colony. We also have a Mother Country Lumpenproletariat and a Lumpenproletariat from the Black Colony. Inside the Mother Country, these categories are fairly stable, but when we look at the Black Colony, we find that the hard and fast distinctions melt away. This is because of the leveling effect of the colonial process and the fact that all Black people are colonized, even if some of them occupy favored positions in the schemes of the Mother Country colonizing exploiters.

Kathleen Cleaver, Minister of Information for the Black Panther Party stated,

“There was an explanation for why our housing was bad, our education was poor, our political power was limited. And that explanation was that we were held as colonial subjects within the United States. It’s not a perfect explanation. It’s an analogy to situations in Africa and in Asia that we could see that ‘fit’ us. Therefore, colonialism had been denounced by the United Nations and people were entitled to their independence and they were justified in breaking out of that type of control. That was the basic American history.”

Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party, stated,

“Police in our community couldn’t possibly be there to protect our property because we own no property. They couldn’t possibly be there to see that we receive the due process of law for the simple reason that the police themselves deny us the due process of law. And so it is very apparent that the police only in our community not for our security but the security of the business owners in the community, and also to see that the status quo was kept intact. . . . In America, black people are treated very much as the Vietnamese people or any other colonized people because we’re used, we’re brutalized. The police in our community occupy our area, our community as a foreign troop occupies territory.”

Imari Obadele made an explicit connection to our colonization and African national liberation movements:

“For no less than they have We boldly shed the nationality of our colonizer and gone to contest for independent land. . . .“ and “The essential strategy of our struggle for land is to array enough power ( as in jiu-jitsu, with a concentration of karate strength at key moments) to force the greatest power, the United States, to abide by international law, to recognize and accept our claims to independence and land. The purpose of this strategy can be further simplified: it is to create a situation for the United States where it becomes cheaper to relinquish control of the Five States than to continue a war against us to take back or hold the area.” - from Foundations of A Black Nation

In A Suggestion Towards the Framework of A Reparations  Demand And A Set of Legal Underpinnings, Imari Abubakari Obadele  Chairperson, the People’s Center Council (National Legislature)  of the Provisional Government  Republic of New Afrika  And Associate Professor of Political Science,  Prairie View A&M University, Texas writes,

“It is relevant to the charge of war against the United States that We were still an occupied and oppressed nation in this period between the Civil War and 1968. We were a colony living on territory claimed by the United States, subject until 1968 to a body of legislation and court decisions which defined our subordination to the White nation and facilitated the White nation’s economic and cultural exploitation of us, and our social degradation.”

Ramon Gutierrez writes in Internal Colonialism: An American Theory of Race (2004),

“The tangible results of the Civil Rights Movement remain evident through heightened levels of political representation, patterns of voting participation, and economic upward mobility for some, swelling the ranks of the Black rich and middle class leaving behind a much larger permanent underclass that has continued to fall further and further behind. The theory of internal colonialism was elaborated in the United States for them.”

Albert H. Dyson, Office of the General Counsel, Dept. of Defense, Chokwe Lumumba, Chairman, New Afrikan Peoples Organization, Brooklyn, N.Y., Nkechi Taifa-Caldwell, Minister of Justice, Republic of New Afrika, Washington, D.C., for Dr. Mutulu Shakur. - 690 F. Supp. 1291 (1988) UNITED STATES of America,
v. Marilyn BUCK, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Mutulu SHAKUR, Defendant. Nos. 84 Cr. 220-CSH, SSS 82 Cr. 312-CSH. United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 6, 1988.

“As is the case with every colonial experience, the New Afrikan Nation as a colony has no independent economic structure. The vast majority of the population of New Afrika, however, has at all points in history been contained within the same imperialist economic structure, and has shared the misfortune of suffering discriminatory treatment within it. Indeed it is appropriate to say in the case of New Afrika, as in the case of most colonies, that New Afrikans as a National population are an underclass frozen at the bottom of the American economy.”

Nkechi Taifa, in Black Power, Black Lawyer: My Audacious Quest for Justice, writes,

“In one of my college papers, ‘The Political Economy of the Black Ghetto,’ titled after a book of the same name by William Tabb, I argued, ‘A colonial relationship presently exists between the Black ghetto and the larger society, having many similarities with the same oppressive dependence that exists between many underdeveloped countries and industrial nations.’ My paper’s conclusion was that the ‘Black ghetto was also a colony whose situation closely paralleled the political and economic relationships existing between many Third World nations and the industrially advanced countries.’”

THE BALANTA WHO REVITALIZED THE ETHIOPIAN WORLD FEDERATION (EWF), CREATED A CITIZENSHIP POLICY FOR REPATRIATES AND TRIED TO SAVE THE SHASHEMANE LAND GRANT GIVEN BY EMPEROR H.I.M. HAILE SELASSIE I

The following articles, commentaries and reports are excerpted from the five volume, 1,500 page work entitled, COME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE! 21ST CENTURY BLACK PROPHETIC FAITH AND PAN AFRICAN DIPLOMACY. According to the book synopsis,

“When the World Trade Center was destroyed on September 11, 2001 – the same day that Ethiopians celebrate New Year’s Day – a few black men in America interpreted this event as the fulfillment of the biblical book of Revelations Chapter 18. Verses 4 and 5 commanded them to “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven and God has remembered her crimes”. Obediently, Ras Nathaniel organized a mass Repatriation movement and led a diplomatic effort at the African Union on behalf of an estimated one million Rastafarians. There was just six years before the prophecy fulfilled for the Ethiopian Millennium which, on the western Gregorian calendar would begin on September 11, 2007.

In 1619, the first 20 Africans were brought to Jamestown, Virginia. They all had one common desire: return to their home in Africa. In every period since that time to the present, the most learned, respected and courageous of the Africans and their descendants concluded that they must either revolt against their enslavers or find some way to return to their home, the land which the Bible called “Ethiopia”. From this land a Universal Black King would be born with the titles King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of Judah. Biblical prophets claimed that Princes would come out of her, that Ethiopia would stretch forth her hands, and her scattered, captive children would be brought home. In every period in American history, black men remained faithful to these scriptures and rejected America’s forced assimilation. Men like

George Liele, 1783
Prince Hall 1787
John Marrant 1791
Robert Alexander Young 1829
David Walker 1829
Martin Delaney 1836-1852
Henry Highland Garnett 1843
Edward Wilmott Blyden 1860’s
Bishop Henry McNeil Turner 1880
William Ellis 1903
Robert Athly Rogers, 1913-1924
Grover Redding, 1917
Clayton Adams (Charles Henry Holmes) 1917
Reverend James Morris Webb 1919-1925
Marcus Garvey 1919-1924
Malcolm X 1964
Ras Nathaniel adds his name to the list.

Come Out of Her My People! tells the story of how these biblical prophesies actually happened in the 20th Century and how the Black Exodus of Rastafari people ultimately failed.

Now, the original repatriates to Ethiopia started with Daniel Robert Alexander in 1908/1909. He was followed by Annie Harvey who lived in New York but was originally from Jamaica. Then, in 1928, Ato Gabrou Desta, then in the United States on a special mission to obtain economic and educational advisers, discussed Repatriation directly with Rabbi Arnold Ford whom the Abyssinian Mission of 1919 had made the first Repatriation offer. Ato Gabrou then issued the fourth invitation to Repatriate to Ethiopia in a message from Ras Tafari which stated,

“We would welcome them back to Ethiopia, their Fatherland . . . . There is plenty of room for them here and we are certain they would be of the greatest aid in restoring their ancient land to its pristine glory.”

Three months after this meeting, Ford’s congregation sent him to Ethiopia accompanied by Miss Eudora Paris, a singer of note among Harlem nationalists. Ford and Paris reached Addis Ababa in 1930, joining the elderly Daniel Alexander. They arrived just in time to attend the Coronation Ceremony on November 2, 1930, when Ras Tafari became Emperor of Ethiopia and was crowned Haile Selassie, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of Judah.” About 100 Africans from the Americas attend the Coronation of HIM Haile Selassie I. Many of those present are associated with the Elder Daniel Robert Alexander, who had been living in the country for 21 years and would become known as the Emperor’s blacksmith.

On January 4, 1931 Garvey’s UNIA followers march side by side with Rabbi Arnold Ford’s Black Hebrews in a street parade through Harlem, carrying framed life-size portraits of HIM Haile Selassie I and the Honorable Marcus Garvey. Garvey then sets sail for London to file a petition to the League of Nations which accused the United States and the nations of Europe of violating the human rights of African Americans and other African peoples.

ELEVEN DAYS AFTER GARVEY SET SAIL, DETROIT-AREA UNIA PRESIDENT EARL LITTLE (MALCOLM X’S FATHER), WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING SIGNATURES FOR THE PETITION, WAS DISCOVERED DYING ON THE TROLLEY TRACKS NEAR HIS HOME.

𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐚. 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐣𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟑𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟗 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝟏𝟐(𝟐) 𝐇𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐁𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭: (note this statement is my inference made after concluding my study of the Ethiopian laws at the Institute of Ethiopian Studies (IES) in Addis Ababa, where I was given special access to archives by the IES Director at the time, Ato Demeke Berhane)

“12(2) If the Imperial Ethiopian Government deems any foreigner who applies for Ethiopian citizenship to be of value or if it finds other special reason which convinces it that the applicant should be granted citizenship it may grant him/her Ethiopian citizenship even if he/she does not fulfill the [residency and language] requirements prescribed in Article 12(b) and (d) of the Nationality Law of 1930.”

By 1931, with a framework in place for the full Repatriation of Blacks from the West, Ato Gabrou informed Rabbi Ford and Eudora Paris of land concessions granted. Ato Gabrou sent word to Ford’s congregation in America to arrange passage for the next group of repatriates. Nine more members repatriated, including 𝐌𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐬 (𝐰𝐡𝐨, 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐬, 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬), 𝐀𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐬, 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐝, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐋𝐲𝐧𝐜𝐡, 𝐉𝐚𝐧𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐀𝐝𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 (𝐕𝐢𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬, 𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐀 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬), 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬 (𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐨𝐫𝐚 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬’ 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬). During this period, 1930-1931, approximately 100 Ethiopian “Blacks” from America repatriate to Ethiopia, including Horace W. Hendricks and William Weeks of Harlem, Oswald Nanton, James Alexander Hart (British Guiana), George A. Smith, and Mr. Helwig. Noted Black scholar J.A. Rogers twice visited Ethiopia during the early 1930’s.

Central to the story is the Ethiopian World Federation (EWF), established in the United States in 1937. Its aims were to mobilize support for the Ethiopians during the Italian invasion of 1935-41, and to embody the unity of Ethiopians (Black people) home and abroad. Sections were established in other parts of the Americas. Later, the EWF was given charge of an area of land in Ethiopia for housing returning emigrants. It would be responsible for the first major organized, state-sponsored repatriation progrem of the 20th century.

In 1942, George Bryan, Executive Secretary of the Ethiopian World Federation, Incorporated , wrote to His Imperial Majesty, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I the following message (excerpted):

". . . . 3. 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 desiring to travel to Ethiopia for permanent settlement. 4. Plead for the easing of Visa restrictions to facilitate the voluntary entry of such members wishing from time to time to travel to Ethiopia to settle, visit and otherwise pursue ways for strengthening their relations with the Motherland.

Mr. Reginald Birch is fully authorized to act in the name and on behalf of the Ethiopian World Federation, this authority deriving from the exercise of the authority vested in the Executive Council as the policy making body of the Federation.

George A Bryan, Executive Secretary"

The Emperor's Initial response to the EWF did not mention any land grant. However, on June 3, 1959, T.E. Sealy, Editor of the Jamaican Daily Gleaner wrote to the Ethiopian government to verify the land grant. The Imperial Ethiopian Government Ministry of Foreign Affairs Addis Ababa, Sept. 9, 1959 responded by saying,

"In response to your enquiry and specifically as to whether or not lands have been made available by the Imperial Ethiopian Government for the "Ethiopian World Federation Inc.", we can confirm the substance of your letter thus:-

As a token of his appreciation for the services the "Ethiopian World Federation" rendered to the Ethiopian cause during the Fascist Invasion of our country, His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie 1st, has been pleased to grant for the use of the "Ethiopian World Federation" lands not very far from the capital city of Addis Ababa."

At the start of the 21st Century, the EWF was in disarray and turmoil. To help save it and the Shasheman land grant, in stepped Ras Nathaniel, who was LEARNING FROM THE LEADERS THE PERSONAL COST OF AFRICAN LIBERATION: RESPONSIBILITY, RACIAL RE-EDUCATION, SPIRITUAL RE-CONVERSION, AND CLASS SUICIDE FOR A HOLY ORDER OF COMMITMENT.

In 2003, while serving as a journalist for the Rastafari Speaks newspaper published by Chicago’s very own Frontline Distribution, Ras Nathaniel. registered with the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Information & Culture Press and Information Department as a journalist and began working at the African Union and the Economic Commission for Africa. He is the only African American to attend both the 1st Extraordinary Summit of the Assembly of the African Union in Addis Ababa, as well as the African Union Grand Debate in Ghana in 2007. As a result, Ras Nathaniel became the Director of the African Union 6th Region Education Campaign. He appeared on South African Broadcasting Company (SABC TV), negotiated the Rastafari citizenship issues in Ethiopia, helped the Central American Black Organization to elect its representatives to the African Union at their 12th Assembly in Honduras, and gave the inaugural Marcus Garvey lecture for the Government of Barbados’ Commission for Pan African Affairs. In 2006 he was the roommate of Dr. Kamarakafego, counselor, consultant, official and friend to Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, CLR James, Walter Rodney and many others while organizing the 6th Pan African Congress in Tanzania in 1974. In 2007, while organizing the Global Unity Conference in Azania, Ras Nathaniel was given the name Siphiwe Baleka by a council of Elders. On September 28, 2010, his African Ancestry patrilineal test results showed that he was a descendant of the Balanta people.

Below are some of the documents from Ras Nathaniel’s archives.

ISSEMBLY FOR RASTAFARI INIVERSAL EDUCATION (IRIE) STAR ORDER REPORT: ETHIOPIAN IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE RASTAFARI FAMILY WORLDWIDE

- May 13, 2003

SHASHEMANE CONTROVERSIES

- August 5, 2003

“ . . . it was the maladministration of the land grant in the late sixties and early seventies that caused the first serious problems on the Shashemane land grant. Well, upon arrival I learned that the majority of Rastafari non-EWF members view the EWF in Shashemane today as a secret society at best and gang at worst, mostly because of their closed-door meetings. Although I wasn’t an official EWF member when I arrived, because I was known to be organizing a chapter, I was allowed in to their meetings. Here I learned that for the past three years they, the Shashemane Local #14 have been dealing with the issue of their charter, which is not recognized by EWF Headquarters in New York. This is very strange because the EWF International Organizer lives in Addis Ababa and frequents Shashemane. So technically, the EWF Shashemane local can’t really do anything because it is not recognized by EWF headquarters! To make matters worse, the EWF members in Shashemane made it known that, as administrators of the land-grant, they decided everyone on the land grant must be members of the EWF, forcing a sort of organizationalgangsterism. This was quite an arrogant offence to some who had been living on the land grant for years. This prompted the Centenary Committee for Rastafari (CCR) Newsletter, 11th Edition Shashemane, Ethiopia April 2001 to report that, at the first ever public meeting of the EWF Shashemane Local, In a series of hot exchanges from the floor, the EWF leadership faced criticism for “landlord” tendencies and exclusiveness that had limited its role in the community. It was clear that changes would have to be made in the vision, policy, leadership, and constitutional interpretation of the present organ if it was to represent I&I at the international level. Needless to say, these changes haven’t been made, and the EWF continues to stand alone.”



EWF Update

- November 2, 2004

ETHIOPIAN MILLENNIUM REPATRIATION: RESTORING THE EWF AND THE SHASHEMANE LAND GRANT

- July 16, 2006

HIM HAILE SELASSIE I VISION FOR REPATRIATION

In 2017, the Ethiopian government adopted Ras Nathaniel’s immigration policy recommendations and finally recognized Rastafarians as nationals by issuing them with identity cards. The decision meant that they can enter the East African nation without visas and live without residence permits. This was an important step, not only because it gave them the right to legally live in Ethiopia, but also because it stopped the payments "illegal residents" had to make in order to be able to travel outside Ethiopia.

According to a 2019 article by Maria Gerth-Niculescu,

“Internal squabbles, economic struggles and the difficulty of integrating with the local Ethiopian community have led many Rastafarians to leave town, either to find work in the capital Addis Ababa, or to move to another country. Only about 200 still live in Shashamane. In the late 90s, they numbered approximately 2,000.

Recently, the Ethiopian government started the allocation of national residence cards to Rastafarians who have been living in the country for over 10 years. This was an important step, not only because it gave them the right to legally live in Ethiopia, but also because it stopped the payments "illegal residents" had to make in order to be able to travel outside Ethiopia. According to Ras Paul, "Now it's their chance to travel, see their families, they can come back when they want to... I'd say about a third of the population is out of the country now."

The allocation of the residence permit, which gives Rastafarians the status of "Foreign National of Ethiopian Origin”, was celebrated as a major step towards the community's recognition and integration. They now have the right to work and can legally send their children to school. But it is not enough for some. "I consider myself to be an Ethiopian returned home, and I have no desire to leave this country to live anywhere else," Ras Kawintesseb, who born in Trinidad and Tobago, said.

"It makes sense to me that I get to become an Ethiopian citizen. I'm not satisfied with being a foreign national, so I've applied for my Ethiopian citizenship," the Rastafarian who landed in Addis Ababa 23 years ago added. Married to an Ethiopian, Ras Kawintesseb is in touch with the Ethiopian community through his family and his multi-lingual music. But that's not the case for all Rastafarians in Shashamane: some are afraid that Ethiopians want to take their land away; others haven't had the chance to learn Amharic or adapt to the Ethiopian culture.

Ras Paul says he wishes to mingle more with Ethiopians. "But here it's very tense, because of the political problems of the country and the political emphasis on the land grant. There is big tension here, attacks on Rastafarians, seizing of Rastafarian land… Most of us have a story of a house being burgled, especially on his Imperial Majesty's birthday. On our most holy days they target us," he exclaimed, aggrieved. “

Disillusioned by the situation with the EWF and the development of the African Union 6th Region, Ras Nathaniel, now “Siphiwe Baleka” went on to fulfill the Repatriation mission in his ancestral homeland, taking what he learned from his experience in Ethiopia and applied it to launch the Decade of Return Initiative in Guinea Bissau, negotiate citizenship for the descendants of people taken from Guinea Bissau and enslaved in the Americas, and serving at the Coordinator for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1 to be held in Harare, Zimbabwe at the end of 2023.

Outcome of the 4th Preparatory Meeting for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1: Pan African TV and Radio

Later this year, the government of Zimbabwe will be hosting the “8th Pan African Congress Part 1 (8PAC1)”. On Saturday, March 11, more than 350 people attended the The Fourth Preparatory Meeting for the 8PAC1 that lasted five hours discussing the agenda item:

ESTABLISHMENT OF A PAN AFRICAN TV AND RADIO STATION/NETWORK

Nearly all organized efforts have a system of propaganda to convert people to their principles and get them to support them. Western Media, especially CNN, BBC, etc. has been and continues to be the highest form of systemic propaganda. That is why it is able in a major sense, to control the mind of the people of the world.Therefore, we must organize our propaganda to undo the propaganda of other people through a Pan African TV and Radio network that can rival CNN, BBC, etc.

LISTEN TO H.E. AMBASSADOR ARIKANA CHIHOMBORI-QUAO DISCUSS THE PROPOSAL FOR A PAN AFRICAN TV AND RADIO NETWORK WITH DELEGATES

During the meeting, 8PAC1 Coordinator Siphiwe Baleka emphasized the message in Marcus Garvey’s Course of African Philosophy: Lesson 16 Propaganda that serves as the rationale for establishing a Pan African TV network:

“Propaganda means to propagate or to make known extensively some particular phase of human intelligence. The desire is to convert or influence the people to the acceptance of the truth of that particular intelligence that is sought to be spread among them. Propaganda can be true or false in its origin or intent; but it is always directed at the public for the purpose of winning the support of that public to the sentiment expressed in the propaganda. . . . Nearly all organized efforts have a system of propaganda to convert people to their principles and get them to support them even though there may be no merit behind it all. Propaganda is all around you; to make you buy a special brand of cigarettes, although no good, but advertised to be the best; to make you drink or use a certain brand of tea; telling you of its wonderful qualities and its everlasting benefits when thee is absolutely nothing to it, and so on. . . . The press, cinema, pulpit, schoolroom are all propaganda agencies for one thing or the other. The pulpit carries religious propaganda, the schoolroom carries educational propaganda, the press carries out written propaganda, the platform carries on oral propaganda, the cinema carries out demonstrative propaganda. These methods have been devised by the white man to spread his ideas universally among men. That is why he is able in a major sense, to control the mind of the people of the world. The white man is a great propagandist. He fully and completely realizes the value of propaganda. Therefore, you must organize your propaganda to undo the propaganda of other people; if their propaganda affects your interest. . . . Tear up and burn every bit of propaganda that does not carry your idea of things. Treat them as trash. . . . You should always match propaganda with propaganda.”

Mr. Baleka likened television networks such as CNN and BBC to “fighter jets” and social media networks to “anti-aircraft artillery”. In his analogy, Mr. Baleka stated,

“Why do we need a Pan African TV station? Right now, African people at home and abroad are making great use of social media because the barrier to entry is very low. Anyone can do it from anywhere. So we are using our social media anti-aircraft artillery to partially nufflify the CNN and BBC jet fighters in the propaganda war for the minds of people. But foreigners, because they have these television networks, they have air superiority. . . We can win some of the media battles with our social media, but if we want to win the media war, the propaganda war, we need our own fighter jets, equal or better than the foreigners. We should not be afraind or limit our thinking to just the low hanging fruit of social media and winning sporadic battles over the narratives….”

Michael Thompson, founder of the Our Black Truch (OBT) and related platforms, gave an overview of the his Pan African social media system that will replace Facebook, Youtube, etc. Security issue related to the internet and social media were also discussed.

Council of Pan African Diaspora Elders Baba Baya added,

“Just wanted to suggest that we also pursue a Pan-African wire service to provide articles and commentaries to various newspapers throughout the Diaspora.  There is a Pan-African news service already in existence however it is western socialist oriented.  If the TV/Radio is the jet fighter, then the newspaper is the ground force.  We have thousands of community newspapers throughout the Diaspora in French, Spanish, Portuguese and English-speaking community newspapers in the Diaspora community. A Pan-African news service that has access to online newspapers as well as conventional newspapers might also offer us a steady ability to shape our narrative at the community level.  In many regions of the Diaspora, communities still read newspapers.  We might want to include this as part of the conversation when it comes to us controlling the narrative.”

