>as a writer, i'll switch up >and use AA every once >in awhile, but as has >been pointed out, even the >word "African" can confuse matters.
I don't see how the word "African" confuses matters at all. I'm sure you've heard the term "Western Civilization" drummed into your skull countless times, and there's virtually no challenge to the validity of the term. I have no quibble with Africa, whether the term is indigenous or not ("Black" is not an "African" word, as far as I'm aware).
> its cool to the >extent that it makes us >think about Africa when we >otherwise wouldn't, but in a >lot of cases, it promotes >the whole "continent as country" >bullshit that trivializes the tremendous >diversity of culture and shared >experience that exists among non-white >people.
Pan-Africanism promotes the whole "Africans-are-Africans, no-matter-where-they've-ended-up-in-the-diaspora" bullshit. It does not "trivialize" anything. Do you think Malcolm, Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba etc. were trying to "trivialize" their individual cultures when they adopted that term?
>y'all can tell the difference between >and Englishman, a Scot, a >German, a Spaniard, an Italian >and a Frenchman no doubt. >but can you do the >same for a Senagalese, Ethiopian, >Nigerian, Ugandan, etc.?
Who is "y'all"? I can tell the difference between all of these culture, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. This is an odd blanket statement.
reasoning, >i used to think it >was aight as a synonym, >at the least, and could >be useful in awakening some >type of pan-african consciousness. but >what quickly ensued is that >you had folks loving it >because it allowed them to >affirm and emphasize the "American" >part (after 400 years, if >muhfuckas haven't caught on to >the fact that we're 'american', >they really ain't gonna get >it no matter what we >call ourselves). others of >us quickly coopted the symbols >and trappings of africana, without >any deeper analysis or understanding >-- so it is that >we got preachers that drape >a little kente cloth around >the same ol' king james >shit they been talking for >years.
>besides, like the race names of >many other non-white peoples, the >term African is not indigenous. >we never called ourselves Africans >in antiquity (i've read in >several places that as far >as historians can tell, the >word originated centuries ago with >a slave named Leo Africanus...).
This is wrong. If you want a detailed explanation, I can give it to you, but I don't want to hold up this thread.
> >"Black", a name derived from an >exaggerated physical description of >skin color, actually has deeper >roots then most of us >realize. some of the >ancient names from indigenous "africans" >referred to themselves as "people >or children of the sun". > place-names like "AlKeBuLan" >and "Kemet" actually translate to >"land of the blacks" (Kemet, >of course, being the name >the so-called Egyptians gave their >own civilization before the Greeks >gave us "Egypt" or Aeigyptos, >which means land of the >sun burnt people, by the >way).
This is also wrong. "Black" is not at all an exaggerated physical description. I don't know about you, but I'm "Black." Several of my relatives are Black. And millions of people across the face of the earth answer to that description too. "Aeigyptos" does not mean land of the sun-burnt people. That's Aethiopia.
unlike the appellations, "colored", >"negro", and "nigger", we actually >gave ourselves "Black", and it >turns out to be the >most historically appropriate way to >address each other without excluding >huge sections of our extended >family tree from the discourse.
We DIDN'T give ourselves the appelation "Black". Why do you say this?
>so, if i need to be >specific, i'll go there. when >discussing Roy Hargrove's (or Dizzy >Gillespie's) musical influence, the designation >Afro-Cuban is significant. but if >i'm building with somebody on >global politics and economics, we >Black.