My Blog

This article is for PanAfricans.  It seeks to discover the role that Language plays in the political ideology of PanAfricanism.  Panafricanism is the idea that all people of African decent, notwithstanding culture or ethnicity, belong to one Nation; and the body of land corresponding to that nation is the continent of Africa.  PanAfricanism wants Africa to be not just a continent with numerous quasi-independent states,
but to be a country with one government, one Military, one Economy, and one Language.  Hitherto, many panafrican philosophers have written on this issue as a whole.  Very few, however, have treated the issue of Language, by itself, and provided a sufficient analysis of the role it should play in achieving panafrican values. 

To even begin to unpack this question, we must first engage in a brief phenomenological analysis of Language.  To do this, we must for a moment step outside of ourselves since Language is such a natural tool of humankind that looking at it philosophically will require a different kind of intellectual effort.  Indeed, other than the extended physical body, Language is the very first tool afforded to men.  Evidence of this peculiarity is that to engage in this analysis, we have nothing to use save the very tool that is under analysis.  It is because of this inherent “ready-to-hand” nature of Language that oftentimes humans neglect to notice it.  It, in a sense, tends to fly over their heads.  That, no doubt, is strange insofar as no other tool of mankind–whether it be natural or artificial–is availed more than words; more than Language.  How, then, could it be that the most useful thing to a person is also the most unrecognized thing?  The reason, I believe, is because of Language’s usefulness. 

A doorknob, for example, is such a useful tool that most men do not observe it or analyze it before turning it to pass into a thereshold.  Over the years, a doorknob has become such a common tool that it goes unnoticed up until the very moment that a hand reaches for it and it does not turn or, say, one is not there altogether.  It is at that moment that the doorknob becomes a question.  It is in this same way that Language alludes us up until the point that we come across a word of which we wot not its meaning, or a language that is foreign.  It is here that Language then becomes an issue. 

Yet, even then, the depth of that issue is scarcely illuminated. Most people live their entire lives not even coming close to thinking about Language beyond their grade school Grammer courses or English literature course.  To be fair, not even the intellectual community, in my opinion, has provided sufficient analysis concerning Language.  It would not be inaccurate, therefore, to say that Language is still man’s biggest mystery.  Now, upon asking even the most well read of men what, in his estimation, is the purpose of language, his answer almost always will be “communication.”  Most people believe that the purpose of language is communication.  This general belief, I believe, is a wrong understanding of Language and speaks to the overall unawareness of what Language “is.” 

The bulk of this paper will advance the argument that the primary purpose of language is Control.  Communication, on the other hand, is the means by which the purpose of language, i.e., Control is accomplished.  Thus, communication is not a purpose of language, but rather it is merely something else that we can do with it; it’s more of a means than it is an end.  Some evidence supporting this contention can be found, among other things, in the application of a name.  In a crowded arena, for example, if some one yells the name John, almost instantly anyone named John will turn their heads. 

I would go so far as to posit that this turn of the head was involuntary–it’s as if the call of the word, for a split second, commanded the bodies of those men named John.  Moreover, the purpose of language, I have said, is controĺ–but control of what?  Is Language, as the aforementioned example, intended to control the physical or the mental?  The answer is that it is designed to control both; but it is through control of the latter, that control of the former occurs.  Thus, the superior purpose of language is to control one’s thoughts through a kind of “communication” with one’s self.  This communication happens perpetually in the mind of a human.  Steps can be taken to translate this communication into verbal communication (spoken) or symbolic communication (written); but the mental nature of Language precedes it’s verbal or symbolic nature. 

One may live their entire life as a monk and never utter or write a word, forever rendering his tongue and his pen empty of words. Contrariwise, one may never live their lives and never utter a word within; one may never, that is, live their lives without communication within, rendering his mind empty of thoughts.  Language is the primary vehicle through which thoughts flow and are expressed; it is the vehicle that permits control of the imagery and pshycic gymnastics of thinking.  Indeed, words can be heard without them being spoken.  They can be heard by the soul bearing them before they are shared verbally, if shared at all.  That too points to a mystical, perhaps magical quality of the essence of Language.  I will revisit this magical quality later.  Now, there are countless varieties of Language.  

Another question can be asked as to why that is the case?  Why, in other words, do we not speak one ultimate language instead of a plethora of different ones?  One myth explains that the different languages are a curse which stems from the building of a tower.  In the Parable of the Tower of Babel, there was a time when men spoke one Language.  They became so intelligent that they designed to build a tower to heaven.  God, offended by the audacity of the mortals, destroyed the tower and imposed a curse upon the men which required them to speak different languages.  As a consequence, the heightened intelligence that had been attributed to men speaking one unified language waxed and waned.  Because men could not share their thoughts, they could not develop at the pace that they had been developing before the tower.  While this is an interesting parable that sheds light upon the peculiarity of language, I cannot say that it succeeds in capturing the reason for the different languages. 

As I have argued above, a Language’s ultimate purpose is control, with communication being the means that that control is achieved.  Language, in addition, is a kind of mental bastion which protects the mind from being invaded by foreign minds via their foreign languages.  And in support of this claim, the very phrase “language barrier” implies that language is a “barrier,” a wall, a fort, a way to prevent invasion.  I will offer an example to clarify what this means.  In some remote, rural area of China, some chinaman speaks only Mandarin, and he has not the slightest knowledge of the English language.  Let us further agree in this example that in Chinese culture rice is to be fried instead of it being grilled.