One of the outcomes of the meeting was the formation of the Pan African TV and Radio Committee for the 8PAC1. There is now a Citizenship Committee, a Technology Committee, an AU 6th Region Headquarters Committee, a Fund and Bank Committee, and a Youth Committee as well as a Council of Pan African Diaspora Elders.

If you would like to join a committee, please complete the form below

Council of Pan African Diaspora Elders Letter of Support to President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa of The Republic of Zimbabwe for the 8PAC1

African Diaspora Development Institute (ADDI) Vice President Damian Cook met with His Excellency, President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa of The Republic of Zimbabwe. Not Pictured: H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao. Courtesy of ADDI

Harare, Zimbabwe - On Monday, March 13, 2023, H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao and African Diaspora Development Institute (ADDI) Vice President Damian Cook met with His Excellency, President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa of The Republic of Zimbabwe, to discuss preparations for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1 (8PAC1) later this year in Harare, Zimbabwe. Central to the discussion was an agreement on the dates for the 8PAC1 which were scheduled for April but have now been posponed pending details to be worked out by various ministries. President Mnangagwa assured Ambassador Quao that a meeting of all the ministers is being called to finalize the program and an agreement is expected very soon.

During the meeting, the following letter from the Council of Pan African Diaspora Elders in support of the 8PAC1 was delivered to President Mnangagwa:

Outcome of the 3rd Preparatory Meeting for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1: Diaspora Pan African Capital Fund

“Others are becoming billionaires in Africa everyday. They are properly capitalized with enough money to buy all the equipment and in the mining sector, they quadruple their investment in just 3 months. If we get enough funding, we can be equal players.....that will benefit Africans at home and in the Diaspora. The only thing preventing us from competing on equal footing has been access to funding and capitalization. If we get this funding, it's going to be a game-changer. Africans and the African Diaspora can invest in Africa and become millionaires within months. Diasporans can benefit from their inheritance in Africa."      

- H.E. Ambassador Arikana Quao

Later this year, the government of Zimbabwe will be hosting the “8th Pan African Congress Part 1 (8PAC1)”. One of the main Agenda items is African Economic Liberation through Diaspora Pan African Capital Fund, Diaspora Pan African Bank and Diaspora Preferential Investment Pathway for International Contracts. On Sunday, March 5, The Third Preparatory Meeting for the 8PAC1 discussed the agenda item:

Diaspora Pan African Capital Fund 

$100 a month from 1 million African Diasporans (0.4% of the African Diaspora population) is $100 million a month. That’s $1.2 billion a year and $6 billion in five years. Investment through the fund qualifies for citizenship through Pathway 1. At maturity, money is deposited in a bank in the country of choice.

Below is a concept deck prepared by Nicole Holmes summarizing the vision of H.E. Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao and the discussion during the meeting. To solicit input for the Zero Draft Resolutions working document for the 8PAC1 Harare Declaration, complete the form below.

Example: Lithium mine 

Approximately $300K is neede to acquire a lithium mine. For lithium mining, you need an excavator and a jaw crusher. All one needs to do is dig up chunks of rock, crush them, load them up and they are ready to sell. Average cost of lithium (depending on the % of lithium in the rock) is

  • 4% to 5% a ton of rock of lithium is $600 to $700;

  • 5% to 6% is about $1000 per ton;

  • 6% to 7% is up to $1,500 per ton.

You can dig up to six dump trucks each carrying 20 tons each per day for a total of 120 tons per day. Average is about 60 to 80 tons per day, or $36,000 minimum at 4% to 5% or $720,000 a month (20 days working out of 30). At a maximum of 120 tons at 7%, that’s $180,000 a day or $3,600,000 a month (20 days working out of 30). 

Expenses to transport the lithium is about $1000 per truck. You can lease an excavator or a jaw crusher for $15,000 a month.

Subtract $30,000 per month for the excavator and jaw crusher, as well as $5,000 for the fuel. The returns are still huge!  

If there is maximum production of 120 tons for 24 days at 5% to 6% ($1,000 per ton), that’s 2,880 tons of lithium worth $2,880,000. Subtracting the equipment and fuel cost, that’s a net profit of $2,845,000. After paying labor, there is a massive net profit.

Question: how much does it cost to do this with the least amount of environmental damages….?


The purpose of the Diaspora Pan African Capital Fund is to provide the capital for African Diaspora investment projects such as the lithium example above, whose profits are then reinvested in the communities themselves in the form of clinics, schools, etc. In this way, the African Diaspora can come into Africa and compete with foreignes who are already capitalized and extracting huge profits from the mining sector. The Diaspora Pan African Capital Fund is conceived to be a specific means for achieving

#AfricanEconomicLiberation

Please share your thoughts and ideas about the proposed Diaspora Pan African Capital Fund by completing this form. If you would like to serve on the Fund & Bank Committee for the 8PAC1, please email: pac8.1coord@ouraddi.org

“How noble and great a deed is the act of sacrificing one’s wealth, land and money, to one’s needy community instead of for selfish purposes!”  - H.I.M. Haile Selassie I, January 12, 1963

TOWARDS THE 8TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS PART 1: LESSONS FROM THE 6TH PAC AND 7TH PAC

“Political conferences of the oppressed invariably attract a variety of responses - varying from cynical conviction that they are an utter waste of time to naïve optimism that they will change the face of the world. In actuality, popular struggle continues from day to day at many different and more profound levels; and its intensity at any given time primarily determines the relevance and utility of the conference as a technique of co-ordination. The Sixth Pan-African Congress scheduled for Dar es Salaam in June, 1974 consciously aims at being heir to a tradition of conferences which grew out of the response of Africans to their oppression in the first half of this century. Therefore, its rationale must be sought though a careful determination of the co-ordinates of the contemporary endeavours of the African people everywhere. . . .

Any 'Pan' concept is an exercise in self-definition by a people, aimed at establishing a broader redefinition of themselves than that which had so far been permitted by those in power. Invariably, however, the exercise is undertaken by a specific social group or class which speaks on behalf of the population as a whole. This is always the case with respect to national movements. Consequently, certain questions must be placed on the agenda: notably, the following:

- Which class leads the national movement?

- How capable is this class of carrying out the historical tasks of national liberation?

- Which are the silent classes on whose behalf 'national' claims are being articulated?”

Walter Rodney, Aspects of the International Class Struggle in Africa, the Caribbean and America
—————————————————————————————————————————————————

As the Coordinator of the Agenda for the Pan African Congress Part 1 (8PAC1) to be held in Harare, Zimbabwe later this year, I feel compelled to follow in Rodney’s footsteps and provide a rationale for the upcoming congress. As I stated in the article From the 8th Pan African Congress in 2014 to the 8th Pan African Congress in 2023, many grassroots Pan African activists are asking questions about the event. There will be some conflict over the Congress’s connection to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. There may be arguments over whether or not the Congress should be called the 8th PAC, the 9th PAC or even be called a PAC at all. Some veterans of the Pan African movement may feel slighted that, until now, they were not consulted from the start. And perhaps there may be many more objections. 

But Rodney instructs us to make “a careful determination of the co-ordinates of the contemporary endeavours of the African people everywhere. . . .” The original call (June 2022) for the 8PAC1 stated,

“Dear Potential Delegate,

The African Union defines the African Diaspora as all people of African descent living outside of Africa. In 2002 after an increase drumbeat from people of African descent living outside Africa (The African Diaspora), The African Union incorporated the 6th Region as part of the African Union constitution. Since the amendment of the AU constitution, it has been brought to our attention the onus has been left to the African Diaspora to organize and collectively, in a united manner present demands to the African Heads of State as to how we wish to organize and formalize the 6th Region in the same way as the other 5 regions on the continent of Africa.

The Government of Zimbabwe has heard loud and clear the out cry from the African Diaspora and their desire to come back home. As such the President the Republic of Zimbabwe has agreed to host the African Diaspora Pan African Congress (ADPAC) which is scheduled to take place in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe during the month of October 2022. . . .”

On September 6, the ADPAC was postponed. A letter to potential delegates stated,

“September 06, 2022

To: All delegates to the scheduled 9th Pan African Congress and Invest in Africa Spotlight Zimbabwe Conference . . . .”

Thus, from June to September, the conference changed from the African Diaspora Pan African Congress (ADPAC) to the 9th Pan African Congress (9thPAC). However, sometime between September and February, the event was re-branded the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1. After arriving in Harare, Zimbabwe on February 7th to join H.E. Ambassador Chihombori-Quao’s planning committee, I asked her why the conference was now being called the “8th PAC Part 1"” when it was most recently annouced as the “9th PAC”. Her response was that it was on the insistence of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who intends to host the “8th PAC Part 2” next year in Uganda to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the 7th PAC that was held in Kampala, Uganda. . . .

What’s important, however, and most relevant to Rodney’s insistance, is that the motivation for the event is that “The Government of Zimbabwe has heard loud and clear the out cry from the African Diaspora and their desire to come back home. “ Given this and the African Diaspora’s obligation “to organize and collectively, in a united manner present demands to the African Heads of State . . . .” it was proper to call the event the African Diaspora (who is meeting) Pan African Congress (concerning an issue that is foundational to all African People and concerning obligations of all AU Member States).

To be sure, the Ghana Tourism Authority predicted its 2019 Year of Return initiative would attract 500,000 extra visitors. Official data from January to September 2019 showed an additional 237,000 visitors - a rise of 45% compared with the same period the previous year. Minister of Tourism Barbara Oteng Gyasi said the Year of Return had injected about $1.9bn (£1.5bn) into the economy. Now, Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau and other African states are follwoing suit and launching citizenship programs under a “Decade of Return” Initiative. But the Right to Return and citizenship issues has been fraught with problems on all sides.

The right to return and African citizenship issue was initially included in the

WORKING PAPER ON DESIRABLE RESULTS OF THE 6TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS, TANZANIA 1974

Since the formation of the African Union, citizenship for African Diasporans has been one of the major priorities that, after twenty years, has yet to materialize. Given that the post Ghana “Year of Return” Blaxit movement represents the largest Back-to-Africa rematriation phenomenon in history since the Dum Diversas War launched in 1452 and the criminal trans-atlantic trafficking of prisoners of war from the African continent, the rationale does indeed satisfy “a careful determination of the co-ordinates of the contemporary endeavours of the African people everywhere. . . .” in the context that African people everywhere want freedom of movement and continental citizenship and that a major catalyst for achieving this is developing a comprehensive African Diaspora citizenship policy.

In Pan-Africanism and Nationality Rights For the Diaspora: A Contemporary Perspective, in Pan-Africanism, African Nationalism: Strengthening the Unity of Africa and its Diaspora edited by B.F. Banke & K. Mchombu, A. Bernard puts it this way:

“The Pan-Africanist Law of Return: Quintessential Reparations

At a very basic level, if reparation is to repair the wrongs committed against African peoples through slavery and its apprentices, colonization and imperialism, the first wrong committed was taking millions of peoples from their homeland. Those taken from Africa lost, among other things, their citizenship and this is the first thing that needs to be given back. It is morally and philosophically the first step in the journey of a thousand miles that needs to be undertaken if Africa and African peoples are to move forward in a forceful, positive and determined manner in the 21st Century.

Concomitant with this position therefore is that the law of return can only be made possible by African governments/states, not the West. It is to be stated clearly nonetheless, that this is a right, not a concession or special privilege. Diasporan repatriates should not have to prove which part of Africa they are from. The loss of this specific identity is a part of the harm done by slavery, and cannot be used by African governments to reject Diasporans. Any African government which challenges the right to return to Africa for proof of specific identity is in breach of their own claim for compensation for slavery.”

Thus, the 8PAC1 is called and organized to fulfill one of the desired outcomes of the 6th PAC. Below is a review of the 6th and 7th PACs from some of our best thinkers involved in them so that the lessons learned are firmly implanted in our consciousness as we head towards the 8PAC1 in Zimbabwe.

6TH PAC INFORMATION OFFICER DISCUSSION WITH C.L.R. JAMES

Aspects of the International Class Struggle
in Africa, the Caribbean and America

BY WALTER RODNEY

(Pan-Africanism: Struggle against Neo-colonialism and Imperialism - Documents of the Sixth Pan-African Congress, Horace Campbell, ed. Toronto: Afro-Carib Publications, 1975, 18-41.)

“Yet, the realities of state power have predetermined that when the Sixth Pan-African Congress meets in Dar-es-Salaam in June 1974 it will be attended mainly by spokesmen of African and Caribbean states which in so many ways represent the negation of Pan-Africanism. One immediate consequence of the rise of constitutionally independent African and West Indian states is that for the first time such a gathering will be held on African soil and will be sponsored, directed and attended mainly by black governments rather than by black intellectuals as such or by small black protest organizations, as was the case up to the Fifth Congress in Manchester. Already it is clear that states will be represented as states and that the OAU will play some role.

When a few individuals began to contemplate this Congress some years ago, it was felt that it should be a coming together of black political movements, as distinct from governments. One school of thought envisaged that it would be a select conference of the most progressive elements in the black world. To a large extent, this was the significance of the All African People's Conference held in Accra in 1958. However, plans for a similar meeting in the 1970s would be hopelessly idealist. The African radicals of 1958 are by and large the incumbents in office today. The radicals of today lead at best an uncomfortable existence within African states, while some languish in prison or in exile. The present petty bourgeois regimes would look with disfavour at any organized programme which purported to be Pan-African without their sanction and participation.

None of the progressive African regimes, which are already isolated and exposed to internal and external reaction, would dare to host a Congress which brought together only those who aggressively urge a unity of the African working masses and the building of a Socialist society. Such a Congress would have to be held in a metropolitan centre, and would thus condemn itself to serve primarily as a forum for alienated intellectuals.

In the light of the above considerations, any African committed to freedom, Socialism and development would need to look long and hard at the political implications of participation in the Sixth Pan-African Congress.”

Sixth Pan-African Congress: Planning, Preparation and Implementation, 1969 – 1974 By Sylvia I.B. Hill

“Brief Overview of the Sixth Pan-African Congress

Following in the tradition of the previous four conferences from 1919 – 1945, and of the Pan-African leadership from both H. Sylvester Williams, the first architect of the Pan-African Congress, and W.E.B. DuBois, who continued the Congress’ tradition until 1945, members of the Center for Black Education, in consultation with Bermudian Roosevelt Browne (Pauulu Karamarakafego) and Trinidadian revolutionary C. L. R. James, committed to organizing the Sixth Pan-African Congress. [Note: Pauulu Karamarakafego was my roommate at the Central African Black Organizations (CABO) XIIth Assembly in La Ceiba, Honduras in 2006]

After considerable planning with varying participants, serious planning for 6PAC began in 1972 in Washington, D.C. A steering committee consisting of Geri Stark Augusto, Edward Brown, Courtland Cox, Charlie Cobb, Jimmy Garrett, and Sylvia Hill began to meet. They also engaged in international travel to identify potential allies as organizers. The International Secretariat office was organized in 1973 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, by Courtland Cox as the Secretary-General, Geri Stark Augusto as communication liaison, and Edi Wilson and Kathryn Flewellen as the administrative support team.

The North America organizing infrastructure was organized regionally including Canada, the Caribbean, and the USA. While logistical organizing was housed in the Institute for African Education (an after-school children’s program administered by Drs. Sylvia Hill and JoAnn Favors at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn.), Drs. James Turner of Cornell University and Julian Ellison of the Black Economic Research Center (BERC) were the leadership team responsible for hosting political discussions with the various groups opposed to the Congress’ convening.

Seth Markel, historian and international studies professor, captured the priorities of the Congress and the complexity of its proceedings when he observed, “the last section of The Call prioritized ‘complete and absolute’ liberation in southern Africa and the development of a pan-African science and technology center and agenda.” He continued to identify the primacy of the idea of self-reliance, which would mean “the fullest utilization of our own human resources instead of continued dependency on the West.” As Markel observed, fashioning a discussion internal to the delegation would be challenging since the leading personalities were embroiled in a debate on whether race or class predominated an analysis of the problem for Black people in the United States and the world while the declaration of the Congress asserted a class analysis. The listed references offer many interpretations of the Congress’ proceedings and the implications of the declarations.

Solidarity with Southern Africa Liberation Movements

A central agenda item of the Congress was to create an opportunity for liberation movements to build international solidarity with Black people from the different regions of the world to strengthen their cause: to defeat Portuguese colonialism and apartheid in South Africa, Namibia, and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). By the time of 6PAC, some participants were familiar with the anti-colonial struggles in southern Africa because of the seminal visit of Amilcar Cabral to New York, which was hosted by African-American filmmaker Robert Van Lierop of the Africa Information Service and later published in 1973 as the groundbreaking book, Return to the Source: Selected Speeches of Amilcar Cabral. By 1971, the historic film A Luta Continua, produced, directed, and narrated by Van Lierop was being circulated for showing at college campuses, churches, and social gatherings throughout the USA. The film reinforced the central tenet of FRELIMO, MPLA, SWAPO, and PAIGC: that the national liberation struggle includes the armed struggle phase but most importantly the social reconstruction phase of nation-building in liberated zones. Film viewers grasped the importance of health centers, educational centers for the young, collaborative leadership with equity for women, and collective farming to feed the community. Most importantly, the film showed the elevation of women as partners in the armed struggle with men as well as nation-building activities in the liberated zones. The equality of women in the national liberation struggle was affirmed by posters that showed women with a rifle on their shoulders and children in their arms.

One of the organizational design complexities – with political implications that we did not fully appreciate in our zeal to forge a worldwide Pan-African agenda against imperialism – was the different power and class interests between the liberation movements and African as well as Caribbean nation-states. FRELIMO, ANC, PAIGC, and MPLA focused on asserting the interests of the liberation movements’ political agenda of international solidarity as a primary outcome and objective of the Congress’ agenda. While this was consistent with our agenda as Congress organizers, there were many logistical challenges to making the centrality of the liberation movements a reality in terms of allotted time on the agenda. For example, the Congress had several official languages such as Portuguese, French, Arabic, and Kiswahili that not only created the need for a variety of translators and the reproductions of proceedings daily in the different languages, but it also limited the time for delegate presentations and participant discussions.

FRELIMO, MPLA, and ANC feared that African-American delegates, in particular, would concentrate on the symbols of African cultural solidarity as in clothes, music, and art as opposed to identifying strategies they would wage against U.S. foreign policies in the southern African region. Samora Machel, FRELIMO leader and Mozambique’s first President, said it best when he urged that ‘international solidarity is not an act of charity; it is an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objective.’

Center for Science and Technology

Ronald Walters, an African-American political scientist and leading scholar of the Pan-African movement, observed that “in the prevailing atmosphere, the proposal for a Center for Science and Technology was attacked on the grounds that it represented ‘bourgeois science’ and was improperly understood by the collective delegation of representatives. In any case, this most promising of projects did elicit some useful resolutions concerned with 1) the mobilization of skilled scientific manpower; 2) the development of African natural resources for the benefit of the common heritage; and 3) the extension of health care benefits to the people and the rejection of ill-advised health practices.”  Fletcher Robinson, a co-chair of the Science and Technology Committee along with Donald Coleman, captured the sentiments of many scientists when he stated, ‘When we left the conference in 1974, for many of us, it was the most devastating experience of our lives. We participated in an effort that we gave a lot to, over a period of about four years.’ He went on to explain in an interview with Black Books Bulletin that

‘our reception at a formal level was a terrific blow to many of us. We were not accepted in the kinship of Pan-Africanism. There could not be discussion of science and technology in terms of how we could use our expertise and training for African interest wherever we were in the world, because the discussion was entirely politicized. There were people from Arab countries who never allowed the discussion to get on the floor, because they claimed that there could be no serious talk with people who did not represent a country, who only represented themselves.

Not only that, ‘the Arabs also raised the question of why should there be talk about building a science center for science and technology, when Egypt had always welcomed their brothers from the South to their institutions?’ Another important characterization of these challenges by Dr. Robinson was his recollection that ‘this force was joined by people from Guinea, Somalia, and Congo-Brazzaville who said that we were pawns of the imperialists who came to bring forth whatever their doctrine was of imperialism.’ He continued with the observation, “Interestingly enough, when we would talk outside the meeting halls in the ad-hoc groups, then there was a feeling of Pan-Africanism—touching and getting to know each other’s experiences. When we did make our speeches and got a chance to show what we were talking about and why we came there, we got standing ovations.’

Nevertheless, plans for a Science and Technology Center were not adopted. Many local D.C. and national science and technology activists participated in the local planning for the Center such as Drs. Neville Parker and Donald Coleman from the engineering department at Howard University, Drs. Alyce Gulattee and Calvin Sinnette from Howard University Hospital as well as noted Afrocentric psychiatrist, Dr. Frances Cress Welsing.

Women and the Sixth Pan-African Congress

Aside from being the organizational heartbeat of 6PAC, the female participants forged a women-centered agenda during workshops and collective meetings in the after-hours as well as during the formal proceedings. The conference theme, “The role of women in the African liberation struggle” provided an important context for affirming the leadership role of women as delegates discussed with women of the African liberation movements the challenges of assuring girls’ education, women’s health care, and their leadership roles in organizations and societies. There had been a long tradition of USA and Caribbean women of African descent in leadership advocacy role of Pan-Africanism. Women like Amy Jacques Garvey, Queen Mother Moore, and many others were trailblazers for those of us participating in the 6PAC. Geri (Stark) Augusto captured the role of women in the conference when she observed that the position of sisters throughout the African world was discussed and a central part of the agenda.

In her seminal work, “Black Women Organize for the Future of Pan-Africanism: The Sixth Pan-African Congress,” Ashley Farmer noted an important observation that serves as a summary of the significance of the role of 6PAC when she wrote:

‘African-American women activists had always organized within an eye toward Africa. However, events like 6PAC created new opportunities to refine their commitments and Pan-African identities. Through their organizational skills, resolutions, and participation they shaped the direction of twentieth-century Pan-African organizing and the discourse on the intersection of women, gender, and Pan-Africanism.’

Outreach to Local USA Communities

A central objective of the 6PAC Steering Committee was the democratization of the North American delegation, particularly USA participants, that would have an opportunity to travel to Tanzania and participate directly or indirectly in the Congress’ cultural and political activities. Other forces like the traditional leadership of Pan-African and progressive thought, Amiri Baraka, and Owusu Saudaki, felt that only the Pan-African political leadership should attend the conference in order for the African-American view to be presented by intellectual and experiential leadership that would be equal to the nation-state leadership of other participants in the Congress.

