Greetings fellow WACPers,
I'm working to become very active in this WACP community. For beginners i'm going to post some blogs that i believe will peak the interest of my comrades. Due to my busy schedule i'll add one each week or so. If You like them, feel free to share them.
I'll begin with a re-post of a message that i sent a few years ago over the LIB network. I believe it is still as relevant today as it was then.
I hope You enjoy...
Someone, in an earlier comment in these blogs, made reference to Uncle Ruckus. I don't know if i should use this character because, as i've discovered, not everyone is familiar. Otherwise, i think it's a great analogy. For those yet unaware, Uncle Ruckus is a character from Aaron McGruder's cartoon series called "The Boondocks". He is a self-hating character who hates everything associated with Africa or Blackness; and who loves, honors and admires everything classified as "white". He is of African descent in a small, fictional suburban town with extremely dark skin ("re-vitaligo", as he characterizes it), and a bad eye. According to the precepts of pan-Africanism, technically, there is nothing any of the rest of us can say or do that can prevent him inclusion into this as of yet make-believe African society. He is simply, genetically African whether he wants to be or not. I believe that this somehow fuels the belief that some people have that before we, as an African people can attain sovereignty, we must have 98% or more of us organized.
The other criteria for determining blackness--the political one--is, in my opinion, more powerful even than "pan-Africanism". It is one's own conscious decision to identify with others who are similarly classified, thus forming a spiritually unified collective. This is what i refer to as “We-ism”. It refers to a group of people -- any group, regardless how small -- who have made a clear delineation between "us" and "them". The "We" in this case refers only to those of us who are willing to take the steps to move in the direction of our own sovereign community. Because it is Black in nature, it will, of course, be open to any consciously Black person regardless of any prior religious or political ideology, merely based on their own choosing.
The "Us" or "We" refers to those people who care for each other, provide goods for each other, and have each other's best interest at heart. "Them" or "they" refers to ALL others, including allies or ideological supporters. I called it we-ism because i don't currently have another term to use that's totally applicable. It doesn't fit into capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy, or any other political or religious dogmas. (Actually, more specifically, they cannot function within it.)
The primary difference between "Pan-Africanism" and "We-ism" is what the "we" represents. In some people's minds the "we" represents all African people. Thus, the two concepts could easily be identical. ("pan" = all; "African" = those who hail from that region of the world.) For that reason i would ask pan-Africanists to not confuse the two issues as if they were the same.
For the sake of this concept, and for the sake of communication, i am pushed into doing something that i don't much care for. That is, adding the "-ism". Whenever the suffix -ism is added to a word it converts what might have been an otherwise decent concept into a dogma; rigid, inflexible, uncompromising -- such as "We" or "Us". Those of us "in-the-know" also know that the principles of Ma'at require Balance among the flow of nature. Such balance cannot exist in the rigid, inflexible context of dogma. By the same token, though i understand that, in order for us to eventually wage a successful campaign for freedom and prosperity, it is necessary for us to classify ourselves into the two distinct "us" and "them" categories. We must also understand that every one who is not classified as one of us is not necessarily an enemy.
Now, imagine this: You are a member of a community of 1,001 families. Yours, of course, is the 1,001st. You produce shoes. Every other member in your community gets their shoes from You. Each family spends an average of $200 per year for their shoes. That's how easy it is to earn a gross income of $200,000 per year. However, spending all your time producing shoes will probably mean that You won't have much time to grow food. But You still must eat. The solution to this dilemma: You use the income from your production to exchange for food from your neighbor who grows it. They, in turn, use that cash to purchase the tools they need to help them grow the food. This cycle continues, flowing through all of life's material needs: food, clothing, shelter, medicines, energy, transportation, communication, tools and machinery -- all circulating within the same community. Have You noticed that it is the same $200,000 value that enriches and empowers each individual in that community? Well, that is how economics works...and this is how community works. It is just that simple. These issues are only made to appear complicated in order to prevent certain people from participating in them.
All the people who participate in such a structure can (and should) then consider themselves "We" when referring to themselves or each other. Assuming that all of the members of this hypothetical community are black of skin, it would no longer be accurate to make the nonsensical statement that "Black people do not support each other". Members of that community could say, "We support each other." or "We buy from each other." or "We inspire each other." or "We cherish each other." or "We defend each other" …even if there are others who do not do these things.
Members of such a community would most likely recognize the primary motivation behind these activities: Their own individual desire for Freedom and Prosperity. (Why else would You do it...because someone else wants to be free?) They would also probably recognize that the ONLY way to acquire such freedom is by satisfying both the individual self (i, as an individual) AND the collective self (I, as a group). The collective self consists of all other beings that contribute to your quest for freedom and prosperity. If You truly want freedom, You must treat them as if they are truly a part of yourself. Thus, the best way to achieve Freedom and Prosperity (or anything else You might want): to help others achieve whatever they want. (Look familiar? ...And it's not even couched in religious mumbo-jumbo.)