If an englishman were to approach the chinaman and say “I think you should grill the rice instead of frying it,” the tradition of the cultural practice of frying rice instead of grilling it is not threatened at all simply because the chinaman does not understand anything the englishman said.  In this example, Mandarin served as a protector of Chinese culture and of the Chinese mind from outside influence because between the two men, there exist a strong barrier of language. 

Furthermore, when the colonist invaded Africa during the Scramble for Africa in the late 1800s, the mere physical invasion of the main, the military subdueing of the population, is not what fully vanquished the Africans.  In fact, had the invasion ceased there, the invasion would never have been fully successful, and the world we live in today would probably look very different because the people were never truly conquered.  The invasion did not cease there, however, because the colonists understood completely what needed to occur after the physical invasion was complete.  After the physical invasion came the mental invasion which can be understood as the tearing down of the “language barrier” that stood between the colonizer’s mind and the native’s mind. 

To do this, the colonists not only imposed their governments and laws, but they often made it illegal or punishable by death for a native to speak their ancestral tongue.  The only languages advanced and taught in the schools under colonialism were colonial languages.  The mental invasion essentially accomplished two main objectives.  First, by prohibiting the native to speak their own language and coercing them to speak only a colonial language, the colonist effectively was able to tear down the lingustic wall and invade the mind through exclusive communication in a colonial language to ultimately win access to the African mind–to gain access to African ideas, genius, and innovation. Through this process, the consciousness and cultural practices of the colonists was poured into the minds of the natives. 

Before the natives knew it, not only were they speaking the colonial language more fluently than the colonists, but they even grew more patriotic for the colonial state than the colonists.  In addition, the more and more fluent the native became in the colonial language, the more he exposed himself to colonial literature and to their thinkers.  He began to forget how to view the problems of his circumstances through the lens of his ancestors.  As a result of the mental, i.e., linguistic invasion, they could only discern their problems through the lens of the colonial intellectuals or elites. 

Today, African intellectuals analyze their political and socioeconomic situation through Marxism, Leninism, Socialism, Capitalism and whatever philosophical frameworks one could find in a western college.  For many Africans it’s almost impossible to view the world outside the colonial world that they exist in, not because they just exist in it, but because they speak colonial languages too.  They understand the colonizers words.  They use them to think.  They wot not any other way.  Since that language barrier between the blacks and the whites has long since perished, Africans are perpetually vulnerable and subject to whatever anti-african lifestyle or substantive ideas that the owners of the language choose to funnel into the minds of the natives. 

It could be a lifestyle, a cultural practice completely foreign not only to the cultures of Africa, but as well foreign to common sense.  As long as the African mind is linguistically merged with their former ( arguablely present) colonizers, it will forever be subject to western influence and control.  One African language, therefore, is vital to achieving African Unity world wide because it will promote a return to African values, a return to an African perception of the order of things, a return to a purely African mind.  I am even prepared to go even further and argue that if we all spoke one African language, the naysayers of PanAfricanism would not exist.  It is because the naysayers are so indoctrinated in colonial literature, have adopted colonial views, that the idea of a united Africa and African people to them is mere utopian fantasy.  Yet, to these same colonial loyalists, a united Europe or China or U.S. or Arab Emirstes is not a mere utopian fantasy.  We underestimate the role that Language plays in permitting these shades of Anti-African progress or African pessimism into the thoughts of African people. 

Having touched on the philosophy of language, a deeper, more mystical question arises.  I mentioned above that I would revisit this mysticsl question of language, and that question is this:  is language spiritual?  Yes.  Language is more spiritual than it is anything else.  It provides for control not only of one’s soul, but for control of the souls of others.  From a spiritual perspective, Language is the magic of a people’s ancestors.  People who continue to speak the languages that were spoken by their ancestors remain spiritually connected to their ancestors in a way that strengthens and perpertuates their culture.  It matters not whether the language be the exact language spoken, but that historical development of their contemporary languages find their origins in the languages of their ancestors.  I can think of no better example than most European languages. 

While the different European ethnicities speak many different languages; most of those languages find their origins in the linguistic traditions of ancient Greek, Latin (Roman), and Normandic.  Although over time the languages warped into what they are to day, the spirit of their languages remains connected to their ancestors.  In a way, then, the languages have not warped, per se, but they have been developed by descendants of the Greeks and the Romans and Normans.  In turn, much of the same consciousness that existed in the minds of the Greeks and the Romans continues to permeate the minds of contemporary Europeans.  The work of translating their ancestor’s words; of continuing to use their language ensures that their people’s mind remains programmed according to their historical mind, i.e., their ancestral mind.  Maintaining this relationship strengthens the connection to ancestral heritage, providing for a consistent view of the world and their place in it. 

On the other hand, a people that are separated from their ancestral language completely and who have another foreign language installed into their minds, lose a great mental benefit.  An ancient connection is severed.  Moreover, they are rendered susceptible to massive psychological control by the foreign powers.  Free will, then, is weakened for the people who lost their language because their will, after becoming forceably fluent in the foreign language, is merged with the will of the foreigners.  This explains why Africans fight in colonial armies and die for colonial causes. Looking at language from this spiritual perspective, it can be used as a  spell. 