Our analysis of social change – and this was particularly emphasized by Courtland Cox – was that in order to build people-to-people solidarity for the Pan-African movement, we needed to create an opportunity for the largest number of non-governmental African-American, Afro-Canadian, Caribbean, and other people of African descent worldwide to visit Tanzania to enhance their knowledge of and solidarity with the African world based on their experiences at 6PAC.  Other countries invited and sponsored delegations, so the experiences of many participants went beyond opportunities to build solidarity ties with Tanzanians.

To accommodate the range of North America travelers, the North America Secretary-General organizational team created three categories of participants: delegates; observers, and visitors.  A central organizing objective of the Secretariat was to be inclusive by negotiating an affordable airfare and by conducting outreach to women, seniors, young people, unions, community organizations, and professionals as well as within the cultural, religious, academic, and science and technology sectors. While many written and vocal commentaries chided the large number of North Americans, particularly African-Americans, attending the conference as delegates and observers while visiting Tanzania as visitors, there was a pragmatic decision made in the Secretariat that this permitted the lowest airfare and maximized the largest number of participants able to participate while accomplishing our political objective of renewing and building a contemporary constituency for Pan-African activism.

As part of the USA and Canada organizing efforts, participants collected medicines as well as medical supplies and delivered them to the liberation movements as an act of solidarity.

Outreach and Mobilization of Diaspora Communities

Roosevelt Browne (Pauulu Kamarakafego), one of the architects of the 6PAC at the behest of President Kwame Nkrumah traveled throughout the Pacific Islands, Australia, and Europe to mobilize participants to attend the conference. (Later, he coordinated housing and meal availability at the University of Dar es Salaam.) Thus, the Congress had a Pan-African representation including Afro-Europeans, Pacific Islanders from Fiji and New Hebrides (which later became Vanuatu), and Afro-Australians. Caribbean radicals were minimally represented, however, because some Caribbean governments refused to participate if radicals of their country were also permitted to participate. This was a concession that President Nyerere made in the interest of his governmental relations. As a result, Dr. C. L. R. James (interview transcript), one of the original 6PAC organizers, refused to participate in solidarity with the progressives from his region.

The Struggle Continues

By fall 1974, activists and fellow 6PAC organizers Sandra Hill, JoAnn Favors, Kathryn Flewellen, and I relocated to Washington, D.C. to raise public consciousness against U.S. foreign policies in Southern Africa. Our focus on this international Pan African solidarity work stemmed from a statement by Secretary General Courtland Cox, who said during his closing remarks, “Each of you who has participated in the Sixth Pan African Congress carries with you, as you leave this hall, an historical and political duty to translate your words into struggle.”

Closing Remarks by the Secretary General, Courtland Cox

Hindsight is always better than foresight. In retrospect I am keenly aware of the mistakes made in organizing this Congress. Having just participated in ten days of proceedings, I am also as aware as any one of you of the positive contributions of the meeting itself. I would like to remark first, if you don’t mind, on the positive contributions the Sixth Pan African Congress has made to the African liberation struggle.

As many speakers in this Hall have documented, the imperative of the African World at the time of the Fifth Pan African Congress was an end to colonialism. For that aim people organized and moved, and history remembers the energizing role of the Fifth Pan African Congress in the anti-colonial struggle.

Our world, the world which African people have such dynamic potential to change, has progressed since 1945. I believe this Congress has clearly advocated new imperatives: an end to neo-colonialism and imperialism, and the revolutionary social transformation of African societies and communities.

It remained for energetic people to give life to the call for an end to colonialism after the Manchester Congress. I believe it will remain for energetic people going out from this Congress to prove whether, by speaking against neo-colonialism and for a new social order, we were sowing the wind or planting a crop for liberation. I think it will take a few years to be sure, but we have at least been clear in this meeting about our determination.

Some have questioned all along the validity of calling together a meeting of African people in 1974, given an understanding that peoples of many races and geographies struggle against imperialism, oppression and exploitation. I think this Congress has ratified the validity of African people meeting to chart a political course for our common problems. We as African people still have an obligation to continue our own most important contribution to human advancement — the building of a strong, just Africa, and the forging of a United African People.

That we listened to each other under one roof has been tremendously important. That we exchanged ideas and assessments of problems — even if they were sometimes conflicting ideas — has been positive, because ideological struggle leads to ideological clarity. That those whose analysis has been shaped in the crucibles of different arenas of the struggle have met, argued, discussed, and written is important. I do not know of another forum which has brought together people struggling in Southern Africa, on African Islands elsewhere throughout the continent, with brothers and sisters from Britain, North and South America, the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands. As Brother Sadaukai remembered for us from Cabral—it is one thing to be Brothers and Sisters, and another to participate in the long struggle of African people for liberation which makes us comrades, as well. Any meeting which promotes this understanding is worthwhile.

Another positive contribution I believe the Sixth Pan African Congress has made is the introduction of the political use, and I stress political use, of modern science and technology, in the struggle to defeat our enemies and build our world. Again I believe it will be some years before the impact of some of these concepts about science and technology as tools in the liberation of the masses of our people will be fully felt.

There has been an emphasis in this meeting on the liberation struggles in Africa against the last vestiges of colonialism, and there has been a leadership role played by the representations of the liberation movements here. Our emphasis on support for the liberation of Southern Africa has been a reflection of the future course that Pan Africanism must take, and marks the recognition by African people everywhere that Southern Africa is one of our foremost battlegrounds.

I believe the major and most serious shortcoming of this Congress has been that some who should have been here were not. History will, I am sure, take us to task for this. There should have been more people’s movements represented, more women represented, more young people participating. That gap in participation in the Sixth Pan African Congress mirrors very real contradictions at work in the African World.

When, and if, there is a Seventh Pan African Congress, I believe the composition of delegates and the issues for discussion will show the progression of our struggle—for one thing is sure, the movement of African people forward towards total liberation is an irreversible process.

I wish to thank all delegates and guests for your participation, your patience, your understanding — and in the case of several hundred of you, for your blood, given to the blood bank for the Liberation Movements.

The Temporary Secretariat must also take this opportunity to thank TANU, the Afro-Shiraz Party, the University of Dar es Salaam, and the People of Tanzania for hosting the Sixth Pan African Congress. It made all the difference in the world that this Congress could be held on African soil.

I have only one final point to make which will end my closing remarks:

Each of you who has participated in the Sixth Pan African Congress carries with you, as you leave this hall, an historical and political duty to translate your words into struggle.”

The Sixth Pan-African Congress

By Dr. David Horne

        “Between June 20 and 29, 1974, the sixth in the series of Pan-African Congress meetings occurred in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, at the University of Dar es Salaam. The first congress, held in 1900, was organized principally by Trinidadian attorney Henry Sylvester Williams and took place in London. An attendee at that 1900 gathering, W. E. B. Du Bois, then took up the organizing mantle for five succeeding international gatherings to discuss and pass resolutions regarding defeating colonialism, improving African affairs, and emphasizing Africa's relationship with world progress. Called Pan-African Congresses by Du Bois to underscore the intention of passing strong mandates and legislatively influential decisions regarding African people, in 1919, 1921, 1923, 1927, and 1945 these gatherings took place in London, Paris, Brussels, New York, and Manchester, respectively. Intrinsically, these gatherings mainly involved the educational and activist elite among North American, Caribbean, and continental African delegations. The African masses were fervently discussed at all of these meetings, but representatives of the African masses rarely attended.

The Fifth Pan-African Congress, held in 1945, was considered at the time the largest and most consequential, as it spawned the first generation of independent African leadership in a post—World War Il environment, including attendees such as Hastings K. Banda (future first president of Malawi), Kwame Nkrumah (future first prime minister and president of Ghana), Wallace Johnson (future prime minister of a revived Liberia), and Jomo Kenyatta (future first president of Kenya).

The Sixth Pan-African Congress (6PAC), hosted by the newly independent Tanzanian government (representing the practical political union of Tanganyika and the island of Zanzibar), was the first Pan-African Congress held on African soil. The coordinators and organizers of that gathering did so in honor of Du Bois (who had died in 1963 as a citizen of Ghana) and Kwame Nkrumah (who had died in 1972 as copresident of Guinea and as one of the 1963 founders of the Organization of African Unity).

While the six earlier Pan-African gatherings had been relatively small, with none of them attended by more than 200 participants, 6PAC was the largest Pan African gathering in history, hosting more than 1,400 delegates and participants, with 300 attendees from the United States.

       The 6PAC was also the first Pan-African Congress that relied on extensive community organizing and made a very serious attempt to involve all elements of African people in discussion—for example, official government representatives, academic intellectuals, then-existing African national liberation movements, students, grassroots folk, and elders. The previous Pan-African Congresses had generally been elite affairs, organized by, promoted to, and participated in by intellectual activists, writers, and those who would traditionally have been called the intellectual bourgeois and the petit bourgeois. Participants had to be able to afford international travel.

      The previous Pan-African Congresses decried European colonization, imperialistic exploitation, and racism in resolutions, speeches, and manifestos. By the fifth conference, the call for African independence and Pan-African territorial unification had entered the top of the conversation. The 6PAC focused on finishing the movement toward African national independence (within the borders established by colonialism) and achieving economic viability. This sixth gathering was also about trying to achieve consensus on the best way forward for African states and how to more fully incorporate diaspora support in that effort. The older arguments on whether Pan-Africanism meant a collective union of all African states under some brand of scientific socialism (the earlier argument of the Casablanca group, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Morocco, Libya, Algeria, and Egypt) or a racially focused coalescing of mainly sub-Saharan states into a Pan-African grouping that emphasized territorial sovereignty and continued engagement with former colonial powers (the argument of the opposing Monrovia group, including Liberia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Madagascar, Senegal, Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Dahomey, and Congo-Kinshasa) resurfaced in Tanzania with a big bang.

       The resulting clamor left the general impression (for audiences that did not attend) that this larger 6AC was a failure in pushing Pan-Africanism forward. This was and is a mistaken impression.

       At the Bermuda Black Power Conference of July 1969, Trinidadian scholar C. L. R. James, who had attended and participated in the 1945 congress in Manchester, chaired a political workshop that included a special discussion on Pan-Africanism. His closing remarks contained strong advocacy for the organizing of a new Pan African Congress. According to William Sutherland, who was a leading participant at the conference, there were two more crucial meetings held in Bermuda and in the United States during the following two years, 1970 and 1971, that resolved to reenergize the Pan-African movement in the wake of the early work of the Organization of African Unity and the ongoing African liberation movements. The attending groups of African Americans and Africans from the Caribbean, many of whom were experienced in Civil Rights and Black Power organizing, agreed to produce a Sixth Pan-African Congress that would have as its theme  self-reliance, self-determination, and unity of Black people globally and would focus on Black and African progress and competency in science and technology and convince the government of Tanzania, recognized as the most progressive African state at that time, to host the 6PAC. The meeting participants all agreed that the next congress must be held on African soil for maximum credibility.

       Professor James, a popular teacher at the Federal City College (later the University of the District of Columbia) and Howard University from 1966 to the mid-1970s, used his academic platform to begin preparing for the new congress. He organized a coordinating group from the principal survivors of the 1945 Manchester congress, including T. Ras Makonnen, Amy Ashwood Garvey (1897— 1969), and Shirley Graham Du Bois (1907— 1977). Their names as public sponsors and supporters provided an early luster to the effort. Additionally, Professor James induced some of his more progressive students to join, including Guyanese Walter Rodney, former Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) member Courtland Cox, Marvin Holloway, and Bill Sutherland. Based in Washington, D.C., the Provisional Secretariat for a Sixth Pan-African Congress emerged.

The initial organizational plan produced by this Provisional Secretariat called for the creation of regional committees for North America, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa. The addition of European, Asian, and Pacific supporters was to be recognized by the secretariat on a case-by-case basis. In 1972, the secretariat issued its first public call to the Sixth Pan-African Congress, written largely by Professor James, Rodney, and Cox (and edited by Geri Stark). In 1973, it issued a 6PAC briefing paper. Rodney, who had moved to Tanzania and was teaching at the university, produced a provocative and much discussed paper, "Toward the Sixth Pan-African Congress: Aspects of the International Class Struggle in Africa," which was distributed by the secretariat in April 1974.  A 1945 speech by W. E. B. Du Bois, "The Pan-African Movement," was also reprinted and distributed by the organizers during early 1974.

Between 1972 and 1973, three large regional meetings for North America—at Kent State University; at the Center for Black Education (CBE) in Washington, D.C.; and in Atlanta, Georgia—were held. One result was the establishment of the Temporary Organizing Committee for a Sixth Pan-African Congress, also headquartered in Washington. Courtland Cox from SNCC and the CBE was elected international secretary-general by acclamation. Sylvia Hill, also from the CBE, was elected secretary-general for North America, and Julian Ellison of Columbia University and the Black Economic Research Center (BERC) was elected associate secretary-general for North America. This trio became the Temporary Secretariat for 6PAC. Professor James Turner of Cornell University later accepted an invitation from this secretariat to head the future North American delegation. At a later North American regional meeting in Atlanta, Cox, Hill, and Ellison were formally elected as permanent officers. Cox, with Geri Stark as information offlcer, then left to establish a 6PAC headquarters in Dar es Salaam.

        Official North American delegates to the 6PAC included Amiri Baraka of the Congress of African People, Barbara Britton of BERC, Carroll Clarke of Brooklyn College, David L. Horne from the University of California—Los Angeles, Oba T 'Shaka of San Francisco State University ((the latter two the California western regional coordinators.), Haki Madhubuti of Black Books Bulletin publishers, Julianne Malveaux of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gay McDougall of Yale University, Matthew Meade of Yale, "Queen Mother" Audley Moore, Wentworth Ofuatey-Kodjoe of the City College of New York, and Owusu Sadaukai (Howard Fuller) of Malcolm X Liberation University. On June 9—10 at a final meeting of the delegates at Columbia University, Clarke and Ellison finalized drafts of North American position papers.

The Caribbean and South American Regional Steering Committee elected Eusi Kwayana chairman, with Tim Hector and Maurice Bishop among those selected as delegates in March 1974. However, no official nongovernmental delegation from this region participated in the 6PAC.

Postponed for two weeks, the 6PAC finally opened on June 20, 1974, in Nkrumah Hall at the University of Dar es Salaam. In the first order of business, Nyerere was elected president of the congress. Cox and Aboud Jumbe, the vice president of Tanzania (and president of Zanzibar), conducted the opening plenary session as comasters of ceremonies. They played a recorded message from Ahmed Sékou Touré, the president of Guinea, Scholars presented papers on the three major issues of the congress—politics, science and technology, and economics—the last of which Ellison persuaded the secretariat to add. Samora Machel and Peter Onu, deputy secretary-general of the Organization of African Unity, gave speeches devoted to politics. D. M. Nomvete of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, presented an economics paper. The congress proceeded, with daily plenary sessions followed by simultaneous sessions of Committees A, B, and C for political issues, economic development, and African science, technology, education, and culture, respectively.

Accomplishments of the 6PAC

According to Courtland Cox, the three primary objectives of the 6PAC were:

  1. Broaden the African international community's understanding of the issues of achieving and maintaining African independence, including the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and white settler colonialism in Rhodesia, and to increase the concrete base of support for the African liberation movements;

  2. Discuss ways of decreasing and ending African economic dependency and exploitation, while pushing with examples of self-reliance, increased economic self-sufficiency in production, distribution, development, the application of science and technology, and economic cooperation between African communities;

  3. Agreement on ways to complete the movement toward African political independence, including achieving African political unity, a federation of Caribbean states, bringing the masses into the struggle, and broadening the political cooperation between African states and African communities. (Cox 1974)

       Did the 6PAC achieve these objectives? For the most part, yes it did. It certainly demonstrated both the intellectual potential and the political maturity of the North American delegation and led to a cementing of interest and permanent involvement of the Black Power advocates in the United States and Pan-African activism. For example, Sylvia Hill, one of the principal organizers, along with her colleagues Gay McDougall, Judy Claude, and Kathy Flewellen, organized the Southern Africa Support Project (in alliance with Trans-Africa) in the aftermath of the conference and helped to nationalize the antiapartheid struggle in the United States and the Caribbean. Their efforts led to the divestment movement and the yearlong protests in front of the South African embassy to end apartheid. Hill's group also organized Nelson Mandela's post—Robben Island tour in the United States.

       The 6PAC also led to the relocation of thousands of African American and Caribbean émigrés to Africa. Leaders such as Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, Uganda's president Idi Amin, and Ethiopia's Haile Selassie put out permanent invitations for such residential transference. A large group of Jamaica Rastafarians settled in Ethiopia on land donated by Emperor Selassie. Additionally, Preston Wilcox, the Harlem activist and Black nationalist friend of Malcolm X, long known for his advocacy of Black community control over schools that educated Black youths, used his involvement in the 6PAC to inspire the cofounding of the National Association of Black Teachers, his involvement in the National Black Power Conference in 1972, and the establishment of AFRAM (acronym for African American), a Black community service agency and multinational library of newspapers, periodicals, magazines, books, and pamphlets. These publications covered progressive events in the African world community. He later donated those items to the Schomburg Center in New York.

       Also at the 6PAC, Drs. Fletcher Robinson, Don Coleman, and Neville Parker made a very compelling presentation for the establishment of a Pan-African center for science and technology. That center was to serve all of Africa and be financed by independent African states. Because the idea did not garner enough votes to gain traction, it fell by the wayside. The North American delegation also pumped itself up with daily inspirational speeches at the 6PAC but never could hammer out any agreement on a shared position at the congress. African American delegates were, however, treated to  exceptional courtesy by their  Tanzanian hosts and were invited to travel to Somalia, Zanzibar, and Uganda (where they were granted symbolic African citizenship).The positive impact on their delegation included a higher level of interest in African affairs. Partially because of the 6PAC, there is still a very large and informed population of African diasporans who became involved in the production of the Seventh Pan African Congress in Uganda in 1994, and remained inspired to help build and develop the major institution of 21st-century Pan Africanism, the African Union.

       The 6PAC strongly maintained the energy and impetus toward achieving real Pan-African unity and self-reliance.”                                                                                             

THE 7TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS, KAMPALA, UGANDA 1994

Excerpt below from: Pan Africanism: Politics, Economy, and Social Change in the Twenty-First Century by Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem

TAJUDEEN: FROM THE 6TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS TO THE 7TH

“According to a key participant and organizer for the 6th PAC: ‘The initiative for organizing the Sixth Pan African Congress came from a small group of Afro-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans who met in Bermuda and the United States in 1971 and 1972.’ The ideological orientation of the group ranged from ‘African Liberationists’ - those whose primary aim is the political, economic, social and cultural liberation of people of African descent all over the world, to ‘African Avengers’ - those who are consumed by anger against and hatred for white people even though they try to concentrate on black pride and development. A number of the former were independent leftists in the tradition of the organizers of the earlier Pan African Congresses while the latter came from some spin-off groups from the Garvey and student non-violent co-ordinating committee movements. Personalities dropped in and out of the preparatory groups in the early stages but a hard core gradually hammered out a consensus on the following poins:

  1. The 6th Pan African Congress should have as its theme self-reliance, self-determination and unity of black people throughout the world.

  2. Central to the theme of self-reliance and self-determination in today’s world is the command of science and technology.

  3. Tanzania as the principal example of self-reliance in the African world should be asked to host the 6th Pan African Congress.

    The objectives of the organizers were that there was to be a progressive thrust to the Congress and emphasis would be placed on people’s organizations as opposed to governments. . . . the 6th Pan African Congress was held in June 1974 at the University of Dar-es-Salaam and was attended by 52 delegations from African and Caribbean states, liberation movements, communities of Africans in North America, South America, Britain and the Pacific. As to be expected the Congress mirrored the global ideological and political struggles of the period and their manifestation within within the Pan African world. Issues of the right to self-determination through armed struggle, and questions of imperialism and neo-colonialism, underdevelopment, Third Worldisn, self-reliance in education and culture, continuing colonialism in the Caribbean, and the role of African women were addressed and analysed; resolutions were adopted in spite of the different views and perspectives of the participants. Thus the official book on the congress could declare that

‘the documents. . . resolutions. . . record both the disparity of views under played at the 6th Pan African Congress and the relative strength which came to be exercised - despite predictions to the contrary - by the progressive forces. The lead, in many cases, was fittingly taken by the liberation movements.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of the 6th Pan African Congress was the inability to transform all the good resolutions into a concrete organizational and institutional framework of action. Subsequently, its impact was not as decisive as it could have been, than if it had had an institutional base after the Congress. It is a mistake which the 7th Pan African Congress sought to rectify by agreeing to set up a permanent secretariat in order to reverse the spasmodic initiatives of the past.

The Road to and from the 7th Pan African Congress

The 7th Pan African Congress took place in Kampala, Uganda, 3-8 April 1994. It was originally scheduled to take place in December 1993 but had to be rescheduled, at the last minute, due not only to logistical problems of travel but also because certain objectives and subjective obstacles surfaced in the first weeks of December when the decision was taken by the International Preparatory Committee (IPC) for the Congress.

Though there was understandable disappointment and demoralization in certain organizing committees, the delay was quickly converted into an opportunity to carry the message to places and people we had not yet reached. The rescheduling also gave us the opportunity to clarify further our objectives to some African governments who were suspicious of the congress. Some of them had feared that the Congress, because of the prominent participation of opposition activists, was going to be yet another government-bashing event. Though a majority of them stayed away from the Congress, at least they did not prevent a majority of our people who wanted to attend from doing so.

It was not altogether unexpected that the role, status and participation of governments should again be a bone of contention as we began preparing for the 7th Pac in 1992. In this instance it was not so much the participation of Caribbean governments but that of African governments. This opposition came from a number of angles, but the most pertinent is a group allied to the Lagos 7th PAC group.

