The African Paradox: What is Africa?

By Folly A. Kouevi

“Thus she had lain

sugarcane sweet

deserts her hair

golden her feet

mountains her breasts

two Niles her tears.

Thus she has lain

Black through the years.” - Africa by Maya Angelou

The question of The African Paradox is this: What is Africa? And Who is African? The generalized answer would be that Africa is a continent, and Africans are people of African descent. However, “Africa’’ as we know it is a foreign concept. The continent is vast, and the groups in indigeneity never conspired to form a holistic boundary for the continent. We know Africa to be the “Dark Continent” and the “Cradle of Civilization,” yet those labels are just a conception imposed upon the continent and the people. There is the African Imposed and the African Asserted. Both political identities, with the former being European and the latter being Indigenous.

In Towards a Pax Africana: A Study of Ideology and Ambition by Ali. A. Mazrui, while analyzing the rhetoric and action of the independence movement, Mazrui writes that “There is no African Mazzini; no Gandhi or Sun Yat-Sen. This is not surprising. African nationalism differs from the nationalisms of India and China in that Africa exists as an idea only, projected into the future, not as a historic fact. There has been no single comprehensive civilization, no common background of written culture, to which nationalists could refer.” The statement furthermore fixates the question of Africa: What is Africa to the Fulani herdsman? or the trader in the Mossi States? or even Shaka Zulu? The Kemets understood Africa as Afru-ika, the motherland. Their motherland was the KMT, the Black land. Yet, is this a shared conception?

In various historical and geographical circumstances, both Africans and non-Africans have conceived “Africa” differently, especially recently. Africa’s geographical, historical, cultural, and symbolic boundaries have gradually shifted and changed over time, in large part to the prevailing notions and configurations of global racial identities and power, as well as African nationalism, precisely that of Pan-Africanism. Moreover, the ramifications of colonialism with African integration programs in conjunction with contemporary globalization trends have and still are reconfiguring the maps and meanings of “Africa” and “Africanness” since many African countries have gained their “independence” from western countries.

As forementioned, Africa emerged on two frontiers: the African Imposed and the African Asserted. Both political identities, with the former being European and the latter being Indigenous. The idea of Africa can be framed in a variety of ways. The most prevalent analysis is distinguishing between Eurocentric and Afrocentric paradigms or between European and African perspectives on what makes “Africa.” The problem with this method is that it implies homogeneity within each paradigm, creating an epistemological divide between the two approaches, which are otherwise inextricably linked. I believe that the most prominent lenses to view Africa and a wide range of African constructs are navigating the racial, representational, geographic, and historical conceptions. Of course, these four categories do not exhaust all conceivable categorizations, but they have heuristic significance, similar to that of the Eurocentric–Afrocentric dichotomy.

“Over the white seas rime white and cold brigands ungentled icicle bold took her young daughters sold her strong sons churched her with Jesus bled her with guns. Thus she has lain.” — Africa by Maya Angelou

Human cultural change, such as the changes in socially transmitted beliefs, knowledge, customs, skills, attitudes, languages, etc. — is an evolutionary process that is similar in critical aspects but not identical to biological/genetic evolution. Culture evolves in an evolutionary manner through a process of variation, competition, and inheritance. Culture by definition is the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social groups. Cultural traits, such as technological inventions, languages, and linguistic features, religious and social customs, vary, reproduce from individual to individual and compete for memory or adoption.

Afrocentricity is a paradigm based on the idea that African people should re-assert a sense of agency to achieve sanity. The Afrocentric Perspective is a practice-based model for social work that acknowledges, codifies, and integrates shared cultural experiences, beliefs, and interpretations among individuals of African origin. According to Molefi Kete Asante (1988, 19–30), the goals of Afrocentricity are “reconstructing culture” and “creating collective consciousness” amongst Africans, those in the diaspora, and on the continent as well.

I will say that Afrocentricity, like Pan-Africanism, are ideologies that emerged out of a necessity of the circumstances of what we now know as Africa. Africa is an idea, and Afrocentricity and Pan-African ideology are evolutionary ideologies because they are necessary. The foundation of said ideologies would be the diverse ideologies of the continent; this is where culture and philosophy become inseparable. To go back to my previously stated question: What is Africa to the Fulani herdsman or the trader in the Mossi States or even Shaka Zulu? Although they may not share the same language or culture, they share that land, which has made them a target of colonialism and exploitation. Therefore Afrocentricity, Pan-Africanism, and other Africana philosophies use the amalgamation of Africa’s diverse cultures to become one Africa, to become one African people.

The expansion of a culture, or the lack thereof, is dependent on bio-geographical determinism. This aspect supports the assumption that your culture is determined by where you reside. For example, Europeans had mountainous terrains, whereas other countries, such as China, had vast plains with enough water for irrigation, fertile soil, and disease-free environments. Due to China’s geography, they were able to govern vast swaths of the population. They also possessed a unified culture due to their tremendous pride, which convinced them that conquering other areas and peoples was unnecessary. Because of China’s cultural uniformity, these emphasized the assimilation of old information rather than the development of new knowledge. On the other hand, hilly European geography resulted in cultural separation and constant conquest, resulting in cultural diversity. They had an education system that valued creating new information because of the variety of their culture.

The barrier of unified African thought and ideology is the different cultures, but European influence is also an opportunity to have that unified thought. The conception of a continental Africa responds to colonialism and the unifying of oppressed experience that transcends physical boundaries. Although we inherited particular language and logic from colonial powers and their adversaries, this western influence unbeknown to the Europeans has created a double-edged sword. It is those western imposed forces that will lead to liberation if utilized correctly.

African is an imposed term reclaimed in the political sphere in the mid 20th century and then extended backward into eternity. The physical boundary is inconsequential because of the land. People have ties to it all. But having a foundational ideology like Afrocentricity or Pan-Africanism provides Africans with a path that excludes intercontinental differences towards a continental and diaspora unity.