A dictionary of a particular language outlines the individual components of the spell as a whole, i.e., its words.  Words can then be used to create stronger spells called sentences; and sentences can be used to create even stronger charms that form narratives, speeches, poems, songs dramas, satires–all of which carry with them their own persuasive effect. 

Peering deeper into the mystical, albeit magical nature of Language I think it proper that we engage in a careful anaylsis of words.  This analysis, on its face, will seem to be etymological, but that is only an illusion.  This analysis of words is phenomenological at heart, meaning that it seeks to reveal “the [words] themselves” juxtaposed what the discipline of etymology sets out to accomplish.  In fact, let us first engage in this phenomenological analysis of English words by using first as our object the word “etymology.”  I believe this word too presents a perfect example of when an understanding of the philosophy of language produces a different meaning of a word than as the dictionary defines it.  For, etymology is defined as “the study of the roots and origins” of words. 

Now, “ology” certainly is a word deriving from Greek which means “the study of.”  “Et,” on the other hand, does not historically mean “root,” but instead it is an ancient Latin expression that means ” in truth or verily.”  A famous use of this expression, no doubt, is found in Shakespear’s The Tragedy of Julius Ceasar, when after being dealt the final stab of the knife by his close friend Brutus, Ceasar uttered the words, “Et tu Brute?” This famous sentence translates as “verily, Brutus, you too?” Taking this fact under consideration, “etymology” means not “the study of the roots or origins of words,” but instead it means “the study of truth.” 

Words, I believe, just so happen to be the best way to arrive at that truth.  Let us further bring the word “word” itself under a microscope since it is the very thing which makes up a language.  “Word,” if we drop the “W,” presents us with a familiar, altogether powerful prefix.  That prefix is “ord.”  From this prefix are made words like “order” and “ordain.”  The fact that the major prefix existing in the word “order” exists within the word “word,” is not by chance.  Certainly, that is precisely what a word is–a kind of “order,” a kind of “call.”  This also supports the overall argument of this paper which is that the purpose of language is Control since “order” more or less means to control. 

Next, let us view the word “write” since writing represents the symbolic nature of words and their careful organization.  This process of writing itself is a kind of meditation, and it imposes a trance like effect on the writer.  With the word “write,” also, if we drop the “w,” we are left with the word “rite,” as in “ritual” or “rites” or “rites of passage.”  The word “write,” then means “the process of engaging in a ritual, a rite of passage.” 

Again, this truth supports my earlier contention that, from a spiritual analysis of Language, a language is “the magic of a people’s ancestors” since “rituals and rites” are generally associated with magic, or, even witchcraft.  Words, then, from this tiny glimpse into the phenomenology of words, are by and by more than as they seem.  Now, where does this quick spiritual analysis of Language fit into the role of language in PanAfricanism?  That question can also be answered using a phenomenology of words.  The word “Black,” for example, if we drop the “B” is left with the word “lack” which plays a major part in the word as a whole.  The word “Lack” means to be “insufficient” or, in some dictionaries, “to be morally devoid.”  To be identified as “black,” then, implies that the artificers of the English language believed that to be the case about Africans. 

This truth is further supported by an analysis of the word “white,” which, again, if the “w” is dropped is left with the word “hite,” which is, no doubt an archaic spelling of the word “height.”  “Height,” we know, means “altitude” or “to be high.”  The word can also denote “royalty,” in the phrase “your Highness.”  This phenemonon cannot be by chance; but it appears to be intentional.  This intentionality stems from the idea that lack and “hite” are direct oppisites of each other.  Finally, the word “Negro,” is another word that, if closely analyzed, clearly reveals the fact that a colonial language is a kind of mystical negative spell, i.e. curse or enchantment on African minds. 

“Neg” for example, is the root word in many colonial languages used to denote “not” or “no.”  It is prevalent in the words such as “negative” or “negate.”  The word “Ro,” here, serving as a suffix, is a Latin prefix with its origins in the ancient Egyptian prefix “Ru.” In ancient Egypt, Ru was used in the word “Heru” who was the protagonist of the Osirian drama.  When the Romans conquered Egypt, defeating the Greeks there, that “u” in “Ru” was turned to an “o.”  Hence the current prefix “Ro” which means “to be more than,” or “super.”  It’s popularly found in the word “Hero.”  It is also found in the word “road,” where “ro” means “super” and “ad” means connection.  Thus “road” means “super comnection” and that is certainly what a road is.  All that said, when we look at the word “Negro,” “Neg” means negative and “Ro” means super. 

Depending on how a language chooses to place their adjectives, then, Negro means either “super negative” or “negative super.”  It would not be inaccurat, nor would it be racists, to say that the English langange is not fond of Africans.  Yet, a language that hates Africans is spoken by them; is in their heads; is used to think with.  It is no wonder then, especially if we take my hypothesis in this paper as true, that so many Africans hate each other. 

The very colonial language in their minds hates them.  It is for all of these reasons that Africans must spread their wings and take flight from colonial languages and adopt one, united language to develop African. institutions with.  This major step of uniting in language will unite Africans substantially in mind.  And, it is in this mighty leap where the role of Language in PanAfricanism is found. 