The Lagos group, led by Brother Naiwu Osahon, had been the first group to start organizing for a 7th PAC in response to C.L.R. James’s influential paper, ‘Towards the 7th Pac’. In that paper, James sought to correct the political and ideological errors committed in giving too prominent a role to governments at the 6th PAC. His view was that Pan Africanism must be built as a vanguard of the oppressed masses allied to global revolution and socialism. However, the Lagos group, while taking up James’s challenge for a Congress, did not share his revolutionary ambitions and proceeded in its efforts as a black-only initiative with a bias towards a black nationalist bourgeois position. The Kampala 7th PAC initiative was in a sense both an ideological and practical response to the Lagos initiative. Indeed many of the people who were to play an important role in it were formerly with the Lagos group. The idea of breaking with the indecisive Lagos group took shape in 1990. At a conference on the impact of the collapse of the Eastern European Bloc on global progressive forces, in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, a number of Africans representing liberation movements and progressive governments or progressive parties both from Africa and the diaspora met and decided that a direct political intervention was necessary by Pan Africanists. A small group of them was tasked with the responsibility of finding an African country that could facilitate the hosting of a 7th PAC in an all-inclusive manner and with a guarantee of independence for the organizers. As to be expected a number of African countries were interested but were unable to guarantee the kind of autonomy that was needed. Col. Kahinda Otafiire, a leading member of the National Resistance Army/Movement in Uganda was a member of the working group and he was able to secure the backing of the government of Uganda for the Congress. Subsequently in August the Libya group met in Uganda and accepted the offer from Uganda and transformed itself into an International Preparatory Committee for the 7th PAC. It decided that a secretariat needed to be constituted to organize the Congress. That was the stage where I was appointed Secretary-General for the secretariat with Honourable Miriam Matembe as Deputy with responsibility for the mobilization of women and two other appointments (Serwanga Lwanga and Ondoga ori Amaza) as Publicity and Deputy Publicity Secretary respectively.

Our brief was very clear from the start: the Congress was to be convened in the shortest possible time to respond to and intervene in the rapidly unfolding global events: it was to be an all-inclusive gathering, on the basis of ‘Come one, come all’, including the Lagos initiative and other opponents of the initiative; all African and Caribbbean governments were to be invited but on the basis of equality with non-governmental groups, and finally, all delegates were to be equal and limited to a maximum of two per organization (governments were considered as individual organizations).

These guidelines were meant to assuage the fears of many that governments would dominate the Congress. In the end, that fear was proven unfounded:a majority of governments did not feel comfortable with coming to Kampala on an equal footing with their opponents or those they regarded as political dissidents, and they stayed away. . . . In truth only 17 African governments were represented either by their diplomats accredited to Uganda or official ministerial delegations. Yet more than 30 African countries were represented by different political forces and groups, especially opposition and pro-democracy groups and youth and women activists. The other point of disagreement with the Lagos group was about the place of North Africa in the Pan African Movement. The Lagos group holds the view that Africa is black, which is not a new current in the movement but is as old as the movement itself. However, we in Kampala rejected as reactionary blackism this attempt to balkanize Africa behind the so-called Saharan and Sub-Saharan divide. We accepted as African any citizen (by whatever means acquired) of any of the countries of Africa, from Cape Town to Cairo and all our islands (Madagascar, Mauritius, Cape Verde, etc.) and also recognize anybody of African descent in the diaspora. While a majority of Africans are of Negroid origin, it is not true historically, factually or even politically that blackness is the only condition of Africanness. We also reasoned that every government or organization that was invited had asked and answered for themselves the question, ‘Who is a citizen?’ Therefore it was not our responsibility to decide who was more African than who. If the ANC for instance had sent the late Joe Slovo to the Congress it would have been proper. If he could represent the country, and even headed Umkhonto we Sizwe what other proof of Africanness was needed? . . . . We believed that is the correct position but did not shut the door to others who believed otherwise and they were represented adequately at the Congress. The clash between the two currents briefly reared its head during the debate on reparation but the Congress took a principled position that recognized the role of Arab slave traders but demanded reparation not from Morocco or Algeria but from the perpetrators of the Atlantic slave trade that is responsible for our underdevelopment today.

The above were the substance of the Kampala and Lagos divide. The Lagos initiative seems to have collapsed completely since the Congress was held and we are happy to state that many of the people in it are working closely with us to rejuvenate the movement.

Many have come to realize that the issue is not whether governments should be part of the movement or not but the potential governments have to hijack the goals and objectives of the movement. . . . But since the late 1950’s, there has emerged a proliferation of states which Pan Africanists may not recognize as they epitomize our lack of unity and we must get rid of them. Our not agreeing with their existence, however, does not remove the fact that they are there and we have been up to now unable to do anything about them. The fact that most of them are illegitimate if judged against the goal of satisfying the greatest interest of the greatest number of our peoples is not the issue. . . . Realism therefore dictated that we find a way of accomodating them without derailing the movement. . . . If we had said we did not want them there all they needed to do was not permit our delegates from travelling out to the Congress or refuse them entry in the host country. . . . Therefore concrete reality dictated that governments be involved. The anti-government posture is also influenced by the current fad for NGOism which is disempowering African people and shifting focus away from the contest for political power. Thus there were people who argued that the movement needs to be non-governmental; our position is that the movement, though it has its cultural and social components, has always had as its primary goal the seizure of political power by Pan Africanists in order to unify politically our divided peoples, without which democracy, social progress and economic development will continue to elude us. Thus we cannot leave governments, even the unwilling ones, out of it. Also there is no Chinese wall that separates Pan Africanists from government figures. Just as everyone who is an NGO member is not necessarily progressive or Pan Africanist so it is that not everyone in government is opposed to Pan Africanism. It is a duty of Pan Africanists to attract into the fold all those who express interest or are committed to the movement. That was the main argument in favor of “Come one, come all’ by the International Preparatory Committee for the 7th PAC.

Apart from the above operational, political, ideological and definitional differences with the Lagos 7th PAC there were other criticisms emanating from a vocal minority, the UK in particular, who were opposed to the Congress taking place in Uganda because they feared that it would bolster the image of the government. Their opposition rested on two political positions: that the government of Uganda was dictatorial and therefore could not be trusted with a PAC, and that the government was IMF/World Bank controlled. On the first charge the IPC was clear that the holding of the Congress in Kampala was not tantamount to endorsing the policies of the government of Uganda. We went to Kampala because the government agreed to the principle of independence for the organizers and it had no opposition to anybody, including its political opponents, participating. The second charge was really rhetorical because there is no single African country (excepting maybe Libya) that is not under the stranglehold of the Bretton Woods institutions. . . . From the narrow sectarian concerns of some of the critics, anywhere else was acceptable except their own countries! The essence of Pan Africanism demanded a willingness to surrender petty nationalism for the greater unity of Africa.

The success of the Congress in April 1994 answered some of the issues raised while some other issues are continuing points of discussion, debate and confrontation in the movement as it gropes for a renewed relevance and clarity in these times.”

Pan-Africanism: The Tortuous Path Of A Race.

Excerpt by Naiwu Osahon

“The OAU, of course, did not fulfil the ambition of Kwame Nkrumah for a strong political union of all African states, but it opened the Pan-African ideology institutionally to non-Blacks. This is how George Padmore defended the trend at the time: “In our struggle for national freedom, human dignity and social redemption,Pan-Africanism offers an ideological alternative to communism on the one side and tribalism on the other. It rejects both white racialism and Black chauvinism. It stands for racial co-existence on the basis of absoluteequality and respect for human personality." I have no quarrel with all that, but I think we needed to haveasked Uncle Padmore:

(1) Why other races can join our institutions and would not let us join theirs?

(2) Why we are the only race of people in the world striving desperately to tag on to others. We have Black -Arabs, Black Marxists, Black-Muslims, Black-Eskimos and Black -Caucasians. Isn't that saying something forour mentality and self-esteem?

(3) Whether having a union of our own necessarily makes us any more racist than the EU, the Jewish WorldCongress, the Arab League etc?

(4) If our propensity to be seen to be identifying with our oppressors has helped to solve our being the racialunderdogs of the world?

(5) And whether we do not need to tackle our peculiar racial problems first before contributing our wonderful expertise at problem solving to the rest of the world? After all, charity ought to begin at home.

Also, Nkrumah and Padmore needed to have been asked to explain how their pan-continental politics was going to solve the deteriorating problems of the African Diaspora? Forty percent of the Black world do not live in Africa and are, as a result, ignored by the OAU.

The overall success of the 5th Pan African Congress blinded us to some of its not so sound pre-occupations. The 5th PAC set off many half-baked diversionary ideas, which unfortunately led to the failure of the 6th PanAfrican Congress. The conveners of the 6th PAC did not reckon, for instance, with the selfish interest of the newly independent African governments of the time so:

(a) They let government delegations dominate the congress,

(b) Who in turn prevented leading Pan Africanists from participating.

(c) Non-Africans, without obvious commitment to Pan-African ideals, were able to attend as delegates.

(d) The regular negative ideological division between our pseudo socialists and capitalists occupied centre stage.

(e) And, of course, University dons, as usual, were able to use congress to enhance their CVs and show off their borrowed language facilities and richly embroidered dashikis.

And yet, the 6th Pan African Congress succeeded in filling a yearning vacuum and keeping the movementalive, at least, in academic circles, 29 years after the 5th congress. More papers than ever before were submitted or read at the 6th PAC, and a great deal more resolutions were left behind for scholars to pore over till eternity as to their motives etc. The 6th PAC piled considerably more library materials, and gathered more delegates and observers, some 600 of them at one count, than all congresses before it, put together. To the extent that the 6th PAC achieved these feats administratively, therefore, it deserves to be recognized. But did the congress touch the lives of ordinary Africans in the streets? No. Was the 6th PAC any better than the jamborees called first, second, third and fourth congresses? No.

Ask any African in the streets of Europe and America about the 6th PAC and you would draw a blank. Ask any grassroots African on the continent about Pan Africanism today and he would think you are speaking Greek. The 6th PAC has not stopped the continued racial rape and murder of our people in the Diaspora nor has it educated Africans on the continent, sixteen years later, to think beyond the severely circumscribed OAU.

Only the 5th congress was able to make immediate direct impact on our lives with its independence fire sweeping rapidly across colonial Africa soon after the congress. The 5th PAC set the standard by which to measure the success of all future PACs.

The 6th PAC, therefore, was no more than a boring charade and if Pan Africanism is to be saved now, it must be moved beyond the constraining walls of our Ivory Towers, thedeadly hold of our narrow-minded political leaders, and deposited squarely on the laps of virgin grassroots Africans.

These were precisely the sources of my motivation when I began the campaign in 1982, as a private initiative,for the 7th Pan African Congress to convene within three years in a liberated African country. My principal ambition was to use the congress to institutionalize the Pan African Movement and unite the Black world. I was building a farmhouse facility (I called the Monument to African civilization), at Ilogbo-Eremi in the Badagry local government area of Lagos State in Nigeria, at the time, as venue for the 7th Pan-African Congress. The idea was to set up a possible meeting place that would be grand and yet rural in setting and relatively cost free to participants, to avoid recourse to government subvention or sponsorship and, therefore, influence. At the time, I thought that the congress could hold in Nigeria in 1985. A picture of the still being constructed 'Monument' was eventually published in the Guardian newspaper of Nigeria, on Saturday February 4th 1984, with the following caption:

"This is the house Mr. Naiwu Osahon is building. When completed it would be one of the most unique, artistically designed houses ever built anywhere, says Mr. Osahon of the house located on a suburban farmland. Mr. Osahon, ............... on the proposed retreat for local and visiting artistes says: 'Discussions are already being held abroad about holding the next Pan African Congress at the Craft farm house in 1985."

Obstacles, which I considered were mainly responsible for our disunity and lack of focus as a family included:

(1) Foreign religions and ideologies (which in all respects treat us as inferior human beings). These pull us in all sorts of directions to keep us divided despite our being the most marginalized people on the face of the earth already. It is not in the interest of any dominating ideology for victims to unite or have a common focus. Native spirituality serves to bind and encourage claims of ownership and birthright. Religion or spirituality is the greatest mobilizing strategy available to man and we have nothing of our own as a rallying force like Islam is to the Arabs, Judaism to the Jews, Christianity to the Whites or Buddhism to the Asians.

(2) Allowing colonizers, (particularly Arabs who do not consider themselves even remotely as Pan Africanists), to participate in and sponsor our congresses. Arab occupiers of Northern Africa continue to exploit and dominate original African native owners of the land. The war in Sudan is ethnic cleansing against our race and is funded massively by the Arab League through Libya and Saudi Arabia. Arabs have their League but do not want Blacks to have one. We as a race have not been able to focus on how to liberate Northern African Blacks, as we have done against white racists in Southern Africa, because Northern Africa Arabs are equal partners with Blacks in the OAU.

(3) Allowing our 'Movement' to be hijacked by reactionary African political leaders ruining our governments. These are leaders tied to the apron strings of our colonial masters for handouts, which our leaders promptly divert to their individual private accounts abroad for personal gains. They are too busy enriching themselves at our expense to care about our collective welfare.

I strongly believed that while we could excuse the OAU perhaps, to serve the interest of all and sundry as a continental contraption, our 'Movement' cannot afford such a luxury. Not when there is liberation, reparations and repatriation wars still to be fought and won world-wide.

Our Movement must aggressively tackle racism and our marginalization, if we are ever to collectively make progress as a people. And our 'Movement' must remain permanently on the alert thereafter. The best guarantee of this is a civil society controlled 'Movement,' with grassroots Africans from the continent linking with the grassroots Black Diaspora, to wrestle power from our opportunistic political elite controlling our governments. The grassroots Black world need to take their collective destiny into their own hands through an institutionalized 'Movement' that gives equal treatment to both governments and individual delegations. I was implacable over the 7th PAC institutionalizing the Pan African Movement as a vibrant civil society complimentor challenge to the lame-duck OAU.

To keep rancour to the barest minimum at congresses, I insisted that decisions and resolutions of the'Movement' must be fine-tuned and worked out at preparatory conferences and workshops etc., in advance, with congress being used only to endorse. The preparatory activities of the 7th PAC were, therefore, to focus principally on the following three planks:

(a) To agree a body of resolutions and decisions to be known as THE BLACK AGENDA, which could be up-dated now and again at regional and state conferences to become the bible or focus of activities of the Blackrace, including Black governments and individuals.

(b) To chisel out a strong and dynamic CONSTITUTION for the institutionalized 'Movement' welding together, Black governments and Black civil societies in a symbiotic relationship with leadership resting solely in the hands of civil society. The 'Movement' would have to develop a vibrant native spirituality for such a leadership (or moral leadership of the Black race) not to be controversial.

(c) To set up a 'Foundation' to ensure that the 'Movement' or Black League' would never have to beg for financial support from anyone, particularly from extraneous sources. The philosophy of the 'Foundation' (called PANAF at the time), being that every Black person in the world, alive or yet un-born, owes PANAF a hundred units of his or her local currency once in a life-time.

These pre-occupations were embodied in the first set of documents written and distributed lavishly by me around the world from 1982 to announce the convening of the 7th PAC in Africa in 1985.

Responses to my 'CALL' were generally enthusiastic, over the convening of 7th PAC (which was described as overdue), but lukewarm on Nigeria (which at the time was under the jackboot of a vicious military dictatorship), serving as host. C.L.R. James, who was one of the first renowned Pan Africanists at the time to receive our delegation in London, was full of support for an African country hosting the congress. He was not too fussy about the politics of the possible host African government.

However, the series of letters addressed to Babangida, the self-proclaimed Military President of Nigeria at the time, to provide 7th PAC with logistic support in the area of easy visas and adequate security for delegations were ignored. President Dos Santos of Angola wrote us the most inspiring letter of the time, but was sorry he could not play host because of the debilitating civil war in his country. Zimbabwe was more interested in hosting the Commonwealth Heads of State Conference at the time, and Ghana complained of poor financial resources.

While we were still shopping for a possible host country, the Foreign Minister of Nigeria, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, out of the blue in 1987, announced the Nigerian government's interest in convening the 7th PAC. A failed coup de'tat caused some changes in the Nigerian government with Brigadier Ike Nwanchukwu replacing Prof. Akinyemi as Foreign Affairs Minister. The Brigadier was not interested in the 7th PAC and wanted to know what it meant and its affiliates. Apart from abysmal ignorance about self-history, South African Pan African Congress of Azania (PAC), added to his confusion. However, the earlier announcement of the Nigerian government's interest increased foreign focus on 7th PAC and my efforts, which were independent all along of the Nigerian government's attempted hijack.

The make shift leadership arrangement we had relied upon was formerly structured in 1987 involving a two-tier arrangement with the 7th PAC International Secretariat located in Lagos. The ultimate leadership committee was called the International Co-ordinating Committee (ICC) and had as pioneer members, Professor Kwesi Prah, a Ghanaian working in Kenya at the time, B.F. Bankie, a Ghanaian-Gambian living in London then and Naiwu Osahon, based in Lagos, as the Convener/Chairman.

Reporting to the ICC was the International Steering Committee (ISC), which had as members: Ayi Kwei Armah, Nee Kwati Owoo, Robert Hayfron-Benjamin Beye and Boutros Boutros Ghali.

By January 1989, the ISC had been scrapped due to lack of performance by its members perhaps because ofthe cumbersome two-tier system in operation, and was replaced by an expanded ICC comprising of Naiwu Osahon, Convener/Chairman, Prof. Antonio Neto, Angola, Tau Napata, Jamaica, Prof. Alfred Opubor, Nigeria, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, Egypt (who wrote trying to discourage us from institutionalizing the Pan-African Movement but stayed on as committee member even when he became the Secretary General of the UN), Eunice Neto Foreid, Portugal, Dr. Ona Ekhomu, USA, Prof. H. Cunha Jr. Brazil, H. E. Dr. Henri Bangou, Guadeloupe, Dr. Laura M. Torres Souder, Guam, Amar Bentoumi, Algeria (who later withdrew because of the focus of the 'Movement'), Dr. Joycelyn Loncke, Guyana, Dr. Digna Castaneda Puerta, Cuba, Pauulu Kamarakafego (Roosevelt Brown, now late, who represented us at the UN and was the pioneer sponsor of the 6th PAC, Bermuda, Hon. Mr. Bernard Narokobi, Papua New Guinea's Minister of Justice at the time, Dr. Cyril.E. Griffith, USA, Grace Mera Molisa, Vanuatu, Prof. Mary Frances Berry, USA.

By 1990, we had received several letters of support from the likes of Leopold Sedar Senghor living in France at the time; C.L.R. James, before he died, insisting that the congress must be convened in an African country. The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Bahamas; the President of the United Republic of Tanzania; the Minister of Justice of Papua New Guinea; the governments of the Republics of Cote D' Ivoire, Liberia, Togo, Angola, Zaire, Ghana, Guadeloupe Senator in France, Boutros Boutros Ghali as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in Egypt. We had influenced Chief Abiola of Nigeria sufficiently for him to try to steel our thunder by embarking on a 'Reparations' programme of his own, which was eventually sold to the OAU with our active lobby.

By 1992, we had established national branches or committees of the Pan-African Movement in the following countries; Angola, Australia, Barbados, Belize, Benin Republic, Bermuda, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon,Canada, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curacao, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France, Gambia, Germany-Benelux, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guinea, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, St. Kitts, St Lucia, St. Maarten, Surinam, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad, UK, USA, Zaire, Zimbabwe and several new national representatives were being cultivated.

The UK national branch was the very first committee of the 7thPAC to be set up by Naiwu Osahon. It was launched on the 10th of October 1988 at Flat 69, Schomberg House, Vincent Street, Westminster, London,S.W.1, occupied at the time by Prof. Antonio Neto. Founding members of the UK committee included Neto, Bankie, Babu, Pepukayi, Napata, Gotzmore and Bing who was elected the protem secretary.

We started having problems with London right from its take off because, as things turned out, the branch was dominated by self-declared Marxists. They wanted to take over the leadership of the ICC and move its International Secretariat to London because according to them, communications were easier from there. Besides, they were not comfortable with my anti-Marxism or anti-foreign ideology posture and attempt to institutionalize the 'Movement'. Also my determination to exclude Arabs of Northern Africa from the union was a headache. One of their staunchest supporters at the time was Prof. Kwesi Prah who wrote that: "We can notbind the next generation to an institutionalized 'Movement."

My answers at the time were to ask why that should stop us from trying. And how did other races achieve their institutions and union without some first steps? No answer to these questions ever came from Prah or London, or maybe it came through their gradual withdrawal from our fold to encourage and team up with a Uganda faction that eventually developed. They tried desperately to gain access to our International Secretariat's address list before they finally dropped out of our hold three years after their launch. Our (ICC) impression of them at the time was that they were on an ego trip desperate to etch their names on posterity for convening a Pan African Congress regardless of the quality of the congress.

My criticism of DuBois for bequeathing to us the culture of jamboree congresses appeared also to have alienated some supporters of the intellectual icon, including his son, who took offence and started looking for opportunities to scuttle our efforts. Nkrumah's son too soon became less active on the ICC because his father, along with Padmore were blamed for diluting the spirit of Pan-Africanism with their defence of all comers' congresses that welcomed Arab colonizers and Marxist domination all in one breath.

Preparatory conferences of the 7th PAC around the world included:

(a) Hamilton Bermuda (from July 20 - 22, 1990).

(b) Bridgetown, Barbados (from 21 - 22 September, 1991)

(c) Solidarity with Cuba (Saturday 7th December, 1991, Bridgetown, Barbados).

(d) Port-of Spain, Trinidad (Second regional conference of the Caribbean Pan African Movement (from 27 - 28August 1993).

(e) Savannah, Georgia, USA (from 1 - 3 May, 1992)

(f) Toronto, Canada (where ZAWADI KWAFRICA was launched for the first time in the world by Naiwu Osahon(from June 23 - 27, 1993).

The inaugural meeting of the BLACK THINK TANK (BTT) of the Pan-African Movement, now known as THE THINK TANK OF THE BLACK WORLD (TTB), took place from 1 - 8 August 1992, at ASCON, Topo, Badagry, Lagos, Nigeria. The BTT was attended by: Naiwu Osahon, Chairman, Catherene Acholonu, Nigeria, Denese Bradford, USA, Duane Bradford, USA, Tom Dalgety, Guyana, Viola Davis, Barbados, C.M. Eya-Nchama,Equatorial Guinea, Diane Forte, USA, Malinali Meza Herrera, Mexico, Onwuchekwa Jemie, Nigeria, Owei Lakemfa, Nigeria, Olusegun Maiyegun, Nigeria, Rudy Mattai, USA, Kinja Mulegwa-Migabo, Zaire, T.C Nwosu, Nigeria, Osagie Obayuwana, Nigeria, Yinka Ogunsulire, Nigeria, Yeye Akilimali Funua Olade, Nigeria, Charles C. Roach, Canada, Gbenga Sonuga, Nigeria. Two delegates who could not get to the venue of the BTT, but who had paid to attend were: Joycelene Loncke, Guyana and G. Mawa-Kiese Mawawa, Congo.

The BTT examined the issues: "Why are we so blessed and yet so poor?" "Why are we not benefiting as a people from the civilization we pioneered, and what are we to do to get back on our feet again as one family?" THE BLACK AGENDA is a product of the BTT's deliberations and it lays down the rules to guide the activities of Black governments, individuals, organizations, communities, family units, institutions. The BTT also produced the CONSTITUTION of the Pan African Movement, and approved ZAWADI KWAFRICA (ZA) as the name of the Pan-African Foundation. Zawadi Kwafrica are Swahili words meaning gifts of and from the peopleof Africa.

