i think the issue here is you said, "made a significant" role in christianizing africa. that is a lie and contradiction. there has not been a very significant african american prescence in black africa. and trust me, dubois tried. the 60's was the pivotal point of these intercontinental relations. if you are going to point out liberia and sierra leone you might need to read up on relations between the afro american population that resettled there and the indigenous african tribes they found there. those relations have been hostile at best. samuel doe was from the descendants of the afro americans, they set up a minority rule in liberia and were not very *kind* to the indegenous folk. which is why i even question their role in christianizing them.

christianity made great inrodes in ethiopia even before the missionaries came. i think that was solarus point. that africans did *know* about christianity. that some african american missionaries probably did do some work in africa, as he said, nothing unusual about that, but to say significant?

af-am man's burden to africa? give me a break. that phrase was not used in an uplifting manner when it was referring to the colonialists i dont think you should disrespect african americans by putting that label on them. neither should you disrespect us africans: we are nobodies burden.

i'd like for you to expound on your theory of long-distance nationalism, and what you are referring to when talking about this: "liberia to christian missionaries to garvey to rayford logan to rastafarianism to molefi asante"

>>What is the point of recognizing that African Americans
>>played ***some*** role in Christianizing Afrika?
>>
>>This is in no fashion or form, an unusual phenomenon.
>
>
>does something have to be unusual to be interesting? i
>myself do find it somewhat interesting, only as one example
>of a long line of "the af-am man's burden" in africa, from liberia to christian missionaries to garvey to rayford logan
>to rastafarianism to molefi asante. i do not think it's an
>unusual phenomenon, rather a variant on what benedict
>anderson calls long-distance nationalism, but interesting
>nonetheless because it troubles the idea of identification.