During an age where the flame of Pan-Africanism has been severely dimmed by the wave of neocolonialism, it is crucial to revisit the value of Pan-Africanism and why this ideology ought to be the future of African governance.  It is necessary to engage in this analysis because many men, in particular, those of African descent–perhaps, under the influence of a colonial education, economic view, religion, or propaganda in general–are inclined to doubt whether Pan-Africanism is anything better than intellectual tongue wrestling, earth-shattering speeches, and elaborate social theories.  This view of Pan-Africanism appears to stem, partly from a wrong conception of the purpose of African Unity, partly from a wrong conception of the freedom that Pan-Africanism contemplates.

The United States of America could have been just a collection of countries instead of the immensely powerful federal union that it is today.  Through federalism, however, the first thirteen colonies agreed to unite under one Federal Constitution, while the States submitting to it simultaneously maintained Sovereignty, so long as its laws are not violative of the Federal Constitution.  Today, Africa is not federalized, but it is just a collection of countries. Federalism must be understood as the uniting principal for African Continental integration.  If Pan-Africanism has any value at all for those other than political scientists, Afro-centrists, or social philosophers, it must be indirectly, through the effect that a United African Federal Government, Military, Economy, and Language would have upon the lives of every black person.  It is in this effect, chiefly, that the value of Pan-Africanism is primarily sought.

Furthermore, if we are not to shrink in our endeavor to reveal the value of Pan-Africanism, we must first free our minds from a colonial view; free our minds from a colonial consciousness.  A colonial consciousness, as I have invoked the word here, is a black person, i.e., a person of dominant African decent, who can only perceive the world through eyes of a white person; who cannot escape the psychological onslaught which colonialism imposes upon the minds of black people.  An African of this kind is no African at all.  He is integral to the success of imperialism; without him, neocolonialism could not survive.  He seeks to hold the offices occupied by the colonial authorities; to be the chief of the colonial police departments; to be the executive of colonial corporations.  He seeks merely to switch positions with his oppressors rather than to build a nation of his own.  This kind of African could never discern the value of Pan-Africanism because, as a consequence of his severely colonized mind, he could never discern the value of himself.

Yet, these are the kinds of Africans that run the governments of African Countries and that are installed in areas of government or public influence within the African Diaspora. Pan-Africanism aims to integrate into one Nation the entire black race on the continent of Africa and those among the Diaspora.  This objective aims to produce unity and a system of governance tailored to the cultural diversity of the black race.  Now, it cannot be maintained that Pan-Africanism has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to produce these results.  If you ask other races what benefit was gained from setting aside mere cultural and ethnic differences in order to Unite, their answer would probably be “actual freedom.”  But if you submit the same question to a Pan-African, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his ideology has not been as successful at obtaining “actual freedom” for African people.  It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that colonial powers have played a major role in limiting the manifestation of a Pan-African government through covert operations.

These operations typically involve assassinations of Revolutionary African leaders along with the corroboration of colonial minded Africans.  Thus, to a great extent, the value that Pan-Africanism presents to African people has been clouded by those parties whose interests are negatively affected by it.  With respect to the colonizer, Pan-Africanism demands that all of the natural resources of Africa are removed from the possession of Imperial powers and returned to the rightful owners of it.  In this regard, Pan-Africanism threatens a serious injury to the western way of life.  With respect to the corrupt African politicians, Pan-Africanism requires upright government and leaders who champion Honor, Integrity, and Justice before they champion financial advantages.  For the corrupt politicians, then, Pan-Africanism threatens to rip a hole into their pockets.  Because these forces have historically been in a position to exert their influence– whether it be by intimidation or by brute force–any Pan-African leader or movement which produced the smallest impression of being successful has been either significantly crippled or forcefully extinguished altogether.  Pan-Africanism, because of the knowledge of its power to unearth the current order of the world, will continuously be met with aggression from colonial powers.

This is, however, only part of the reality concerning the uncertainty of Pan-Africanism. Within the topic of Pan-Africanism has developed a kind of division that has forked into two different schools of thought.  This, in my estimation, presents a threat to the future of the ideology and its overall value.  On one hand, some Pan-Africans adopt the economic theories of socialism and communism within the traditions of western philosophers such as Marx, Engels, and Lenin.  This school of Pan-Africanism is referred to as Pan-African Socialism.  Under Pan-African Socialism, the problem of colonialism is not viewed through the lens of Race, but instead it is viewed through the lens of “Class.”  The consequence of colonialism sprang from a desire for “profit.”  In this greed for profit, according to Pan-African Socialism, the owners of the means of production exploit the labor of the workers for substantial profit.  Out of this relationship between the owners of the means of production and the worker emerged a hierarchy of class that is beneficial to the owners and alienating to the workers.  The way to reconcile this problem, Pan-African Socialist argue that all of the natural resources and land of Africa should be owned by the State and the phenomenon of “private ownership” should be severely limited so as to eliminate the class hierarchies.