Members of the ICC in 1993 included: Naiwu Osahon, Chairman, Charles C. Roach, Vice Chair, PauuluKamarakafego, Vice Chair, H. E. Dr. (Senator) Henri Bangou, Guadeloupe, Dr. Thomas Cornell Battle, USA, Gerlin Bean, Jamaica, John Benjamin, Anguilla, Prof. Mary Frances Berry, USA, Farika Birhan, Maroons, Dr.Michael L. Blakey, USA, Duane Bradford, USA, Musa Cham, Gambia, Bobby Clarke, Barbados, Dr. John Henrik Clarke, USA, Tom Dalgety, Guyana, Viola Davis, Barbados, M.K. Dingake, Botswana, Babacar Diop, Senegal, Robert M. Dossou, Rep. du Benin, Noel Dossou-Yovo, Rep. du Benin, Prof. Quince Duncan, Costa Rica, Louise Edimo, Cameroon, C.M. Eya-Nchama, Equatorial Guinea, Januario Garcia Filho, Brazil, EuniceNeto Foreid, Portugal, Dianne Forte, USA, Roderick Francis, Jamaica, Major-General J. N. Garba, President of the UN General Assembly at the time, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, (UN Secretary-General at the time), Siegfried Hazel, Curacao, Malinali Meza Herrera, Mexico, Dr. Byron R. M. Hove, Zimbabwe, Eddie Iroh, UK, Onwuchekwa Jemie, Nigeria, Senator Irvin Stephen Knight, Dominica, Pontiff His Grace Srila Bhakti-Tirtha Swami Krisnapada, USD/USA, Joan Lucas, Belize, Dr. Joycelynne Loncke, Guyana, Dr. F. L.Lwanyantika Masha, Tanzania, Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro, Namibia, G. Mawa-Kiese Mawawa, Grenada, Kinja Mulegwa-Migabo, Zaire, James Mutambirwa, PCR/WCC, Hon. Bernard Narokobi, Papua-New Guinea, Abdiasdo Nascimento, Brazil, Michel Ndoh, Switzerland, Prof. Anthonio Neto, Angola, Felipe Noguera, Trinidad, T.C. Nwosu, Nigeria, Frantz Obas, Haiti, Clement O' Garro, St. Kitts. Prof. Omolara Ogundipe-Leslie, Nigeria, Placide Prosper, St. Lucia, Dr. Digna Castaneda Puertas, Cuba, Mora Araceli Reynoso, Mexico, Omowale Satterwhite, USA, Mr. and Mrs Savane, Senegal, Bania Mahamadou Say, Niger, Dr. Jean Sindab, USA, Ghenga Sonuga, Nigeria, Dr. Laura M. Torres Sounder, Guam, Andre France deSousa, Portugal, Hassan A. Sunmonu, OATUU, Cheikh Tidiane Sy, PANA, Dr. Robert B. Sykes, Australia, Terrel Thomas, Suriname, Charles Pascal Tolno, Rep. du Guinea, Stewart M. Tsela, Swaziland, Siteri V. Tuilovoni, Fiji, Prof. Theo Vincent, Nigeria, Amelia Ventura, Mozambique, Alvin Williams, Bermuda, EmmanuelYork, St. Maarten.

Out of frustration for not finding a suitable host country for 7th PAC, we pursued Uganda, more for President Museveni's Guerilla war credentials than for any recognizable record of achievement in the realm of PanAfricanism. The man would not even tolerate dissent from within let alone from outside Uganda. Museveni's Uganda is in the pockets of the Arabs that are marginalizing our kith and kin in Northern Africa.

Our first letter to Museveni was in January 1990 followed by another in September 1990 and a third one in June 1991, inviting his government to be a possible host of 7th PAC without pre-conditions. At the end of March 1991, a number of documents arrived at our International Secretariat in Lagos from Kwame Ture, stating that Kwame Ture of the All African Peoples Revolutionary Party (AAPRP), Col. Otafiire, the personal assistant tothe Uganda Head of State, and four others, had met in Tripoli, Libya, on December 10, 1990, and decided to constitute themselves into a pre-preparatory committee which is to be enlarged to become the preparatory committee to convene a conference to create a mass Pan African organization.

Among the documents sent was an invitation to Naiwu Osahon to attend a preparatory meeting of their proposed conference in March 1991, in Uganda. Obviously that meeting did not hold because according to another notice from them later, the invitations were sent out too late and got to their destinations well after the March date of the proposed meeting. Three further attempts were made, up to the 27th of January, 1992, to put their preparatory meeting together without success but further documents were sent to the International Secretariat of the 7th PAC in Lagos and addressed as such. The documents specified that they were putting together:

(a) A conference focusing on anti-Zionism and

(b) To be called "All African People's Conference. “

Since the title of their conference was not in conflict with our own, we were not entirely opposed to co-operating with Uganda although we wrote back to say: "While we are not uncomfortable with your anti-Zionistfocus, we also want anti-Arab and anti-West focus for your proposed conference."

On the 7th August, 1991, we received a letter from Col. Otafiire, calling their group, the 7th Pan African Congress Committee, with Col. Otafiire as convener and Chairman, and President Museveni as their Patron, thereby constituting a direct challenge to the International Secretariat of the Pan African Movement in Lagos. On the 7th August, 1991, we addressed a comprehensive letter of our objection and discomfort on the matter to President Museveni. After waiting for a while without response, we wrote on the subject to all ourcommittees around the world. Several activities followed around the world after the Uganda bombshell, culminating in a long awaited first ever meeting between Kwame Ture and me, in my office in Lagos on Saturday 27 March 1993. It was an extremely warm and inspiring meeting lasting nearly four hours from about 4.45 p.m. The Secretary General of the 7th PAC national committee for Nigeria, Dr. Osagie Obayuwana, was in attendance mainly as an observer. Several issues concerning the way forward were discussed and the highlights of our agreement were:

(1) That everything humanly possible should be done to keep us and the Black world united. We felt strongly that our detractors must not be given any comfort on this issue. That we needed to close ranks and give purposeful direction at this critical point in our history otherwise posterity would judge us harshly.

(2) That no African government, not even the OAU, under any disguise, should finance or host the 7th Pan African Congress or any other Pan African Congress. They can participate at congress meetings but as equal partners with the rest of the Black world. Congress definitely does not need the authority of the OAU to hold since the OAU is a child of congress.

(3) That non-Black sources should not finance or host any Pan-African Congress.

(4) That the 7th Pan African Congress should be held in Africa, preferably in a country where:

(a) Blacks would have no problems obtaining visas to attend, because no Black person, for ideological,religious, or any other reason should be prevented from attending or speaking his or her mind freely on anyissue as affects the Black world at the congress.

(b) The lives of delegates and others attending congress would be safe and largely guaranteed.

(5) We did not discuss congress date in details but felt that the December 1993 Uganda date might be too soon considering the enormous task of preparing adequately (especially in area of fund-raising) for a meaningful congress. The August 1994 date proposed by the International Secretariat in Lagos, we felt, was feasible particularly for the launching of the institutionalized 'Movement.'

(6) We felt that there was a strong need to ensure qualitative attendance at congress and agreed that while the mass movement dimension of congress should not be hindered, it is necessary for the movement to be led by recognizable Pan-Africanists. In other words, there is a need to identify and agree on who serious Pan Africanists are right now, around the Black world, and either split congress dates to accommodate them or find ways to ensure that congress direction and decisions are controlled by them. If congress date is to be split, the institutional dimension of congress could be held first, say in August, 1994, as already scheduled, followed immediately by the Pan African leaders congress.

After further consultations on the above issues through correspondence with Kwame Ture and other Blacks of diverse interests world-wide, it was agreed that the Uganda conference slated for December 1993, should be a preparatory one for the 7th PAC of the International Secretariat in Lagos in August 1994. The Uganda team ignored our recommendation and announced that they were going ahead with their December 1993, 7thPAC charade.

With US$300,000 blood money to convene the 7th PAC from Gaddafi, Museveni was not only well fortified to play the devil's advocate, he was poised to launch his personal ambition to become the Emperor of a new Tutsi Hema Empire, annexing Rwanda and mineral rich Zaire (now DRC), under the behest of America. We immediately began circulating a strongly worded message warning the patriotic Black world not to go to Uganda.

On January 3, 1994, we received a phone call in Lagos from one of our deputy leaders, Pauulu Kamarakafegoin Bermuda, informing us that the December 1993 Uganda make-believe congress failed to hold. It was cancelled in the last minute because of the non-arrival of quality delegations. Several ordinary, innocent Blackfolks from the Diaspora, unaware of the high wire politics being perpetrated in the name of Pan-Africanism,and hoping to touch base perhaps for the first time in their lives with mother Africa, were turned back at theKampala airport.

A Uganda team, led by Col. Otafiire then set out on a tour of the Black world to deliver Museveni's invitation and offers of free return travel tickets and free accommodation in Uganda to government delegations and renowned intellectuals, who attend their rescheduled April 1994, 7thPAC. They had to move fast to nullify our pending August 1994, 7th PAC date. They arrived Nigeria on January 5, 1994, to deliver their invitation to the Nigerian government without visiting the 7th PAC International Secretariat.

And yet, no head of state attended the Uganda 7th AC debacle. Not even Nyerere who had received our warning message earlier on and who was the principal host of the 6th PAC in Tanzania would grace Uganda with his presence at least to demonstrate continuity. As predicted, the Uganda exercise turned out to be an attempt to be a convener of congress regardless of the outcome to the Black race.

A lot of bravado prevailed, loads of resolutions were passed, and delegates were feted lavishly be fore returning to their various countries, no better off than they were before the congress. In fact, the average Black person in the world today does not know that the 7th PAC has taken place in his or her name. Another jamboree has passed, one of the many failed attempts that litter our chequered history but Uganda achieved 'a me too.' Uganda succeeded in helping us waste another decade, another generation, while Museveni rides on his high visibility profile to destabilize his neighbouring countries to annex and exploit their mineral resources.

The Uganda 7th PAC set up a Pan-African office in Kampala as a propaganda tool of Museveni's Empire building machinery. That done, his hit man, Paul Kagame, a CIA protégé, with US military school training,brought down a plane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi over Rwanda/Burundi and Uganda common border. The Presidents' death launched Rwanda's sack and pogrom, resulting in the death of over half a million Rwandans and the displacement of millions of others. Then they replaced the dreaded Mobutu with Laurent Kabila as President of the DRC. Kabila, a Lumumbist, refused to play along, so Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda occupied the mineral rich regions of the DRC in 1999 with America's technical backing. They massacred over two and a half million Congolese, while looting and plundering the DRC's mineral wealth.

But for the meddlesome intervention of the armies of Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, Emperor Museveni was only a hair's breath away from his dream of usurping what potentially would have been the largest and richest modern Empire in Africa. The failed Emperor apparently had misled the President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, into appearing to support his ambition because Mandela was waiting on a ship off the coast ofKinshasa at the time, to crown Wamba Dia Wamba, as Laurent Kabila's replacement, and Emperor Museveni's new surrogate in the DRC.

AFRICAN UNION (AU)

The latest version of the African Union concept revived from a totally discredited non-Black source with an OAU's special meeting bankrolled by Muamar Gaddafi in Sirte, Libya, in 1999. Gaddafi, as we all know, is the rascal or Satan behind all the modern civil wars in Africa. From Chad to Liberia to Sierra Leone, Gaddafi had his fingers on the rotten, smelly pie. He financed and trained Museveni's Guerrilla adventure, and he is the leading sustainer of Arab pogrom against Africans in the Sudan right now. After failing to build his, the United States of the Arab world dream, he turned to hapless Africa for relevance in international politics. His interest in the African Union is fiendish and totally opportunistic and was designed to lead to the setting up of the AU's headquarters in Sirte, Libya, with Muamar Gaddafi as the United States of Africa's first President. At first,Gaddafi's dream project was opposed by Presidents Obasanjo of Nigeria and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. President Obasanjo and Abdoulai Wade of Senegal opposed the Reparations for Slavery and Colonialism strategy of the Black world at the 2001 UN World Conference in South Africa, against Racism. It was no surprise, therefore, that with Wade, Gaddafi and Obasanjo playing key roles in the formation of the AU, a constitution that delivers the AU as a neo-colonial appendage of the West and Arab domination was crafted.

NEPAD

The NEPAD team members went down on their knees to beg the West for a $64 billion handout but instead got $6 billion spread over a period of perhaps 64 years, to make it worthless. Obviously, that is where NEEEPAD comes from. The $6 billion bailout is to enable us continue to beg the West with loads of NEEEPADS bought from them.

The deputy leader of the Pan African Movement, Charles C. Roach, who is based in Canada, described the African leaders begging scene at the 2002 G8 conference in Canada this way:

"There is an amusing photograph of Prime Minister Chretien of Canada sitting astride a kneeling camel on his recent trip to Algeria and five other African countries over the NEPAD issue. The Prime Minister is entreating the camel not to stand up and this is understandable, because the way a camel gets up, unfolding its long legs is a roller-coaster ride for anyone on its back. Symbolically, Chretien was telling the African camel to stay on its knees while he perches on its back."

Earlier in 2002, President Moi of Kenya, said in a speech in Blantyre, Malawi, that Africa was doomed to perpetual poverty and backwardness unless African leaders free themselves of egocentricity. That

"no country in the West had an obligation to baby-sit and spoon-feed independent African nations. African leaders must accept this fact, however unsettling, and rethink about their development strategies."

Recently too, President Yahya Jammeh of the Gambia was reported to have described NEPAD as a charter for beggars. Hear him:

"NEPAD would not work. ....Africa is the richest continent in terms of mineral resources, but because of ignorance, Africa, in economic terms, is the poorest continent, and we Africans are the laughingstock of humanity. We have failed because some of us are agents of the same people we are supposed to fight against. We produce the bulk of the world's raw materials so why are we still poor? Some of us are fighting proxy wars in Africa for the benefit of others. Africa has never colonized anyone. Some people who prolonged apartheid are now waving the flag of democracy and freedom. The African debt is not globalized, it is Africanized."

At a forum in Addis Ababa in March 2002, Prof Shadrack Gutto of South Africa's University of the Witwatersrand was asked why NEPAD was presented first to the G8 before African governments had a chance to discuss it. Mr. Wiseman Nkuhlu, the South African president's special adviser on NEPAD, providedthe not so wise answer at the forum that it is because African governments have been pre-occupied with building the AU. In answer to another question at the forum, Mr. Nkuhlu admitted that consultation with civil society "is not where we would like it."

If the NEEEPAD team, backed by the West to perpetuate our developmental pains, would not consult with even their colleagues in African governments before inflicting the culture of the begging bowl on Africa all over again, does the African civil society have a right to expect a miracle from the AU? Where does that leave the Black Diaspora in the scheme of things? What about 'Reparations' and Repatriation'?

The answer is for African civil society to link up with the Black Diaspora civil society to establish a vibrant, uncompromising institutionalized 'Movement' for the Black world, independent of the AU that is currently dominated by Arab league members. The two priority areas of activities of the institutionalized 'Movement'would be:

(a) to pressurize the AU to produce a Pan-African Passport (PAP) to enable any Black or African,mregardless of nationality, return or visit home (Africa) at will without let or hindrance and

(b) to compel the West and Arabs, by any means necessary, to pay Reparations to the Black world for slavery and colonialism. The modern Pan-African Movement is known as the African Peoples' Union (APU), the counterpoise, conscience and spiritual beacon of the AU, wielding its authority as a pressure group through moral strength and scholarship of the Myk.”

NAIWU OSAHON Hon. Khu Mkuu (Leader) World Pan-African Movement); Ameer Spiritual (Spiritual Prince)of the African race; MSc. (Salford); Dip.M.S; G.I.P.M; Dip.I.A (Liv.); D. Inst. M; G. Inst. M; G.I.W.M; A.M.N.I.M.Poet, Author of the magnum opus: 'The end of knowledge'. One of the world's leading authors of children'sbooks; Awarded; key to the city of Memphis, Tennessee, USA; Honourary Councilmanship, Memphis City

Rebuilding The Pan African Movement, A Report on the 7th Pan African Congress.

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem

“The 7th Pan African Congress benefited from the rich experiences of the African peoples and from the strength and weaknesses of the movement since the period of the Sixth Pan African Congress. Under the theme, "Facing the Future in Unity, Social Progress and Democracy" the Congress brought together over 800 delegates representing Pan African Organisations from Brazil to Botswana. In total there were over 2000 participants in all of the events to mark the Congress: the Women's Pre-congress Meeting, the cultural expressions at the Uganda National Theatre, the African Art Exhibition, the Opening of Africa Freedom Park and the Congress itself. There were three outstanding characteristics of the Congress: (a) the fact that the meeting took place despite the internal and external contradictions of the movement (b) the formation of the Pan African Women's Liberation Organisation and (c) the establishment of a permanent Pan African Secretariat The debates and actions of the Congress signalled a firm commitment to the idea that the Pan African Struggle was "one struggle, many fronts. The objectives of the Congress, as declared in the call, were inter alia to ‘articulate a vision for the 21st century and a programme of action for the Pan African Movement.’ Despite the internal debates within the movement as to the definition of an African and the external pressures whether Africa could afford the meeting, the force of the demand to resist recolonisation dictated that the meeting should take place. . . .There was a wide diversity of views in the conference, and this divergence was reflected both in the character of the resolutions and in the content of the declaration of the Congress. In reality, however, the fact that the Congress was dominated by grassroots organisations meant that the position of the African governments was not the dominant one in the meeting. . . .The exposure of different sections of the Pan African world to the issues and questions of different regions was one of the high points of the meeting. One whole day had been dedicated to sub regional networking with reports in aplenary from different regions. One of the most important aspects of the conference was the country reports. These reports directly addressed the first objective of the conference, that is, to locate the concrete condition and on going struggles of African peoples continentally and in the diaspora. . . . One major question for the movement was how to define the tasks of the Pan African struggle for the twenty first century. In this effort, the report of the Southern Africa regional conference assisted in clarifying the ways forward in relation to enriching the popular search for Pan African Unity. . . .The largest delegation in the Congress was the North American delegation from the United States and Canada. . . . The ideological divisions within the Pan African movement which had lingered since the period of the African Liberation Support Committee (ALSC) and the Sixth Pan African Congress erupted in the North American delegation. There were Pan Africanists of the Afrocentric mold, elements from the grassroots, workers, urban youth and the homeless, and members of the Nation of Islam and other religious formations. The struggles for the leadership of this delegation spilled over into the main meetings of the Congress to the point where the heated interventions interrupted one of the principal presentations. . . . So intense were these differences that some sections of the North American delegation were not able to benefit from the experience of freedom fighters and grassroots activists from all over the Pan African world. . . . The ideological struggles of the Congress not only spoke to the content of meetings such as the 7th Pan African Congress, but also to the form of the meeting which could inhibit genuine participation. . . . The creation of the Pan African Movement was consistent with the efforts by those present to break the individualism of the movement where the ideas of great persons would be celebrated as that of the movement. This thrust to move beyond periodic congresses to create a movement permeated the Congress. . . . Of these resolutions the most important was the question of the breaking down of the borders in Africa and the creation of a Permanent Secretariat to ensure sustained activism in order to achieve the goals of the 7th Pan African Congress. . . . The Ugandan government offered to host the Permanent Secretariat, mid this organisation will be the first of its kind with representation from all corners of the Pan African world. The Secretariat will be convening meetings in the nine designated regions of the Pan African world. The International Preparatory Committee was dissolved with a new governing council formed. . . . The Secretory General, Tajudeen Abdul Raheem, was given the task, along with the interim management committee, to merge the movement with the national committees so that there will be activities and meetings in all parts of the world so that the Pan Africanism on the streets can inform the political struggle for dignity and freedom. The Congress was considered a success by all those who participated as delegates or as participants and observers. Grassroots representation from the Ugandan Pan African committee ensured that the meeting was not an OAU type meeting. From the outset there were debates in the governing body of the meeting, the International Preparatory Committee (IPC), as to whether the Congress would be guided by principled political action or by protocol. The diversity of views did not detract from the fact that the main thrust was to reverse the depoliticisation and the demobilisation of the African peoples in this period of the reorganisation of the international system. . . . In the declaration of the Sixth Pan African Congress in 1974 in Tanzania, the call was that henceforth Pan Africanism was informed by the class struggle internationally. The declaration of the 7th Pan African Congress was that African peoples everywhere should resist recolonisation. Delegates left the Congress energised "to take action that will rid the world of the curse that has plagued humanity for over five centuries. We the African people are our own liberators and thinkers whose task is to make a mighty stride towards genuine freedom by any means necessary."

Divide and Conquer Diplomacy of Lisbon and Washington 1973: Coopting the PAIGC and the Balanta People

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969–1976, VOLUME E–6, DOCUMENTS ON AFRICA, 1973–1976

67. Airgram A-172 From the Embassy in Portugal to the Department of State1 2

Lisbon, September 11, 1973

SUBJECT:

  • Moment of Truth Drawing Near in Portuguese Guinea?

REF:

  • Lisbon 3322

[Page 1]

SUMMARY: Insistent reports that the PAIGC will soon declare Portuguese Guinea independent, coupled with the costly loss of aircraft in that territory, may have convinced Portuguese leaders that it is time to seek a political solution or, at a minimum, build a third option which could be used for an honorable exit if things get worse. The Portuguese have given the Guinean People’s Congress at least apparent political power and have provided that 90 percent of Congress participants will be selected by universal adult suffrage. The Balanta people, a major prop of the PAIGC, have been promised land of their own and a better future. It may be that these measures and other recent developments could provide Portugal with the basis for leaving Guinea in local hands with the sovereignty issue waffled, and, able to deny having been forced out by PAIGC.

There are signs that the PAIGC itself may be interested in reaching a political agreement with Portugal, and it has been reliably reported that the PAIGC has been in contact with the Portuguese Government in the past and is involved in talks with Portuguese representatives in Paris at the moment. There are some indications that the PAIGC is willing to drop its claim to the Cape Verde Islands; this, if true, would meet a major Portuguese goal. The Portuguese Communist Party has begun predicting a political settlement; we would not rule it out. END SUMMARY.

INTRODUCTION

A number of new elements in the political, military, economic, and social affairs of Portuguese Guinea suggest that the future of that territory may be shaped within the relatively near future. While not all present indicators point the same way—indeed, some are contradictory—we believe that the Portuguese, if not quite planning their departure, are at least building a new option for future contingencies. The basis of this option is the development of a strong political institution among the Africans in Guinea.