This is the basic concept behind "We-ism". It differs from pan-Africanism in that pan-Africanism, theoretically, recognizes ALL African descendants of being in a common group. While at a genetic level this might be accurate, it is not practical. Theoretical pan-Africanism carries this further and suggests that all African peoples should pull together in a common effort. Noble, yes, but it does not make allowance for the peaceful co-existence of the Hutus and the Tsutsis. Thus, the only common effort we could successfully pull off together under these circumstances would be killing each other off on behalf of "white" supremacy. I do not advocate armed conflict. It is inhumane on any level. However, i do believe in, have engaged in, and, if necessary, will engage in self defense. I am also aware of the psychopathic, cowardly and pragmatic nature of the Yurugu (European). It is such that it is most practical for him to have us kill off each other before stepping in and wiping out the rest of us. So far we seem to be obliging him even without establishing one single institution that operates on behalf of our own best interest.*
All this sounds exclusionary, doesn't it? Well, it is. So who gets to decide who gets in and who gets excluded? This is as close as it gets to the concept of pan-Africanism. Each individual decides for her- or himself. This is why none of the other dogmas can function within it. As a self-proclaimed victim of The Maafa, if any person decides that they are no longer going to be victimized by anyone who would do such things to Human Beings, and pool their talents and resources to produce the goods they need for survival and to establish the institutions required for a smoothly functioning community, then s/he would be one of "us". Everyone else would be excluded. Because of how all of us have been treated through The Maafa, it would not matter if any of us were coming from a previous culture that espoused Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Hindu or Baha'i. It wouldn't matter if we claimed to be Democrat, Republican, Green or Libertarian. It would not matter if we claimed to be Nigerian, Ethiopian, Somalian, Ruwandan or Azanian. For the sake of our community all of these distinctions would become passe'; obsolete; a thing of the past. Our primary concern would be simply and solely what we would produce for our own and each other's benefit, and what and how we would teach our children that allow them to carry on this tradition ad infinitum. Ironically, however, those among us who sound the sweetest at projecting "Black" or "pan-Africanist" ideologies, if they are not producing something of value for our own community AND acquiring other things they need for their own survival from among other members of their own community, then they are also excluded -- by their own behaviors...or lack thereof.
There is no complex explanation for this concept. That's because there's nothing truly complex or complicated about it. As a matter of fact, it can be explained as simply as this: if You grow food, You eat; If You don't, You won't. It is from within this (kind of) language that Harry Watley's** "prophet" will present him- or herself. Language so simple and so pure that a person will be required to expose her- or himself in its presence. For example, regardless what ideology anyone claims to espouse, everyone can see if You're engaged in production that benefits the community.
Furthermore, about the issue of sovereignty:
The Brits are a sovereign people. The French are a sovereign people. The Italians are a sovereign people. The Germans, Russians, Poles, Czechs and Portugese are each sovereign people. Even the Jews have a sovereign nation-state. When You add up all of these people, each with the other, You arrive at LESS THAN 10% of the world's population. So, why must it be perceived that We Black people must organize 98% of us before we will act with sovereignty?
If there is truly a prophet in our midst, let her/him show him/herself through the truth of mathematics. If only 20% of us, classified as Black, were to organize into a sovereign entity or entities, there would be as many of us as there are Europeans in the entire world. Is that truly the reason that holds us back from organizing? It cannot be said that all Europeans govern all of the European nations. As a matter of fact, the Yurugu systems of usury were originally designed and intended to victimize other Europeans. It was only more recently that Africans and other Melanics became the convenient "whipping boys" of the "democratic republic".
Ironically, Sovereign nations can only be sovereign because they are comprised of sovereign individuals. Unfortunately, being a sovereign individual is rather tricky; especially when those claiming sovereignty are following precepts such as those laid down and practiced by the Yurugu (Europeans) that they euphemistically call "civilization". Individualism is nonsensical. Capitalism is nonsensical. Socialism is nonsensical. Communism is nonsensical. Christianity is nonsensical. Islam is nonsensical. Usury is especially nonsensical if We believe in the Law of Reciprocity (what goes around, comes around). Perhaps we might want to reconsider making our fortunes by buying $100,000 houses for $3,000 that someone else just got cheated away from them. Of course, if You don't believe in reciprocity, or You're not concerned about it, then, by all means, continue on. Of course, if all these dogmas are as nonsensical as i claim here, wouldn't it / shouldn't it be in our best interest to consider an alternative?
We are strong. We are powerful. We are capable. We are worthy. We are entitled. We are sovereign Man, endowed by Creator with dominion. This dominion must be carried forth through good stewardship. "They" (those others who refer to themselves as "dogs" or "niggers" or "white" or "superior", especially those who traverse the globe spreading death and destruction) have no say in our definition of ourselves, nor in our exercising our sovereign rights.
I AM THAT I AM.
I am that we are;
I am because we are;
We are because i am;
I am a steward of and within the all-powerful, ever-present and immortal I Am;
I am you, you are me, we are one...
...One spirit...one voice...one commitment...
...One labor...one life...one love.
This is the vision of self that i am devoted to making MANifest...
...and proud to call "WE";
I'm sure there are many more details that i or anyone else could explain about sovereignty, about community, about politics or about economics. However, i don't see the need for them here. I have probably already offended a bunch of folks. It's all good, though. Either we will produce for each other and buy from each other...or we won't.
I am Your Brother, Your Friend,
( *I understand that that statement is, at best, inaccurate. However, it is made for emphasis. It is also for those of us who want to still try to believe that we've seen Seigfried & Roy make a tiger disappear. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'n mass media is like that. Their job is to convince us that what we see in front of us is absolute reality when it is merely illusion. Those of us who build institutions know they exist. Yet, those of us “in the know” also know that the ones we have are vastly incomplete.
**A person whose internet presence on the Living In Black website made it a point of being divisive.)