On the other hand, some Pan-Africans view the problem of colonialism through the lens of Race.  This school is referred to as Pan-African Nationalism.  Under this school, colonialism is simply the consequence of being conquered by another race.  The underlying problem of colonialism is not a class struggle, but it is Race that is the driving force.  It was Race that determined whether a person was destined to be a slave–not what social class that person was associated with.  No matter the practical skill or cleverness of a black person during classical colonialism, that skill or intelligence was of little, if any relevance when it came to the determination of his social status.  He was a slave because he was black, because he was an African, not because he was poor.  A white man was free not because he was rich or skilled, but because he was white.  To eradicate the problem of colonialism then, the black race must behave similarly to the other races.  The role that Pan-Africanism should play is uniting all black people into one Nation such as the U.N. has united the white race, regardless of one’s particular white ethnicity.  For the Nationalist, it matters very little what corner of Europe one descended; what matters most is whiteness, not whether a white person is a German, a Frenchman, Englishman, or American.  This simple truth, for a Pan-African nationalist, is the foundation for all decisions regarding western interests.  Thus, for the Pan-African Nationalist, the black race should also adopt a Nationalist approach and unite regardless of ethnicity but on the basis of Race such as other nations.  It is also true that this ideological split creates a heavy contradiction within Pan-Africanism.

First, the very ideological framework on which to base worldwide African Unity has itself been torn asunder into two schools of thought by robust intellectualism and by philosophizing in circles.  This divide between Socialism and Nationalism; Christianity and Islam; Republican and Democrat, undermines the value of Pan-Africanism by itself creating new channels of division.  The value of Pan-Africanism resides in the diversity of black people; it resides in our cultural and spiritual differences.  To observe the value that Pan-Africanism offers the black race, Africans must cease to divide themselves into factions, beyond the uniting element of blackness.  That is not to say that they must fly from their myriad cultures and spiritual practices, but rather it is to suggest that none of these things ought to supersede the underlying element of Blackness.

Second, the political ideologies of Socialism or Communism are frameworks conjured by European philosophers, many of whom were wholly complicit in the colonial exploitation of Africa.  These ideologies were not conceptualized for the benefit of African people; but instead for the benefit of poor white people who, at the time, were being oppressed by their own governments.  To believe wholeheartedly that the philosophical frameworks designed by a culture that is responsible for colonization will produce Liberation for its subjects is not at all practical. One of the values of Pan-Africanism is a renewed love for all things African; an intense respect for African cultural traditions and philosophy.  It is here, I believe, where Africans should carve their own path to liberation; a path that is guided by their own, original wisdom; a path that follows the guidance of The Ancestors and the literature of our own thinkers. Africans should not be persuaded too much by the wisdom of those who are outsiders.

Now, it would be remiss to discuss the value of Pan-Africanism without acknowledging the contributions the African Diaspora have made to the ideology in lieu of being separated from Africa as a consequence of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.  Many political scientists support the idea that the ideology of Pan-Africanism was actually forged off the continent, among Africa’s scattered children.  These Africans of the Diaspora, enduring the brutal realities of slavery, found homage in the ideas of a united Africa. In particular, the Africans in the Americas and in the Caribbean such as Toussaint L ‘overture, Fredrick Douglass, Hubert Harrison, George Patmore, C.L.R. James, and Marcus Garvey, to name a few, introduced modern perspectives on the ideology.  Still, even before these men wrote on the issue, ancestors like David Walker in “Walker’s Appeal” or Martin Delaney, are also precursors to the idea of Pan-Africanism.  

Of the giants of Pan-Africanism, no African has been able to unite more Africans under one flag–i.e., the red, black, and green–than the Honorable Marcus Garvey.  Hitherto, no African has yet to build an organization that mirrors the magnitude of the United Negro Improvement Association (“UNIA”).  The UNIA remains the most successful black organization in world history.  It had one thousand divisions and claimed to have six million members in forty different countries.  The pinnacle of this movement was Garvey’s attempt to begin an African shipping line, called the Black Star.  This shipping company was intended to support the development of a system of commerce between the motherland and its diaspora.  Till this day, the UNIA continues to be a model for what African Nationalism, Pan-African identity, and self-reliance looks like for African people.  It is giants like Garvey that revealed to Africans the value of Pan-Africanism.

Moreover, whereas Garvey may be rightfully called the King of Pan-Africanism, the Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah may be rightfully called the High Priest of Pan-Africanism.  Nkrumah is a perfect symbol for what Pan-Africanism represents.  As a young man, he traveled to America in the 30s and 40s, when racism was at its height.  He witnessed the discriminatory policies of America and the way these policies negatively affected the black population.  Furthermore, Nkrumah attended Lincoln University, a Historically Black College or University.  After Nkrumah’s stint in the U.S. he returned to Ghana where he would lead the revolution which ended in Ghana’s freedom from colonial control by England. Ghana’s independence, however, for Nkrumah, meant absolutely nothing if the entire continent of Africa was not also freed from colonial chains.  He fought tirelessly his entire life to achieve the dream of a united Africa.

However, similar to the fate of other revolutionary leaders of the times, colonial manipulative strategies worked to turn Nkrumah’s Ghana against him, and he would eventually have to flee his mother country to escape a western sponsored coup detat.  “All people of African descent,” Nkrumah famously reminded us, “whether they live in North or South America, the Caribbean, or in any part of the world are Africans and belong to the African nation.”  Very few quotes from Pan-African leaders embody the principles of Pan-Africanism as these words from Nkrumah.  The value of Pan-Africanism permeated the minds of African leaders back then, and it continues to do so today.   In addition, after traveling to Africa and meeting with Kwame Nkrumah and other black leaders of the day, Malcom X returned to America as a Pan-African more than he was a Muslim.  It was in Africa that Malcom X realized that respect and progress of African Americans was intricately woven with the respect and progress of Africa.  Once Africa gained its Liberation and complete independence, X surmised, all black people in the world would ultimately have returned to them their human dignity.  It is for these reasons when X returned to America from his sabbatical in Africa, he broke away from the Nation of Islam and began his own organization that he called The Organization for African American Unity, modeling it after the Organization of African Unity.  For X, it is not just the Africans of North America that should be grouped under the Umbrella of African American, but it is all Africans in the American hemisphere that are African Americans.  