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

The evolution of Guinea’s annual People’s Congress into something akin to a provincial legislature appears to be a major step in turning political decision-making over to the territory’s inhabitants. Under current law, the official legislative body in Portuguese Guinea is the Legislative Assembly, only five of whose 17 members are popularly elected. For even those five seats the franchise is restricted to 21-year old literates (and a few others). The law provides that the Legislative Assembly may “take note of the deliberations of the People’s Congress when asked to do so by the Governor.” This clause was seized upon by General Spinola and the Legislative Assembly to divest the Assembly of much of its legislative power in favor of the People’s Congresses.

At the opening session of the first Legislative Assembly on June 26, General Spinola made a speech which included the following:

“…It is not possible to govern unless decisions stand on an undisputed foundation of legitimacy, and no one could ever govern in Guinea without seeking that legitimacy in respect for Guinea’s social structure and in the real participation of its human groups in the defining and attaining of the objectives in view… I want to stress the necessity of complementing a transitional political architecture which does not yet meet the basic requirement of representativity, which is the essential condition of the legitimacy of political power.

“That is why the active participation of the African majorities must be assured… (This) is very difficult to achieve when it is confined by rigid subjection to orthodox institutions which are not yet adjusted to [Page 3]African reality. In search of a solution, we went as far as we could with the shaping of the Legislative Assembly, but everyone is perfectly aware that the fundamental problem remained without any real solution. With this in mind, the Congresses stood out as the solution which circumstances indicated and which even the most elementary notion of justice required.”

The Legislative Assembly session took up, as best we can tell, two matters only: its own rules, and a statute formalizing the People’s Congresses. The Assembly’s rules commit it to a much more intimate relationship with the Congress than “taking note of the deliberations of the Congress when asked to do so by the Governor,” but they stop short of requiring the Assembly to approve the acts of the Congress. Its rules require the Assembly to “take cognizance of the conclusions approved by the People’s Congresses and deliberate on the imperative and programmatic aspects of those conclusions, having in view the measures which are most suited to the interests and aspirations of the people, in order to provide the Government with any opinion which it might solicit, as well as in the exercise of the powers which are conferred by Art. 25, Section 1 of the provincial politico-administrative statute. (The article referred to reads, “The Legislative Assembly has the power to make laws on all matters which interest that province exclusively, unless reserved to the organs of sovereignty.”)

Having drawn up its rules and a statute to govern the People’s Congresses, the Legislative Assembly wound up its first session in nine days. At the last session, Governor Spinola (ex-officio President of the Assembly) made it clear that, at least in his mind, the People’s Congress was the policy-making body in Guinea:

“I think it fitting that we focus on the importance… of the link between the People’s Congress and the Provincial Legislature, a link without which the Congresses would be reduced to the role of adornment for a meaningless system; for what truly institutionalizes a political body is not the legal recognition of its existence, but its effective participation in public life, and such participation has now been unequivocally assured. In making it obligatory that the Legislative Assembly take up the conclusions of the Congresses, with a view to legislating when necessary, we have taken a great step forward, truly integrating the people of Guinea in the process of the formation of the policies which affect them.

“I would also like to stress the fact that the link between the two bodies has contributed to an appreciable increase in the effectiveness of this Assembly, whose legitimacy has been substantially strengthened in that the exercise of sovereignty, with respect for the people of Guinea, has been authenticated.” Spinola’s mention of “respect for the people of Guinea” is a reminder of his frequently-stated belief that the Congresses reach decisions in the African way.

THE PEOPLE’S CONGRESS

Each Spring since 1970, a People’s Congress has been held in Bissau (for background, see Lisbon A-136 of October 19, 1971). The new statute formalizes many of the practices already in force and aims to make uniform the process of selecting delegates and the procedures to be used at Congress sessions.

The annual People’s Congress takes place in two phases. The first phase is a district-level meeting attended by all tribal chiefs resident in the district, plus elected delegates up to a total of one-half of one percent of the entire population. Each sub-district is to have a representation proportional to its population, and each ethnic group is to be represented proportionally as well. The meetings are to last three days. The statute does not restrict the subjects which can be discussed, but provides that those problems which cannot be solved at the regional meetings will be taken up during the Congress’s second phase, which is to be a province-wide gathering.

At the regional meetings, participants are to elect one-fifth of their number to represent their districts (and, by indirection, their ethnic groups) at the provincial meeting. The provincial phase of the Congress, therefore, should draw about 500 participants, or one-tenth of one percent of the population. (The last Congress had 490 participants, according to press reports.)

Aside from the province’s 40-odd chiefs, who participate in the regional phase of the Congress by virtue of their position, Congress delegates are to be elected by universal suffrage. All persons over 18 are eligible to vote; there are no requirements for literacy, fluency in Portuguese, or anything else. If, as appears to be the intention of the Portuguese, the Congresses decide matters of public policy, Portuguese Guinea will have at least a quasi-legislative body based on popular suffrage, and with a claim to the “legitimacy” of the Spinola speeches.

It should be noted that the People’s Congresses are African affairs: whites and mulattoes do not take part. Given the leading policy-making roles that white Portuguese and persons of Cape Verdean ancestry have always played in Portuguese Guinea, this is of major significance. It may be speculated that the Portuguese realize the futility of concentrating political power in the hands of the miniscule white population and the attractiveness of passing political power to the native Africans over the heads of the province’s Cape Verdean elements, who long dominated (and may still dominate) the PAIGC. Since the conclusions of the Congresses must be approved by the Legislative Assembly before they become operative, it may be said that the whites and Cape Verdeans in Guinea will have to look to that body for the protection of their interests.

MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS

The PAIGC’s introduction of SA-7 missiles and the downing, in quick succession, of several Portuguese Air Force planes in the Spring of 1973 was followed by a period of gloom in Lisbon. At that time, rumors of GOP plans to throw in the towel were rife in Lisbon; it was widely believed that the use of missiles would end or severely curb air reconnaissance and support of ground operations by the Portuguese, thus giving the PAIGC a much freer hand.

New tactics by the Portuguese Air Force reportedly reduced the risk from missiles, however, and, together with reported poor judgment on the part of PAIGC gunners, blunted the effectiveness of the weapon. Much more important, however, in eroding the psychological advantage which the missiles gave the PAIGC was the success of the Portuguese in destroying a major PAIGC base camp in Senegal (Lisbon 1934). In that operation, the Portuguese forces, consisting of black commandos, reportedly killed 165 PAIGC soldiers and captured or destroyed more ordnance (including the destruction of 13 missiles) than in all of 1972. There was no protest from Senegal over this incident. As a result, the PAIGC cannot now be certain that any of its many base camps in Senegal are immune from attack. It may be expected that the PAIGC will devote more of its manpower and firepower to the protection of these facilities, thus reducing its strength within Portuguese Guinea. Possibly for that reason, military activity in Guinea has slackened appreciably this summer.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Both the Portuguese Government and the Gulbenkian Foundation have been generous in providing assistance for economic and social development in Portuguese Guinea, and as a result an impressive number of new health and educational facilities have sprung up in the last few years, staffed at present by military personnel for the most part. Little new private investment has moved into the territory, however, although it has been announced that both the National Development Bank and the Banco Totta e Acores will open branches in Bissau next year. The local administration has reportedly met with some success in developing agricultural cooperatives.

Much more dramatic than the foregoing, however, was the announcement a few months ago by General Spinola that the hitherto landless Balanta people, who have traditionally supplied labor for Fula landowners, would be given land of their own. At the most recent People’s Congress, Spinola told the Fulas: “The Fula group is the one with the greatest responsibilities… it is the one which has attained the highest cultural level… Would it not be unjust if they were not asked to do something so that the others might progress also? …It is intolerable that one ethnic group remain eternally superior to others.” To the Balantas, Spinola said, “In the new society that the Government is building, the Balanta tribe is the one which will benefit the most… The Government cannot accept that a landowner remain in Bissau while others work his land… In the future, the Balantas will only work for themselves.”

Subsequent to Spinola’s remarks, the giant firm Companhia Uniao Fabril announced that it was turning over its 25,000 hectare holdings in Guinea to African cooperatives, and the Banco Nacional Ultramarino revealed plans to do the same with its 15,000 hectares there. We assume that Balanta co-ops will get the lion’s share.

The Fula people have traditionally been pro-Portuguese, and few have worked with the PAIGC. The Balanta, on the other hand, have supplied a large percentage of the PAIGC’s fighters.

Spinola, in another passage of the speech to the Balantas mentioned above, recognized this and chided the Balantas for it:

“… the Balanta used to work for others, and nothing more… this was the basis for the Balantas’ complaints… Now those (Balantas) who go into the bush still work and die for others… Has the PAIGC ever asked the Balanta people what they want? You all have relatives or friends in the bush, in the PAIGC, and some of you continue to have dealings with the bush. The Government knows this… but does not fear it. But others among you continue to help the PAIGC, giving information and betraying the people of your own villages. Speaking with relatives (even if they are combatants) is one thing, but betraying the people is another. I ask the Balanta people: How have you benefitted from the PAIGC? What promises has the PAIGC ever kept?”

THE DIPLOMATIC FRONT

THE PAIGC

According to information available in Lisbon, the top leaders of the PAIGC are Luis Cabral, born in Bissau of a Cape Verdean father and an African mother, and Aristides Pereira, born in Cape Verde of Cape Verdean parents and educated in Cape Verde. Cabral and Pereira are said to belong to a four-man “Executive Committee for the Struggle Against the Portuguese,” along with Francisco (Chico Te) Mendes, born in Guinea of African parents, and Joao Bernardo (Nino) Vieira, likewise born in Guinea of African parents. This group, according to a Portuguese news agency report, was set up by Sekou Toure in order to increase the African element in the leadership of the PAIGC. Many Portuguese, however, believe that Toure himself controls the PAIGC, and some contend that President Senghor of Senegal also believes that Toure, whom Senghor hates, is in the saddle.

GOP/PAIGC CONTACTS?

One of General Spinola’s former top aides and another military officer related to him by marriage have told Embassy officers that the General was in frequent contact with the PAIGC and with Amilcar Cabral. A hypothesis widely accepted in Portugal is that Amilcar Cabral was killed as a result of strife within the PAIGC stemming from Cabral’s desire (and steps) to bring about a political settlement with Portugal. The Counselor of the Vatican Diplomatic Mission in Lisbon has told an Embassy officer that he understands that the Portuguese are meeting secretly with PAIGC representatives in Paris in an effort to reach an agreement to end the war. A well-informed reporter has the same story, with the added element that the meetings have been arranged with the help of the French Communist Party.

WHY END THE WAR?

We believe that the Portuguese might be willing to grant virtual independence to Portuguese Guinea if (a) it could be done under a formula which would not dishonor the past, would allow for future cultural and honorific links with Portugal, and would not appear to be the fall of the first African domino, and (b) Portugal retained undisputed title to Cape Verde. The PAIGC’s threat of a declaration of independence may hasten Portugal’s search for such a formula. Portugal has no real economic stake in Guinea, and the cost of hanging on may begin to look prohibitive if more aircraft are lost, since the GOP has limited access to replacements.

On the other hand, the PAIGC may be willing to accept half a loaf. The “revolution” in Cape Verde has been a non-starter, and dissension within the PAIGC, along with the Spinola policies mentioned above, may make the position of Cape Verdean in Guinea more and more tenuous. These aspects may tempt Cape Verdeans in the PAIGC to settle before things get worse for them. If, as some Portuguese believe, Sekou Toure wants a client PAIGC and a captive (though nominally independent) Guinea-Bissau, Senghor and such PAIGC leaders not interested in the Toure option may be pressing for a settlement. In this connection, it could be significant that recent PAIGC statements mention an independent “Guinea-Bissau” without reference to Cape Verde.

We note that the Portuguese Communist Party, in its radio broadcasts and clandestine propaganda, has repeatedly stated that conditions are ripening for an end to the “colonial wars.” A PCP document prepared in mid-August states, “…Facts will prove that the time is coming when the Government… will itself be forced to seek a political solution, to which the Government will try to give a demagogic and neo-colonialist cast, but which in fact will be the death-knell of Portuguese colonialism.” This looks to us like a warning that the party faithful should not be frightened by a “neo-colonialist solution.”

FUTURE LEADERSHIP

While we cannot judge the quality of the leadership of the PAIGC, it is safe to point out that, unlike Amilcar Cabral, the current PAIGC leaders are not particularly respected or even well-known in Lisbon. On the Portuguese side, the leadership is presently unimpressive. The one Guinean political figure who was well respected on the Portuguese side, National Assembly Deputy James Pinto Bull, was killed in a helicopter crash in 1970. Guinea’s only Deputy at the moment is Nicolau Martins Nunes, who is pleasant and intelligent but also timid and lackluster. One possible political leader might be Joaquim Batica Ferreira, a young Manjaco chief who worked closely with Spinola in the past. He is the brother of a physician resident in Lisbon. If the People’s Congress develops political muscle, it may be expected that new leaders will emerge from that body.

COMMENT: While the developments reported above do not lend themselves to sweeping conclusions, they do suggest that the Portuguese Government may be seeking to create a third option between the PAIGC route and the status quo. It appears that the Portuguese want to build a new political structure, in order to have a potential inheritor of political power should Portugal decide to leave, and thereby exercise pressure on the PAIGC to come to terms before that structure gains strength. The PAIGC’s strongest card at the moment appears to be its threat to declare independence soon. The Portuguese seem to believe that such a declaration would be recognized by many countries and would bring in its wake a host of unpleasant complications. To forestall or avoid this, it is conceivable that the Portuguese would go along with the integration of the PAIGC in GOP-created instruments like the People’s Congress or make some other arrangement which would allow Portugal to exit gracefully.

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 19 PORT-GUIN. Confidential. Repeated to Abidjan, Banjul, Conakry, Dakar, London, Lourenco Marques, Luanda, Madrid, Paris, Oporto, Ponta Delgada, and the U.S. Missions to NATO and the UN. Drafted by Thomas F. Herron, cleared by Wingate Lloyd and by Col. Perley L. Mosier, and approved by Chargé Richard S. Post

  2. The Embassy described the internal situation in Portuguese Guinea, the prospects for independence, and the likelihood of a political agreement between PAIGC and Portugal.↩

PORTUGUESE PROPOGANDA CLIP:

The African Union and the African Diaspora - Tracking the AU 6th Region Initiative and the Right to Return Citizenship: A Resource for the 8th Pan African Congress Part 1 in Harare, Zimbabwe

WORKING PAPER ON DESIRABLE RESULTS OF THE 6TH PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS, TANZANIA 1974

————————————-

African charter oN HUMAN AND PEOPLES RIGHTS - 1981

Article 12

1. Every individual shall have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of a State provided he abides by the law.

2. Every individual shall have the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country. This right may only be subject to restrictions, provided for by law for the protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality.

World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance - Durban Declaration, 31 August to 8 September 2001

“54. We underline the urgency of addressing the root causes of displacement and of finding durable solutions for refugees and displaced persons, in particular voluntary return in safety and dignity to the countries of origin, as well as resettlement in third countries and local integration, when and where appropriate and feasible;”

“78. Urges those States that have not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the following instruments: 

(a) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948;

(l) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998;”

Commentary: the 1949 Geneva Convention Article 4 (1) defines prisoners of war and Article 5 states, 

“the present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.” 

The new Geneva Convention Protocol on Prisoners of War, which the United States has signed but not yet ratified and which went into force for some states on 7 December 1978, has provided in Articles 43 through 47 broader standards for prisoners of war, who come from irregular and guerilla units, than the terms of the 1949 Article 4. Article 45 of the 1978 Protocol states that a

“A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war… if he claims the status of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf.”

The African Diaspora, referred to as “Afrodescendents” has been determined by a competent tribunal -- the Third World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in the city of Santiago, Chile in the year 2000 - and confirmed in 2002 at the United Nations Conference for the Rights of Minorities in La Ceiba, Honduras to refer to the African Diaspora that  

  • Were forcibly disposed of their homeland, Africa;

  • Were transported to the Americas and Slavery Diaspora for the purpose of enslavement;

  • Were subjected to slavery;

  • Were subjected to forced mixed breeding and rape;

  • Have experienced, through force, the loss of mother tongue, culture, and religion;

  • Have experienced racial discrimination due to lost ties from their original identity.

Thus, the designation or status of “prisoner of war” under the Geneva Convention is valid for Afrodescendants since they have yet to be repatriated to their land of origin.

“87. Urges States parties to adopt legislation implementing the obligations they have assumed to prosecute and punish persons who have committed or ordered to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto and of other serious violations of the laws and customs of war, in particular in relation to the principle of non-discrimination;”

“IV. Provision of effective remedies, recourse, redress, and other measures at the national, regional and international levels

158. Recognizes that these historical injustices have undeniably contributed to the poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion, economic disparities, instability and insecurity that affect many people in different parts of the world, in particular in developing countries. The Conference recognizes the need to develop programmes for the social and economic development of these societies and the Diaspora, within the framework of a new partnership based on the spirit of solidarity and mutual respect, in the following areas:

Facilitation of welcomed return and resettlement of the descendants of enslaved Africans;

160. Urges States to take all necessary measures to address, as a matter of urgency, the pressing requirement for justice for the victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to ensure that victims have full access to information, support, effective protection and national, administrative and judicial remedies, including the right to seek just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for damage, as well as legal assistance, where required;

“168. Urges States that have not yet done so to consider acceding to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977, as well as to other treaties of international humanitarian law, and to enact, with the highest priority, appropriate legislation, taking the measures required to give full effect to their obligations under international humanitarian law, in particular in relation to the rules prohibiting discrimination;”

First AU-Western Hemisphere Diaspora Forum in Washington, DC December 17-19, 2002

The Forum established the Western Hemisphere African Diaspora Network (WHADN) to interface with the African Union Commission. WHADN, which was given an 18 month mandate, put forward proposals for effective collaboration between the African Diaspora and the African Union which were refined by the AU Commission. One of those proposals, the Trade & Economic Development Committee proposed the following framework for recommendations as prerequisites to effective and meaningful participation in African trade and development by Africans in the western hemisphere Diaspora:

The African Union should consider the African Diaspora as Business partner, and

-                   Establish official programs to identify and qualify Diaspora businesses

-                   Issue a common visa, or eliminate business travel visas for Diaspora businesses.

IV. WORKING GROUP REPORTS

DEMOCRACY, GOVERNANCE AND THE RULE OF LAW

Selwyn R. Cudjoe (Chairperson)

Kwesi Addae,Lino D'Almeida,Carole Boyce-Davies,Cyril Boynes, Jr.,Howard Dodson,Earnie Ferreira,Tsita V. Himonyanga-Phiri,John W. Jackson,Michelle Jacobs,Kysseline Jean-Mary, Esq.,Dr. Nkamany Kabamba,Barbacar M'Bow, Mamabolo, Ibrahim Mohamed, Dr. Brimmy A.U. Olaghere, Kunirum Osia, Mohamed I. Shoush, Charles Kwalonu Sunwabe Jr., Yetunde Teriba, Barbara Tutani

“190. We, the participants of the above-named Working Group, move that the African Diaspora establishes itself for full regional representation at the African Union.”

The question of how to structure Diaspora representation was discussed, and it was agreed that the Western Hemisphere regions would be represented as follows:

  1. i. Latin America (including Mexico and Central America)

  2. ii. The Caribbean

  3. iii. Brazil (given its language, size, and historical disconnect with the rest of Latin America)

  4. iv. The United States

  5. v. Canada (not grouped with the United States given the often different interests of the Diaspora of the two countries, as reported by members of the Working Group)

191. The question of citizenship was discussed extensively, and the following nonexclusive models were proposed:

i. Each Member-State legislate the right of citizenship to members of Diaspora,

ii. The African Union accords certain legal, civil and economic rights to members of the Diaspora,

iii. The African Union and Member-States declare all Africans in the Diaspora citizens of the New African Nation created, for the purpose of providing citizenship to people of descent. Through this process, members of the Diaspora will be accorded citizenship to the African Union, following the European Union model.

CLOSING REMARKS

Dr Jinmi Adisa, Senior Coordinator and Head of Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation (CSSDCA), Interim Commission of the African Union:

“236. We will take all your resolutions and recommendations to Chairman Essy and the Commission of the Union in Addis Ababa and through them to the Summit of the Union and while we may not be able to implement all of them immediately, you can be rest assured that they will eventually be reflected in the purposes, goals and programmes of the Union.”

RECOMMENDATION FOR COORDINATING BODY FOR AU-WESTERN HEMISPHERE DIASPORA

“December 19, 2002

250. The Meeting recommended that an office of the AU be established in Washington DC.

251. The meeting also recommended that the Foundation for Democracy in Africa serve as the coordinating body and be given the specific mandate to follow-up on the recommendations of the 1st AU-Western Hemisphere Diaspora Conference and work with the CSSDCA, enhancing the work of other African Diaspora NGOs internationally and in consultation with the AU Office in New York, within the next 18 months.”

CONSTITUTIVE ACT OF THE AFRICAN UNION (FEBRUARY 2003) AND PROTOCAL ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTIVE ACT OF THE AFRICAN UNION (JULY 2003)

On February 3-4, 2003, the first Extra-Ordinary Summit of the Assembly of the African Union meeting in Addis Ababa, Ehtiopia, adopted the historic Article 3(q) that officially, “invite(s) and encourage(s) the full participation of Africans in the Diaspora in the building of the African Union in its capacity as an important part of our Continent.” From this decision, the African Diaspora would become designated as the 6th Region of the African Union.” Article 3(q) was then adopted by the 2nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the Union in Maputo, Mozambique on July 11, 2003.

Decision on the Development of the Diaspora Initiative in the African Union at the Third Extraordinary Session in Sun City, South Africa May 2003

In May, 2003, the Executive Council of the African Union met at the Third Extraordinary Session in Sun City, South Africa and issued the "Decision on the Development of the Diaspora Initiative in the African Union" This decision stated in point 4 that it

"Supports the initiative of the Commission to convene a technical workshop, as soon as possible, to develop a concept paper to generate proposals on the relations between the AU and the Diaspora. The proposed workshop would also address the following issues:

-                   the definition of the Diaspora;

-                   the role of the Diaspora in reversing African brain drain in line with the NEPAD recommendations;

-                   the modalities of the creation of a Diaspora fund for investment and development in Africa;

-                   the modalities for the development of scientific and technical networks to channel the repatriation of scientific knowledge from the Diaspora to Africa, and the establishment of cooperation between those abroad and at home;

-                   the establishment of a Diaspora database to promote and facilitate networking and collaboration between experts in their respective countries of origin and those in the Diaspora.

The Decision also stated:

"b. What can the African Union offer the Diaspora?

Discussions during the Washington Forum also offers a picture of some of what the Diaspora may expect - a measure of credible involvement in the policy making processes, some corresponding level of representation, symbolic identification, requirements of dual or honorary citizenship of some sort, moral and political support of Diaspora initiatives in their respective regions, preferential treatment in access to African economic undertakings including consultancies, trade preferences and benefits for entrepreneurs, vis a vis non - Africans, social and political recognition as evident in invitation to Summits and important meetings etc. These deliberations must also focus on possibilities, criteria and qualification for Diaspora representation in the Economic, Cultural and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Pan-African Parliament, etc.

ASSEMBLY OF THE AFRICAN UNION Second Ordinary Session 10 - 12 July 2003 Maputo, MOZAMBIQUE: DECISION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTIVE ACT - Doc. Assembly/AU/8(II) Add. 10 - July 10 -12, 2003 Maputo, Mozambique

African Union Technical Workshop on the Relationship With The Diaspora held in the Port of Spain, Trinidad, June 2-5 2004

Working Group 4: Modalities for enhancing effective partnerships between the African Union and the African Diaspora and Diaspora participation in ECOSOC

Recommendations included:

vi. The AUC should develop policies allowing the heads of state of Black nations outside the continent of Africa (in particular the Caribbean) to be included in the deliberations of AU Heads of State Summits and that, in turn, AU Heads of State representatives be invited to Summits of Black nations Heads of State outside of the continent of Africa. The same can be said for reciprocal invitations between African and African Diaspora meetings of professionals, trade associations, and trade unions. For instance, the AU would facilitate and coordinate the appointment of representatives of African professional associations to the executive councils of counterpart professional associations in Black nations and in nations with counterpart national and regional professional associations (both African descent associations and dominant professional associations with African descent caucuses) in areas such as law, medicine, the sciences (social and natural), engineering, the arts and humanities, media, urban planning, rural development, and education, etc.

vii. We recommend that the AU encourage representation policies for summits, conferences, workshops, and key meetings, which would allow for the coming together of government ministers within specified Diaspora Regions in areas of responsibility such as culture, labor, education, and trade to collaborate with AU counterpart ministers to address public policy matters of pressing concern in Diaspora regions and sub-regions (as has happened with the recent WTO meeting in Cancún). When and where appropriate, these meetings could include representatives from NGOs, private industries, professional associations, and civil rights movements.

ix. The AU Diaspora Initiative should establish criteria for selecting NGOs, private industries, universities, professional associations, and primary and secondary educational systems for partnership in the AU Diaspora Initiative. Regarding NGOs, this refers to the development of selection and evaluation criteria for the twenty NGO positions allotted in ECOSOCC. NGOs. Coalitions of NGOs interested in ECOSOCC representation, and which are recommended by regional secretariats to the AUC, must demonstrate capacity to design, implement, and evaluate services, projects, and programmes which (a) improve the quality of life of African and African Diaspora nations, communities, populations, and institutional sectors; or/and (b) promote education and awareness about African and African Diaspora history and other issues; and (c) establish collaborative partnerships with other NGOs, private industries, cultural organizations, Black social movements, and educational institutions. It is recommended that African Diaspora NGOs and coalitions of NGOs interested in being regional consultative partners with the African Union register with their respective regional secretariats;

all NGOs and coalitions of NGOs in the Western Hemisphere desiring to participate in the African Union Development of the Diaspora Initiative should register with WHADN as the first step of membership in this movement.

The AU should set other selection criteria reflecting its organizational needs and determine policy on issues such as length of tenure of ECOSOCC NGOs and NGO coalitions and criteria for renewal of tenure as set by formal performance evaluation procedures and standards.

xii.          The AU should mandate Regional Diaspora Secretariats to coordinate and mobilize when needed Diaspora regional associations, organizations, and institutional sectors and to develop programmes to ensure their capacity to engage in partnerships with each other and with associations, organizations, and institutional sectors on the African continent.

xvi.        The AU should consider offering Diaspora federal citizenship options and recommend that the AU establish a task force of distinguished scholars and policy makers to comprehensively study this question and offer policy recommendations to the AU Assembly.”

Report of the First Conference of Intellectuals of Africa and The Diaspora, October 6-9, 2004 in Dakar, Senegal

"59. The question on how to structure the Diaspora to make it as the 6th region was raised. To that effect:

-          There is need to establish a representative body including the major regions of the world.

-          20 Diaspora organizations will be part of ECOSOCC, the advisory body of the African Union.

Recommendations

a)    Setting up of an African experts group to serve as a 'think tank' to the AU.

e)     Development of databases of associations to promote networking.

f)      To promote the concept of African citizenship and the establishment of an African Passport.

87.  Dr. Molefi Asante put forward five recommendations for the integration of the Diaspora and the continent. These include

i.              the provision of curricula information from the African Diaspora in African schools,

ii.            assigning responsibility to people in the ministries of African states to interface with the Diaspora

iii.           operations from a perspective of strength rather than weakness,

iv.           the need for African leaders to have precise knowledge of Diaspora communities as a basis for strengthening relations, and

v.            the acceptance of the right of return for the African Diaspora.

Key issues and Recommendations

89.  Five key issues were subject of recommendation. Preliminary discussions were held regarding the modalities for their implementation.

a.    Creation of a specific structure of coordination as a follow up mechanism

i.              The African Union should establish a Secretariat as a follow-up mechanism to engage in advocacy and to promote a permanent policy dialogue between intellectuals and policy makers in Africa and the Diaspora.

ii.            The African Union should set up or adopt existing institutions to serve as 'Africa Houses' within strategic global and African locations to promote African interests abroad, improve awareness and knowledge about Africa, and support commercial and other links between the Diaspora and Africa.

c.    Promotion of an African Citizenship Initiative

-     In recognition of the importance of identity as a mobilizing factor for development, the African Union should develop a framework for a wider African Citizenship Initiative.

Modalities for Implementation

91.  The African Union Commission should:

-     Develop, in consultation with the Diaspora, proposals for a Bill of Citizenship that establishes rights, entitlements, and duties of African Citizens on the continent and in the Diaspora, including the responsibility of Member States and the African Union, and submit this to the Executive Council and Summit for consideration and approval.

c)    Establishing The Diaspora as The Sixth Region of The African Union

-                   The Diaspora should initiate and, wherever it already exists should, broaden a process of consultation and regular meetings culminating in the establishment of transparent representative organs, to engage with the African Union.

Meeting of Experts on the Definition of the African Diaspora, April 11-12, 2005 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

VIII. ADOPTION OF THE DEFINITION OF THE AFRICAN DIASPORA

18. Following the discussion above, the meeting adopted the following definition by consensus as read by the Chairperson:

“The African Diaspora consists of peoples of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union.”

Siphiwe Note: this definition is severely flawed in light of the "Out of Africa" DNA studies. What is to stop a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swede desiring to contribute to the development of Africa, for example, from claiming status as a member of the African Diaspora since current science states that his or her ancestors (and all human beings) originated in Africa? At the time, I recommended the following definition:

"The African Diaspora consists of peoples of African origin, descent and heritage living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union."

Under this definition, the Swede would be excluded on grounds that he or she did not possess an African heritage.

The challenges of Diaspora representation in the African Union’s ECOSOCC Assembly Francis N. Ikome

The African Union Diaspora Initiative, Presentation by Dr. Jinmi Adisa, Director, Citizens and Diaspora Directorate, CIDO, African Union Commission, to the Annual Diaspora Consultation with Formations and Communities in North America, New York, USA, 21-22 October 2010


”Soon after the launching of the African Union in Durban, South Africa in 2002 therefore, the Assembly of Heads of States met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to establish, among other things, a legal framework that would create the necessary and sufficient conditions for putting this decision into effect. Hence, it adopted the Protocol on the Amendment to the Constitutive Act of the Union which in Article 3 (q) invited the African 4 Diaspora to participate fully as an important component in the building of the African Union. In adopting the decision, the Protocol symbolically recognized the Diaspora as an important and separate but related constituency outside the five established regions of Africa – East, West, Central North and South. Thus although there is no specific legal or political text that states this categorically, it, in effect, created a symbolic sixth region of Africa. . . .

DEFINITION OF THE AFRICAN DIASPORA

The meeting of Experts from Member States met in Addis Ababa, from 11-12 April 2005 and adopted the definition as follows: “The African Diaspora consists of peoples of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and building of the African Union.” This definition was adopted at the next Ordinary Session of Council and Assembly in July 2005. The definition has attracted some criticisms. Though it was adopted by consensus, two delegations at the meeting felt strongly on the need for a two-part definition, one of which would capture the academic or intellectual aspects and the other that would be related to the political needs of the Union. Another delegation insisted on the need to add “permanently” to “ living outside the continent.” Thereafter, others have argued that the phrase “willingness to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union” should be left out. Nothing should be demanded or expected from the Diaspora. They should simply be recognized ipso facto as is the case with the Jewish and Israeli Diaspora. The criticisms are useful but they do not sufficiently address the complexity of the subject. The definition was arrived at after serious and deep reflection. The Experts agreed that any working definition must combine the following key characteristics as necessary and sufficient conditions.

A. Bloodline and/ or heritage: the Diaspora should consist of people living outside the continent whose ancestral roots or heritage are in Africa

B. Migration: The Diaspora should be composed of people of African heritage, who migrated from or are living outside the continent. In this context, three trends of migration were identified- pre-slave trade, slave trade, and post-slave trade or modern migration:

C. The principle of inclusiveness. The definition must embrace both ancient and modern Diaspora; and

D. The commitment to the African cause: The Diaspora should be people who are willing to be part of the continent (or the African family)

The AU definition comprises all these elements. A two-part definition would not be a working definition. Also, the distinction between the academic and political in this instance will be artificial. The AU is intrinsically a political and economic organization. Adding “permanently” before those “leaving outside” will imply that economic migrants or the modern African Diaspora would not be part of the working definition. This would be discriminatory and would also ignore an important and dynamic element of the Diaspora community. The final criticism regarding implied commitment of the Diaspora to rebuilding the African Union ignores the debate and decision of the Assembly of African Heads of States at the 1st Extra-Ordinary Summit of the Union in January 2003 which allied the Diaspora project to the building of the Union. This is not to imply that the AU definition of the African Diaspora is written in stone. It is a working definition and working definitions can be revised or improved upon if there are ample justifications for it. The Diaspora Initiative would always be work in progress and any work in progress would involve refinements of working models. . . .

Our organizational approach is to enable the Diaspora to organize itself with AU support within the framework provided by executive organs of the Union, the Council and Assembly and with guidance of Member States of the Union within these organs. The approach has not been without its difficulties. The Diaspora programme has created a phenomenon of rising expectations among the family abroad. This is laudable because it proves commitment. Yet, there are obvious signs of impatience. Moreover, civil society formations have not fully appreciated the organizational demands and imperatives of the AU. More often than not, the AU Commission is the whipping board for associated anger and frustrations. This is a burden that we are happy to bear.

More disturbing still is that there is some competition for power and influence within the Diaspora communities. This is a normal human disposition except that we see tendencies that can prove disruptive and which we must all try to rise above. There are some elements of the Diaspora within the US that wish to assume the natural leadership of the Diaspora agenda and to organize and centralize the Diaspora effort.

Discussions at the Expert Workshop in Trinidad and Tobago provided clear evidence that such apparent paternalism would undermine the general effort.

The challenge of organizing the Diaspora movement must embrace the need for autonomous regional coalitions to evolve and federate, if willing, but only by consent, at hemispheric levels, as may be deemed appropriate. The success of the Diaspora initiative, (to be assured) must dissuade focus on power blocs and stress an organizing principle based on democracy, within and among regions. . . .

At the continent – Diaspora level, the focus must be on building bridges across the Atlantic with an organizational emphasis on commitment, common cause and reciprocal advantages. The Commission and the Union must encourage the formation and consolidation of cooperative structures for mutual collaboration as inputs for the next wider Pan-African Congress.

Declaration of the Global African Diaspora Summit south africa 2012

”In the area of political cooperation, we commit to the following:

h) Strengthen the participation of the Diaspora population in the affairs of the African Union so as to enhance its contributions towards the development and integration agenda of the continent;

j) Encourage African Union Member States to urgently ratify the Protocol on the Amendments to the Constitutive Act, which, inter alia, invites the African Diaspora, an important part of our continent, to participate in the building of the African Union;

k) Encourage the Diaspora to organize themselves in regional networks and establish appropriate mechanisms that will enable their increasing participation in the affairs of the African Union as observers and eventually, in the future, as a sixth region of the continent that would contribute substantially to the implementation of policies and programmes.

n) Support efforts by the AU to accelerate the process of issuing the African Union passport, in order to facilitate the development of a transnational and transcontinental identity;

IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP

We adopt the following implementation and follow-up mechanism/strategy:

8. Agree to set up a Diaspora Advisory Board, which will address overarching issues of concern to Africa and its Diaspora such as reparations, right to return and follow up to WCAR Plan of Action, amongst others;

The African Union’s diplomacy of the diaspora: Context, challenges and prospects

AU 50th ANNIVERSARY SOLEMN DECLARATION may 2013

We, the Heads of State and Government of the African Union assembled to celebrate the Golden Jubilee of the OAU/AU established in the city of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 25 May 1963,

Evoking the uniqueness of the history of Africa as the cradle of humanity and a centre of civilization, and dehumanized by slavery, deportation, dispossession, apartheid and colonialism as well as our struggles against these evils, which shaped our common destiny and enhanced our solidarity with peoples of African descent;

Recalling with pride, the historical role and efforts of the Founders of the Pan African Movement and the nationalist movements, whose visions, wisdom, solidarity and commitment continue to inspire us;

Reaffirming our commitment to the ideals of Pan-Africanism and Africa’s aspiration for greater unity, and paying tribute to the Founders of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) as well as the African peoples on the continent and in the Diaspora for their glorius and successful struggles against all forms of oppression, colonialism and apartheid; . . . .

Stressing our commitment to build a united and integrated Africa;

Guided by the vision of our Union and affirming our determination to “build an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven and managed by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in the international arena”; . .

Guided by the principles enshrined in the Constitutive Act of our Union and our Shared Values . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT: . . .

III. The implementation of the integration agenda; the involvement of people, including our Diaspora in the affairs of the Union; the quest for peace and security. . . remain challenges.

WE HEREBY DECLARE:

A. On the African Identity and Renaissance
i) Our strong commitment to accelerate the African Renaissance by ensuring
the integration of the principles of Pan Africanism in all our policies and
initiatives;
ii) Our unflinching belief in our common destiny, our Shared Values and the
affirmation of the African identity; the celebration of unity in diversity and the
institution of the African citizenship;
iii) Our commitment to strengthen AU programmes and Member States
institutions aimed at reviving our cultural identity, heritage, history and Shared
values, as well as undertake, henceforth, to fly the AU flag and sing the AU
anthem along with our national flags and anthems;
iv) Promote and harmonize the teaching of African history, values and Pan
Africanism in all our schools and educational institutions as part of advancing
our African identity and Renaissance;
v) Promote people to people engagements including Youth and civil society
exchanges in order to strengthen Pan Africanism.

B. The struggle against colonialism and the right to self-determination of
people still under colonial rule

i) The completion of the decolonization process in Africa; to protect the right to
self-determination of African peoples still under colonial rule; solidarity with
people of African descend and in the Diaspora in their struggles against racial
discrimination; and resist all forms of influences contrary to the interests of the
continent; . . .

C. On the integration agenda
Our commitment to Africa‟s political, social and economic integration agenda, and in this
regard, speed up the process of attaining the objectives of the African Economic
Community and take steps towards the construction of a united and integrated Africa.
Consolidating existing commitments and instruments, we undertake, in particular, to:

i) Speedily implement the Continental Free Trade Area; ensure free movement
of goods, with focus on integrating local and regional markets as well as
facilitate African citizenship to allow free movement of people through the
gradual removal of visa requirements;
ii) Accelerate action on the ultimate establishment of a united and integrated
Africa, through the implementation of our common continental governance,
democracy and human rights frameworks. Move with speed towards the
integration and merger of the Regional Economic Communities as the building
blocks of the Union.

Global African Stakeholders Diaspora Convention, Washington DC, 19- 22 November 2015

DECISION ON FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS AND THE AFRICAN PASSPORT AT THE 27th Ordinary Session in Kigali, Rwanda in July 2016

Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence and Right of Establishment at the 29th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government held in Addis Ababa in January/February 2018

“REITERATING our shared values which promote the protection of human and people’s rights as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights which guarantees the right of an individual to freedom of movement and residence;

GUIDED by our common vision for an integrated, people-centered and politically united continent and our commitment to free movement of people, goods and services amongs the Member States as an enduring dedication to Pan Afrianism and African integration as reflected in Aspiration 2 of the African Union Agenda 2063;

RECALLING our commitment under article 4(2)(i) of the Treaty Establishing the Econmic Community, to gradually remove obstacles to the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital and the right of residence and establishment among Member States:” [Siphiwe note: Here should be inserted, FURTHER RECALLING Article 3(q) to the Constitutive Act of the African Union to ““invite(s) and encourage(s) the full participation of Africans in the Diaspora in the building of the African Union in its capacity as an important part of our Continent.” ]

NOTING FURTHER the decision of the Peace and Security Council adopted at its 661st meeting (PSC/PR/COMM.1 (DCLX) held on 23rd February 2017 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where the Council acknowledged that the benefits of free movement of people, goods and services far outweigh the real and potential security and economic challenges that may be perceived or generated;

REAFFIRMING our belief in our common destiny, shared values and the affirmation of the African identity, the celebration of unity in diversity and the institution of the African citizenship as expressed in the Solemn Declaration of the 50th Anniversary adopted by the 21st Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government in Addis Ababa on 23rd May, 2013;

MINDFUL of the decision of the Assembly adopted in July 2016 in Kigali, Rwanda (Assembly?AU/Dec.607(XXVII) welcoming the launch of the African Passport and urging Member States to adopt the African Passport and to work closely with the African Union Commission to facilitate the processes towards its issuance at the citizen level based on international , continental and citizen policy provisions and continental design and specifications:

HAVE AGREED as follows:

Article 3 PRINCIPLES

  1. The free movement of persons, right of residence and right of establishment in Member States shall be guided by the principles guiding the African Union provided in article 4 of the Constittutive Act.

Article 5 PROGRESSIVE REALIZATION

  1. The free movement of persons, right of residence and right of establishment shall be achieved progressively through the following phases:

(a) phase one, during which States Parties shall implement the right of entry and abolition of visa requirements;

(b) phase two, during which States Parties shall implement the right of residence;

(c) phase three, during which States Parties shall implement the right of establishment

Article 10 AFRICAN PASSPORT

  1. States Parties, shall adopt a travel document called “African Passport” and shall work closely with the Commission to facilitate the processes towards the issuance of this Passport to their citizens.

  2. The Commission shall provide technical support to Member States to enable them to produce and issue the African Passport to their citizens.

  3. The African Passport shall be based on international, continental and national policy provisions and standards and on a continental design and specifications.

Article 16 RIGHT OF RESIDENCE

  1. Nationals of a Member State shall have the right of residence in the territory of any Member State in accordance with the laws of the host Member State.

  2. A national of a Member State taking up residence in another Member State may be accompanied by a spouse and dependants.

  3. States Parties shall gradually implement facourable policies and laws on residence for nationals for nationals of other Member States.

AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE AFRICAN CONTINENTAL FREE TRADE AREA - MARCH 21, 2018

CONCEPT NOTE African Union Continental Symposium on the Implementation of the International Decade for People of African Descent 18-20 September 2018 Accra/Cape Coast, Ghana


”The African Union Designation of the African Diaspora as the 6th Region of Africa The African Union Commission through its Citizens and Diaspora Directorate (CIDO) has instituted a program of Regional Consultative Conferences (RCCs) as a vehicle to enable the African Union to consult with the various Diaspora stakeholders around the world to give practical meaning to the designation of the African Diaspora as the 6th Region of the continent. Through this mechanism, CIDO has established and/or supported a growing number of AUaffiliated diaspora networks around the world, including in the Caribbean, Canada, Australia and Europe.”


Resolution on Africa’s Reparations Agenda and The Human Rights of Africans In the Diaspora and People of African Descent Worldwide - ACHPR/Res.543 (LXXIII) 2022

Dec 12, 2022

The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, meeting at its 73rd Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 21 October 2022 – 9 November 2022. 

Recalling its mandate to promote and protect human and peoples' rights in Africa under Article 45 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter);  

Recalling also the decision of the Assembly of the African Union to invite and encourage the full participation of the African diaspora as an important part of the Continent, in the building of the African Union; 

Noting the commitment of members states in the African Union Diaspora Programme of Action of: (a) engaging developed countries with a view to creating favourable regulatory mechanisms governing migration, and to address concerns of African immigrants in diaspora communities; (b) working for the full implementation of the Plan of Action of the United Nations World Conference against racism;  (c): engaging developed countries to address the political and socio-economic marginalization of diaspora communities in their country of domicile; and (d): strengthening the implementation of legislation and other measures aimed at eradicating child trafficking, human trafficking, child labour, exploitation of women and children in armed conflicts and other modern forms of slavery. 

Reaffirming the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action as a comprehensive framework addressing racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance; 

Acknowledging the significance of the International Decade for People of African Descent (2015 – 2024) in advancing recognition, justice and development of people of African descent worldwide;

Reaffirming the obligations of States under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and relevant international human rights instruments, in particular the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; 

Recognizing that the human rights situation of Africans in the diaspora and people of African descent worldwide remains an urgent concern; 

Expressing concern that Africans and people of African descent continue to suffer systemic racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and other violations of their human rights; 

Noting the emergence of contemporary forms of enslavement of Africans and people of African descent globally including in the Middle East and Arabo-Persian Gulf states; 

Affirming that accountability and redress for legacies of the past including enslavement, the trade and trafficking of enslaved Africans, colonialism and racial segregation is integral to combatting systemic racism and to the advancement of the human rights of Africans and people of African descent; 

Taking note of the ongoing discussions the calls from the African continent and Africa’s diaspora for reparations for legacies of the past including the trade and trafficking of enslaved Africans, colonialism and racial segregation; 

Welcomes the reports of the United Nations Working Group of experts on people of African descent and its recommendations to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance faced by people of African descent and Africans in the diaspora; 

Welcomes also the recommendation by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent that work begins urgently to conceptualize Africa’s Reparations Agenda, seek the truth, define the harm, address the legacies of past tragedies, pursue justice and reparations and contribute to non-recurrence and reconciliation of the past; 

The Commission:

1. Reinforces its collaboration with the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent and other United Nations special procedure mechanisms concerning the human rights situation of Africans in the diaspora and people of African descent worldwide in the framework of the Addis Ababa Road Map. 