It is also worthy to note that it was not long after Malcom X had made the ideological switch from mere African American Nationalism to Pan-African Nationalism that he was assassinated in Harlem by the aforementioned covert operations of the colonial regime.  These monuments of men, such as Garvey, Nkrumah, and X were inspired by the value of Pan-Africanism, and they gave their lives endeavoring to see that its principles were instituted.  And while, no, no matter how close they may have come to the verge of the goal, we cannot say that they were successful.  As a patriot of Pan-Africanism, however, I believe these ancestors were overwhelmingly successful in showing us the course to pursue–and that course ultimately is worldwide African Unity.  It is in that golden phenomenon where the eternal value of Pan-Africanism is found.

He never knew his history.
He grew up in a place where you don’t live, you Survive.
History, for him, was yesterday.
And the world, this human experience,
Was just a standing place, some idle dream.
To get there, you need to cross the tracks.
You will have to keep straight up McClemore, a Crooked little street, rattled with potholes, such That the ride is bumpy like a Tanzanian safari.

And, it is a strange jungle, one made of concrete, and steel.
There, too, dwells a strange creature, one Absent of history, of spirit, of lustre.
If you go, make sure that it’s during the day. People do awful things when they are trying to survive.
Excuse any machine guns, if, by chance, you see any.
Most of the children carrying them are involved in silent wars.

Wars?
War, you say?
This war will make Vietnam look like child’s play,
makes Afghanistan and Iraq look like vacation. Oh, you don’t hear any bombs dropping?
You don’t see any Blackhawks in the sky?
You don’t hear any boots marching across the terrain?
Not all wars are the same, but they do have their nasty similarities.
Still, they are never the same. Their causes, Their results, their strategems, their heroes,
are never identical.

When it is internalized the war zone is more lethal.
When you see it with your own eyes,
When you witness it as it wages its ruinous Path,

Don’t blink.

R. Walker

As much as popular media depictions would have us believe this, Lucifer is not some red guy with horns jutting out of his forehead, a goatee, and a lower body of a goat. Nor is he some handsome fellow, sitting behind an illustrious desk inside an office of flames.

Demons, in addition, who are members of Lucifer’s army, are not hideous creatures yielding miniature pitchforks, with the intention of terror. Nor are they winged monsters that soar in the night in order to haunt the living. These entities, however, although their essence is popularly exagerrated, nonetheless, are very real, very true.

Because the notion of these fantastical beings have been thwarted by lucid exagerration, people have tended to identify them with fantasy or fairy tale or, even, mysticism. This article is intended to raise an awareness for Devils and Demons so that, upon an encounter with either of the two, one will know how to handle them. Now, how are Devils and Demons identified?

Already, it has been established that neither of them have, as it is, a physical body. And so, that popular image of Satan and his minions can, for the moment, be expelled. Since Devils and Demons have not a physical body, are we to presume that they are invisible? Maybe, maybe not?

Certainly, the science of biology informs us that our bodies are comprised of cells, mitochondria, and other molecules. These things, they say, exist, but the normal eye cannot discern them. And the physical sciences advises us that conscious reality is made up of stuff like atoms, sub-atomic particles, quarks, etc.

Yet, none of these phenomena can be spotted by the naked eye. There is, indeed, then, a plethora of phenomena surrounding us that we simply cannot see. That does not necessarily make these things, themselves, invisible; but it does make them invisible to the eyes. In this wise, similar to cells, atoms, protons, and electrons are Devils and Demons invisible.

Having touched on the anti-physical essence of them, what, then, are their natures? The nature of Devils and Demons are very basic. But, like anything that is basic, they can easily be overlooked or underestimated. Devils, who are many varied forms of Lucifer, have one primary duty: to persuade one’s thoughts into evil.

Demons, contrariwise, who are the soldiers of Lucifer, have on their orders quite another objective. Demons are responsible for showing one how to do evil. Notice, in addition, that while these duties appear similar, they are vastly different. Devils are masters of what I shall refer to as “dark persuasion.”

Through the many avenues of rhetoric they apply their spiritual tongues in efforts to invoke evil thoughts into consciousness. Thoughts, no doubt, if powerful enough, will eventually evolve into action. There are, perhaps, infinite varieties of persuasion.

These invisible spirits are apt at making themselves subliminal. By this I mean, to one who lacks “vision,” the dark persuasion could indeed seem genuine. In the beginning, it was dark persuasion that called for Adam and Eve to share fruit from that forbidden tree.

Sweet words, we see, can provoke bitter actions. The Devil, then, is not necessarily the snake, but the words that were uttered to arouse curiosity within the consciousness of Man–that is the devil. A snake is just an amphibian. Now, Demons are, like their master, just as mischievous in their natures.

Demons teach men how to do the wrong things. It is thus not by chance the word “Demon” appears in the word “Demonstrate.” They achieve their ends by very uncanny abilities. Demons are talented imitators. By imitation, however, I am not referring to physical imitation.

Devils and Demons, we have established, are not physical entities, per se, so, theoretically, they could not imitate anything physical. Their spirits, however, can be captured or imposed upon a consciousness. How, I am sure the reader is wondering, is this achieved? Demons imitate their spirits by way of art and the artist.

In particular, the language arts is the most effective vehicle to teach, or, even, to “suggest” evil tendencies. By language arts, no doubt, we are speaking of poetry–and all of her offspring. Note, it is not altogether the people who produce the art that are evil, but it is the art itself.

Devils and Demons, again, are not physical. Instead, it is the zeitgeist that is produced from the work; the morality or immorality that is taken away from it, which determines if it is a Demon or not. Through art, evil can be represented as good, and good as evil. Through tragedy, comedy, and drama, habits of evil can be demonstrated as virtuous.

Why then is it language art that is the most effective vehicle in influencing evil? Before God tossed Lucifer out of heaven, he was adored and loved by him. God always had three Angels that were considered as high Angel’s.

There’s Gabriel, who is God’s messenger, there’s Michael who is God’s general, and then there’s Lucifer, who was God’s organizer of worship. In other words, Lucifer controlled the environment for the worship of God. In order to do this, Lucifer invented music, and the arts.

These creations were created strictly and primarily for the worship and honor of God, the creator of the Universe. Music and Art, which are both synonymous, was created as a form of Gospel. However, in his thirst for worship himself, Lucifer attempted to use them to encourage men to worship him through music and the arts.

And for his violations, he was banished from heaven. Now today men are misguided by their own arts. One, on its face, might presume that art is an imitation of Life’s experience. I, indeed, believe that Life’s experience, for much of mankind, has become an imitation of art.

Once art has sprung from the depths of consciousness, it can be so powerful as to create a lifestyle, an own consciousness by itself.

At any rate, after this long harangue, I do pray that now the reader has a better understanding of Devils and Demons. It’s very simple, but can fly over ones head. Just remember, Devils want to persuade one into evil, and Demons teach them how to do it.

Despite having on a daily basis to manage, handle, and, in many cases, protect violent and non violent offenders, instead of the law enforcers which they are, correctional officers are treated as low class security guards. Correctional deputies are, indubitibly, the forgotten defenders of America’s streets. Could it be, since they are not physically on the streets, like their counterparts, with sidearms and cruisers, that they have been forgotten?

When the valiant police officer apprehends the offender, he drops him off to the correctional deputy; and, until that offender’s destiny is decided by the legal process, the offender will remain under the correctional deputie’s supervision. And while in this country an offender is rightfully due to a speedy trial, a trial oftentimes is not speedy at all.

After an inmate’s case court date after court date has been continued by a judge, correctional deputies will indeed find that they have been managing the same criminal for years at a time. Here, of course, I am speaking of those brave officers that guard our jails, and not of those that guard penitenturies.

These men and women too, of the more long term penitentuaries, are much ado more credit for their staunch patience, and true empathy in dealing with convicted felons. In short, police officers, whose job is no less demanding, after apprehending a fugitive, spend very little time with them, most of the time, make more money than their counterparts, who spend months, sometimes years, decades, with them.

That is certainly not to say that street officers don’t spend as much time with offenders like corrections deputies. The time they spend with their subjects, however, are, by nature, haphazard. And so because of the random nature of their encounters with prior offenders, time to develop “relationships,” with, not only them, but, even, with the subjects of the community under their protection, usually just is not there.

In addition, there is a very small chance of an offender being apprehended by the same police officer that captured him on his prior incident. Once the offender is brought back into custody, on the other hand, the chances that he will be supervised by a familiar corrections officer are extremely high. In his numerous years on the streets, no doubt, a police officer is bound to see the same career offender as much as the Corrections deputy.

That is understood. Between the two officer types, and the offender, however, the relationships that are developed via time’s everlasting stretch are vastly different, yet intricately interwoven. The dangers that each of the officers face are slightly different, but they still are no less dangers. Their lives still are on the line, and their families still, for at least eight hours, have on their hearts the safety of their loved one.

If any law enforcement officer is to collect a comfortable salary, one would think, an officer such as a correctional deputy is justly due one. From that of the Street Officer, the corrections deputy’s jobs, their duties, and their responsibilities differ, nonetheless, they, without question, are just as, if not more, important. A comfortable salary is not the case for a corrections deputy in state governed jails and prisons, or in private owned ones.

Private prisons, no doubt, are infamous for underpaying their employees much more than government operated facilities. Somewhere in a rural area, near some small town, private prison companies construct their maximum security facility. And when it’s up and running, they hire all of the poor rural folk, and pay them a little above minimum wage.

That’s truly a heart wrenching wage to provide for one’s family. It’s even more heart wrenching when, at work, some convict tosses feces or urine or seamen into one’s face. Or, to be stabbed with shanks, brutally beaten, raped, even murdered–all of these possibilities, for an an annual income of 35,000? That’s what I call a rip-off.

Furthermore, a huge reason there are so many incidents involving police officers exercising excessive force or being downright brutal is, I believe, that many officers, after training, before they have any experience handling criminals via the jail system, they are immediately assigned to the streets as patrolman. In many police academies and departments across the nation this is an error–a huge one.