2. Calls upon member states to:

  • promote and protect the human rights of African migrant workers worldwide including in the Middle East and Arabo-Persian Gulf states;

  • protect the human rights of migrants and ensure the right of all its citizens to receive full and authentic information about migration;

  • take measures to eliminate barriers to acquisition of citizenship and identity documentation by Africans in the diaspora;

  • to establish a committee to consult, seek the truth, and conceptualise reparations from Africa’s perspective, describe the harm occasioned by the tragedies of the past, establish a case for reparations (or Africa’s claim), and pursue justice for the trade and trafficking in enslaved Africans, colonialism and colonial crimes, and racial segregation and contribute to non-recurrence and reconciliation of the past;

  • respect their obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and the Programme of Activities for the Implementation of the International Decade for People of African Descent;

  • fulfill their commitment under the African Union Diaspora Programme of Action to encourage and support its adoption and implementation, in different diaspora countries, policies that facilitate the elimination of racism and the promotion of equality of all races.

3. Invites civil society to document and report on human rights cases concerning people of African descent and Africans in the diaspora (or AU sixth region) including migrants in the Middle East and Arabo-Persian Gulf states.
 
4. Encourages civil society and academia in Africa, to embrace and pursue the task of conceptualising Africa’s reparations agenda with urgency and determination. 

Done in Banjul, The Gambia, on  9 November 2022

PREPARING FOR THE AFRO DESCENDANT/NEW AFRIKAN PLEBISCITE FOR SELF DETERMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES: UNDERSTANDING THE BERLIN CONFERENCE OF 1884

The Berlin West Africa Conference was a series of negotiations (Nov. 15, 1884–Feb. 26, 1885) at Berlin, in which the major European nations met to decide all questions connected with the Congo River basin in Central Africa. Including a short break for Christmas and the New Year, the West African Conference of Berlin would last 104 days, ending on February 26, 1885. As noted by Al-Jazeera,

“In the popular imagination, the delegates are hunched over a map, armed with rulers and pencils, sketching out national borders on the continent with no idea of what existed on the ground they were parcelling out. Yet this is mistaken. The Berlin Conference did not begin the scramble. That was well under way. Neither did it partition the continent. Only one state, the short-lived horror that was the Congo Free State, came out of it – though strictly speaking it was not actually a creation of the conference.

It did something much worse, though, with consequences that would reverberate across the years and be felt until today. It established the rules for the conquest and partition of Africa, in the process legitimising the ideas of Africa as a playground for outsiders, its mineral wealth as a resource for the outside world not for Africans and its fate as a matter not to be left to Africans.

From the very start, the conference laid out the order of priorities. “The Powers are in the presence of three interests: That of the commercial and industrial nations, which a common necessity compels to the research of new outlets. That of the States and of the Powers summoned to exercise over the regions of the Congo an authority which will have burdens corresponding to their rights. And, lastly, that which some generous voices have already commended to your solicitude – the interests of the native populations.” It also resolutely refused to consider the question of sovereignty, and the legitimacy of laying claim to someone else’s land and resources.

American journalist Daniel De Leon described the conference as “an event unique in the history of political science … Diplomatic in form, it was economic in fact.” And it is true that while it was dressed up as a humanitarian summit to look at the welfare of locals, its agenda was almost purely economic. Few on the continent or in the African diaspora were fooled. A week before it closed, the Lagos Observer declared that “the world had, perhaps, never witnessed a robbery on so large a scale.” Six years later, another editor of a Lagos newspaper comparing the legacy conference to the slave trade said: “A forcible possession of our land has taken the place of a forcible possession of our person.” Theodore Holly, the first black Protestant Episcopal Bishop in the US, condemned the delegates as having “come together to enact into law, national rapine, robbery and murder”.

The outcome of the conference was the General Act (see below) signed and ratified by all but one of the 14 nations at the table, the US being the sole exception. Some of its main features were the establishment of a regime of free trade stretching across the middle of Africa, the development of which became the rationale for the recognition of the Congo Free State and its subsequent 13-year horror, the abolition of the overland slave trade as well as the principle of “effective occupation”.

The principle of “effective occupation” was to become the catalyst for military conquest of the African continent with far-reaching consequences for its inhabitants.

At the time of the conference, 80 percent of Africa remained under traditional and local control. The Europeans only had influence on the coast. Following it, they started grabbing chunks of land inland, ultimately creating a hodgepodge of geometric boundaries that was superimposed over indigenous cultures and regions of Africa. However, to get their claims over African land accepted, European states had to demonstrate that they could actually administer the area.

Continuing:

“Often, military victory proved to be the easy part. To govern, they found they had to contend with a confusing milieu of fluid identities and cultures and languages. The Europeans thus set about reorganising Africans into units they could understand and control. As Professor Terence Ranger noted, the colonial period was marked “by systematic inventions of African traditions – ethnicity, customary law, ‘traditional’ religion. Before colonialism Africa was characterised by pluralism, flexibility, multiple identity; after it, African identities of ‘tribe’, gender and generation were all bounded by the rigidities of invented tradition.”

The term Afro Descendent is the term adopted in 2002 by nineteen (19) countries at the United Nations Conference for the Rights of Minorities in La Ceiba, Honduras to recognise people of African descent as subjects of international human rights law. This meant that Afro Descendants are able to acquire rights and obligations directly in the international arena, according to the provisions of these international instruments. The term New Afrikan is defined as “African people with some Indian and European genes, living away from Africa” and expresses our racial, cultural, and social fusion of various African ethnic groups into one unique New Afrikan Nation with a common history, language, economic, life, and consciousness manifested in a community of culture and desiring freedom, self-determination and Independence much like other African nations that achieved political independence on the continent of Africa and New Afrikan nations that achieved political indpendence in the Caribbean since the 1960’s.

THE BEGINNING OF COLONIALISM AND THE SCRAMBLE FOR ARICA

FROM THE BERLIN CONFERENCE TO THE YALTA CONFERENCE

PLEBISCITES IN WORLD HISTORY

From Nationalism, Referendums and Democracy: Voting on Ethnic Issues and Independence, Second Edition  edited by Matt Qvortrup

“Establishing a new state is a major political, legal and economic undertaking. Before considering the practicalities of such an endeavour, and the likely economic implications of it, it is necessary to outline some of the other examples for countries that gained their independence/seceded from other countries.

In the twentieth century, a large number for former colonies gained independence, and a good number of countries that hitherto were part of larger states seceded. While there were examples of this before the Second World War, for example, when the Philippines became independent in 1935, most new states were established after the Second World War. In this period, most of the new states were former colonies, for example, the former British Colonies, India, Kenya and the former French colonies Senegal, Togo and Cameroon.

By contrast, after the Cold War, most newly established countries were not former colonies but were areas which hitherto had been part of larger entities, for example, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in Former Yugoslavia, and Ukraine and Belarus, to name but two, which were previously part of the Soviet Union.

“The problem with these referendums is not only that they have occasionally – though not generally – resulted in war. The problem is also that many would-be states claim to have a right to self-determination, that they consider it legally right – and not just morally just – that they have a right to declare independence after a referendum. As the examples of Catalonia in 2017 and Kurdistan in the same year show, this belief is widespread, but it is based on legally dubious grounds. This duality is the subject of Peter Radan’s chapter. Surveying the legal practice from the American Civil War (which was predated by referendums on independence in several confederate states in the South), the author looks at the emerging legal doctrine surrounding independence referendums. While he acknowledges that a decisive vote may have moral force, his admirably dispassionate analysis is equally clear that there is no right to hold an independence referendum. Such votes, he shows, can only be held where there are constitutional provisions that allow them, following a peace deal or in cases where the territory in question is a former colony.

As a general rule, unilateral referendums on independence are only legally permissible in cases where the people in question have no other recourse through democratic means. Thus, the referendum in Kurdistan could conceivably be regarded as legally permissible, as Iraq is not a democratic state (as defined by Freedom House). Conversely, the Catalan referendum (notwithstanding unnecessary show of force by the Spanish Police) was not justified, as Spain is a democratic state.

It was one of the more spectacular moments in recent history, when President Carles Puigdemont issued his Declaració d’independència de Catalunya – the declaration of independence of Catalonia. It happened on the 1 October 2017, a couple of weeks after a majority of over 90% of the voters – on a less than 50% turnout – had voted for independence.

The declaration came to naught. Puigdemont’s political comrades were jailed, and he escaped to Belgium. The Spanish government dealt resolutely (some would say harshly) with, what they considered to be, an insurrection. But the Catalan crisis was not common. Indeed, the fact that it was peaceful makes it stand out. As Aleksandar Pavković writes, most declarations of independence in recent decades were made prior to military interventions by outside states which led to the eventual independence of these states. And all of these declarations, except the first three declarations in Kosovo, were made during or following the violent conflict on the territory whose independence is being proclaimed.

The fact that the Catalan Declaració failed might be explained by the fact that the territory was not supported by a strong, foreign, military power. Contrast this with declarations of independence in states with more dubious claims, such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and it is clear that power politics plays a stronger role than reference to ideals in international affairs.

It is one thing to declare independence, but it is quite another to be recognised. . . . But it might be useful to point out that recognition is now part of a legal process. In summary, this goes as follows: First, the state submits an application to the United Nations Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the UN Charter. Secondly, the Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members – China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America – have voted against the application. Thirdly, if the Security Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. And, finally, if membership is supported by a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly, the state in question is granted immediate membership.

In short, creating a new state is no easy task. Holding a referendum (sometimes of dubious legality), winning a majority in favour of independence, declaring independence and getting recognition, all of these steps require almost superhuman efforts. The benefits seem meagre. And yet, history has shown that the quest for national self-determination is one of the strongest urges in international politics. . . . 

Ethno-national referendums after the fall of communism

There have been 114 ethno-national referendums since the Second World War. Sixty seven were held after 1989 and of these 35 of these were held between 1989 and 1993, and were all and more or less direct consequence of the fall of communism. That such momentous events shake the political kaleidoscope is not surprising, nor, perhaps, is it surprising that the developments left their mark on legal practice. There is a bit of a sea change in the new doctrine adopted after 1989. As Matthew Craven has observed, ‘Of the new states that were to emerge in the 1990s … most held plebiscites or national polls by way of authorization’ (Craven 2010: 234). It became a norm in international law that countries ought to win approval from the people in order to be recognised as an independent state, and it became recognised – at least in democratic states – that policies of difference management required positive approval from the citizens concerned.

As we can see from Table 2.8, most of the referendums held post-1989 were held in former communist countries. And 31 of the 66 votes were held in countries that were formerly ruled by one-party communist regimes, such as Eritrea (then part of Ethiopia), Ukraine, the Baltic States and various successor states in the former Yugoslavia. Yet other ethno-national referendums were – at least indirectly – a consequence of the end of the Cold War. The nationalist aspirations of the population of East Timor were well known before the fall of communism, but for geo-political reasons, the United States supported Suharto’s regime. Once the threat from the Soviet Union was gone, the USA loosened its grip and accepted (and some would even say encouraged) the fall of the autocracy, and as a result East Timor was allowed to vote on independence in 1999 (Steele 2002).

Another interesting factor is that referendums in democratic countries (here defined at ‘Free’ following the Freedom House classification) rarely vote for independence. After the 1995 vote in Quebec, a political scientist (who later became a leader of the Liberal Party!) wrote,

“There has never been a single case of secession in democracies if we consider only the well-established ones, that is, those with at least ten consecutive years of universal suffrage. The cases most often mentioned happened only a few years after the introduction or significant expansion of universal suffrage: Norway and Sweden in 1905, Iceland and Denmark in 1918, … Secessionists never managed to split a well-established democracy through a referendum or an electoral victory. We must conclude that it is very hard for them to achieve and maintain the magic number of 50 per cent support (Dion 1996: 269).”

20 MARCH 1921: UPPER SILESIAN PLEBISCITE (POLAND V GERMANY)

13 JANUARY 1935: THE SAAR PLEBISCITE TO REUNITE WITH GERMANY

1947 SYLHET PLEBISCITE (PAKISTAN)

6 JULY 1948 -THE KASHMIR PLEBISCITE THAT NEVER HAPPENED

1961 - SOUTHERN CAMEROONS PLEBISCITE

1986: PALAU PLEBISCITE

5 OCTOBER 1988 - CHILE - PINOCHET LOSES HIS OWN PLEBISCITE

BANGSAMORA PLEBISCITE

New Caledonia - December 2021

An independence referendum was held in New Caledonia on 4 October 2020. The poll was the second to be held under the terms of the Nouméa Accord, following a similar referendum in 2018.

Independence was rejected, with 53.26 percent of voters opposing such a change, a slight drop from the 2018 result in which 56.7 percent voted "no". Turnout was 85.69 percent. The Nouméa Accord permitted one further referendum to be held, should the Congress of New Caledonia vote for it. This third referendum was held in December 2021.

With a turnout of 85.6 percent, 53.26 percent of voters opted for "no", with the result that the islands remain French. This was a lower figure than the 2018 poll, in which 56.7 percent voted "no".[9] Results were strongly polarised geographically, with 71 percent of South Province residents rejecting independence, while the smaller other two provinces, North Province and Loyalty Islands Province, voted "yes" by 76 percent and 82 percent respectively.[27] In almost every commune, the share of "yes" votes increased.

As this was the second of three permitted independence referenda, it was expected that there may be a third and final referendum at some point before 2022.[9] Daniel Goa, of the pro-independence party Caledonian Union, expressed a hope that the shift in vote share towards the "yes" camp would lead to a successful third referendum. Meanwhile Sonia Backès, leader of Les Loyalistes, called for dialogue between the two sides although she acknowledged that it might be necessary to hold the third referendum before such a dialogue could commence.[28]

French president Emmanuel Macron expressed gratitude for the result, thanking New Caledonians for their "vote of confidence" in the Republic. He also acknowledged those who had backed independence, calling for dialogue between all sides to map out the future of the region.[27]

In April 2021, 26 pro-independence members of Congress requested that a third vote take place. On 2 June, the French government announced that the third referendum was scheduled for 12 December 2021. [29] This third referendum resulted in an overwhelming rejection of independence, with 96.49% of the electorate voting against independence and 3.51% for independence. However, turnout was significantly lower than in past referendums at only 43.90%.[2]

African Liberation and the Use of Plebiscites

British Togoland - 1956

A summary of the background on the issue is as follows: A plebiscite conducted in May, 1956, under UN supervision in British Togoland resulted in a 58% majority of the votes cast (approximately 170,000 voted out of an eligible list of about 194,000) for union with the Gold Coast (Ghana) when it obtains its independence (the date is set fori"Warch 6, 1957 ). The alternative offered in the plebiscite was separation of the Togoland Trust Territory from the Gold Coast -- it had been administered as an integral part. of that colony by the British -- and its continuation in trust status pending future developments leading to eventual freedom. As a result of the plebiscite and of subsequent general elections in the combined Gold Coast-Togoland area, which gave a clear majority over all other parties for the Convention Peoples Party (CPP), the advocates of a unitary state, the British government now urges an end to trusteeship and the integration of Briti sh Togoland into Ghana as soon as it becomes fully independent.

The great majority of tre speakers in the Fourth Committee have supported the British position, but it has been opposed by some representatives of both British and French Togoland groups, particularly as the result of recent developments in French Togoland: After plans were made for tr.e plebiscite in the British Trust Territory, the French government, which previously had not encouraged any nationalist political development, suddenly announced that the French Togolanders were ready to end trusteeship and detennine their future; a law was passed granting "universal suffrage, n and four months later the UN was asked to approve a Frehch•sponsored referendum to determine whether the Togo people wished to be "independent" under a new statute (giving the Togolanders territorial, administrative, and financial "autonomy" as to local matters, with 11 common 11 affairs determined by the French Parliament and the Assembly of the French Union, in which Togoland would be represented)., or to continue under trusteeship. Under the circumstances tre Trusteeship Council refused to supervise tl':e plebiscite; the French proceeded nevertheless to hold it in October of this year and announced that over three-quarters of tre voters had approved the end of trusteeship under the proposed new statute. Togolanders who oppose this future i'or the country claim that the voters' lists were 1!fixed11 and that force and fraud were used in tr.e election, which many of them boycotted as tre only feasible means of opposition. Partly as a result of these une,xpected events in French Togoland, African opposition to integration of British Togoland into Ghana on the part of the National Liberation movement in the Ashanti area of tre Gold Coast, the Nortrern Peoples Party, the Togoland Congress, and the All-Ewe Conference has emphasized the following arguments: (1) that it would separate the two parts of Togoland forever and leave French Togoland in an untenable position with no future but absorption by the French (although a united Togoland is claimed to be a real possibility in view of tre recent political dev~lopments in the French territory, tr~ common tribal traditions of the b'we people who live in both Togolands, and the potential viability of a united Togo state); (2) that integration into neighboring Ghana is an unfortunnte precedent which might be applied to the detriment of tra Cameroons, Ruanda-Uruncli, and other trust territories; and (3) that althoughh there was an overwhelming majority for union, large blocs of Togolanders voted by considerable margins against union, so that there was no real or sufficient consent. The French government exacerbated these fears by opposing simultaneous consideration of tre future of the two Togolands in the Fourth Committee and by refusing passports to French Togolanders who wished to argue for joint consideration until such time as the future of French Togoland was specifically before tre Fourth Committee. Opponents of integration have sought variously (a) continuation of trusteeship; (b) federation with Ghana (leaving open the possibility that French Togoland might also-federate at a later date); and (c) federation with a federated (rather than unitary) Ghana. Nevertheless, it appears likely that the great rnajority of the Fourth Connnittee will approve the proposed integration. Any division among the members of the Committee will be based not on any “cold war” consideration nor on any conventional bloc (India supports and Indonesia has quasi-integration), but rather on differing views of how best to solve the partly historical problems of this area.

The General Assembly approved the British request to end the British Togoland Trusteeship and to permit the integration of the Territory into the new state of Ghana, in accordance with the results of a referendum supervised by the UN. Despite some misgivings as to the effect of this action on the possibiJ.i ty of a future union of British and French Togoland Territories, which many petitioners from both areas desired, the Assembly vote favoring the British request was 63 too. Africa-UN Bulletein 6

British Cameroons: Plebiscite Postponed in South - 1958

At the 1958 session of the General Assembly no question aroused more bitterness than that of the future of the British and French Cameroons Trust Terri tories. These territories, halves of the pre-World War I German Kanerun colony, which first became League of Nations mandates and subsequently UN trust territories, in a cultural sense comprise three, rather than two, territories: the French terri to y, the Northern British Cameroons, and the Southern British Cameroons (the latter two separated by a thin slice of Nigerian territory). Determining their future last year, the Assembly acted as if three separate territories were involved and proposed different solutions for each. The 1958 Assembly voted to hold a plebiscite in the Northern Cameroonh this November in order to determine whether its inhabitants prefer to join an independent Nigeria (on October 1, 1960) or to defer a final decision on the territory's future until a later date. Surprisingly, the results of the plebiscite announced November 9 indicated that the people of the Northern Cameroons wished to have the trusteeship continue until a later time. Another plebiscite will be held after the French Cameroons and Nigeria have achieved independence, in 1960, to allow the people to choose whether they wish to join Nigeria, to join the French Cameroons, or to form an independent territory with the Southern British Cameroons. Following a bitter struggle which split the Afro-Asian bloc, the 1958 Assembly voted termination of trusteeship for the French Cameroons on January 1, 1960, when it is scheduled to receive full independence, without requiring prior elections, as demanded by the African countries. At that timeB Premier Ahijdo promised to hold elections immediately after independence; but at present he apparently needs French support to maintain order in the face of a minor rebellion presumably led by the banned UPC (Union des Populations Camerounaises). Therefore the liklihood of imme diate elections when the new state takes over its own internal security does not seem great. The uncertain state of affairs in the French Cameroons caused the difficulties the Fourth (Trusteeship) Committee faced this year in implementing its resolution of the last session relating to the Southern Cameroons. Largely as the result of elec tions held last fall in the Southern Cameroons, which brought into power the party opposing unification with Nigeria and favoring reunification of British and French Cameroons, the 1958 Assembly adopted a resolution requiring a plebiscite to be held this winter to determine the future of the area. The exact wording of the plebiscite question was left to be determined by this session of the Assembly, the hope being that the two major political parties could agree upon a satisfactory formula in the intervening year. However, at the beginning of this Assembly session the government leader, John Foncha, had not been able to reach any agreement with the opposition leader, E. M. L. Endeley, who favors union with Nigeria. Since Foncha's party had become frightened by the prospect of union with the French Cameroons in its current troubled state, page 2 Foncha felt obliged to ask the Fourth Committee to continue trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons until 1962, when he proposed that the plebiscite should be held. Endeley, sensing that current events were strengthening his party's position, sup ported an immediate vote. Eventually, under pressure from the Independent African States' Organization, the two leaders agreed on a plebiscite to be held between September 30, 1960, and March, 1961, in which the choice would be between achieving independence by joining an independent Nigeria or an independent Republic of the (Frenco Cameroons. Surprisingly, many delegates objected strongly to the temporary continuation of trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons, even with the consent of the major parties there. The objections of the outspoken Indian delegation were based on the doubtful legality of the resulting alteration of the British Cameroons trusteeship agreement (although the UN legal counsel did not have such doubts) and on the "bad precedent as to partition" (of the entire British Cameroons territory) which might be establsihed thereby. It seems possible that the Indians were still smarting from the rebuff handed the UN's 195 Visiting Mission to the Cameroons, which included an Indian delegate; its recommendation to unite the Northern Cameroons to Nigeria without a plebiscite was overruled, and its acceptance of the Ahijdo government of the French Cameroons as.fully representative was sharply challenged by all the African states, who demanded UN-supervised general elections prior to independence and the end of trusteeship. (It is clear that the Africans will again raise the question of elec tions in the French Cameroons if they have an opportunity.) Ultimately the Fourth Committee adopted the compromise worked out by Foncha and Edeley, including a provision that eligible voters should be limited to persons born in the Southern Cameroons or one of whose parents was born there. (This will bar many Nigerians and French Cameroonians whose interests do not necessarily coincide with those of the South Camerooians.) The General Assembly approved the draft reso lution on October 16.

South African Plebiscite Proposal for South West Africa - 1971