How can someone who has never patrolled a criminal, be given a weapon, and assigned to protect an area, for which, many times, he has no background in? Nor is he even an active member of the culture. Before any police officer is allowed to patrol the streets, it is appropriate, that they spend, at the very least, two years as a correctional deputy.

Spending time in the corrections arena will help season the potential street officer. It will assist in helping train their security tempermant. If an officer is well experienced in dealing with offenders while they themselves have not a duty weapon, then perhaps, when they do patrol the streets, they will summon more peaceful, practical techniques when dealing with offenders.

When I speak of peaceful and practical techniques, I am referring to techniques learned by correctional officers which allow them to avoid uses of force. Use of force, in many of the correctional facilities across the nation, are in most cases, the last resort to an ongoing, seemingly impossible situation.

In jails, most of the time, its talk down, before take down. In simpler lingo, correctional officers are talented negotiators; they have the trained instinct of appealing to the emotions of the offender in order to receive, in turn, some kind of cooperation. And most of the time this appeal to the offenders emotion, is only possible because of the relationship-quality that is exclusive for correctional deputies.

What better method to increase the effiencency of our police departments than to require before any officer steps foot on the street, they must spend time on the jail floors–amongst the subjects they will inevitably encounter?

When a person is physically sick, they admit themselves to a hospital. There, they will be miserable, of course, laying all their time away on a hospital bed. Nothing can be done for themselves; the food eaten by them was not chosen by them; and the nurse cares for them like a mother would a child.

When a person is mentally sick, they are admitted to a mental health treatment center. And here, they will, like the physically sick, undergo a similar experience. Their food, their movement, all of this is regulated by someone other than themselves. In these two cases, we have a physically sick person and a mentally sick one, but both of their destinies are, somewhat, the same.

But, there is a third sickness that has yet to be mentioned. This sickness concerns those who are morally conscious. People who wind up in jail are people who, in some way, have acquired a moral sickness, an ethical sickness.

Thus, much like the physical sick person who needs the nurse for everything, the mentally sick person who is no longer morally consious, and needs the behavior specialist for everything, the ethically sick person knows, more or less, the difference between right and wrong, and selects the latter.

And much of the time, the morally sick person winds up in a similar situation as the physically and mentally sick. The only difference is that their facilities are not hospitals or mental health centers, but jails and penitentuarys. And their care-takers are not nurses or behavioral specialist, but they are correctional deputies. These are men and women, the forgotten warriors of the streets. They are the doctors, the nurses, for the ethically sick.

It is only right, only fair that their salary reflect all of the hard work and sacrifice they endure, every single day.

A major issue with American politics, perhaps with any politics, is that voters, i.e., the populace that participates in the whole process, on most occasions, they, simply, don’t understand politics. The danger here is that, without a legit understanding of politics, the populace runs the risk of authorizing an idiot or tyrant or despot, into a high office where their will-power could be exercised to its fullest extent.

Americans, during election season, tend to rely on the media as their primary information source. And that, indeed, in itself, for a political scholar, should reveal that the average American’s knowledge of politics is minuscule, at best. To use the media, i.e., as a guide in making a wise decision when making a vote is just not enough.

The American media, usually any nation’s media for that matter is nothing but trickery and rhetoric. Therefore, to truly make a wise decision in making a vote, there will have to be more than just what the television, radios, and newspaper articles inform them about. This information indeed is only meant to sway one’s opinion hither or thither.

It is meant to present an opponent as good or bad, or vice versa. It’s a mere drama, a shallow competition. In having a political discussion with a typical American political comentator, one who enjoys thinking of themself as concerned and involved in America’s political atmosphere, they will on most cases, use the media to support their arguments, as if the media is an engine for Truth–when, in reality, it is an engine for Lies.

Now, it cannot be forgotten, though often it is, that politics is a science. And so, if one is to participate in the authorization of people who will reign over them, a true understanding of politics, one would think, is beyond necessary. Obtaining wisdom concerning politics is certainly not an easy task.

Likewise, becoming a physician, one who is wise in making decisions with regard to healing or the medicinal arts did not over night, of course, stumble upon that wisdom. To become a doctor or a lawyer or an engineer, it takes time and dedication. It is the same for the political scientist, though their craft is not as financially rewarding as its counterparts, its requirements for wisdom are no different.

Now American politics revolve around two ideologies, more or less, which are conservatism and liberalism. The two ideologies are represented by two political factions: Republican (conservative) and Democrat (liberal). When the founding fathers, who had their Masonic Moors and Egyptian literature to guide them, constructed the American government, they had one thing in mind: Balance.

For them, similar to the Ancient Egyptians, the notion of balance truly is a map designed by God himself. When God created the Universe, in his omnipotent wisdom, he created it completely symmetrical. In other words, there’s up, there’s down, there’s hot, there’s cold, and everything has an opposite.

The Egyptians, indeed, took this notion of balance to a level that no nation hitherto has achieved. However, America’s Republic, though nowhere near as sublime as its Ancient predecessor, is a brilliant work of balance. The balance of American politics, its struggle of opposites, I believe, is a major factor contributing to its longevity.

Again, it still has quite a long ways to go to equal the Ancient Egyptians, but due to its balanced political struggle, it indeed possesses the potential to survive for many centuries to come. Much of our government’s system of checks and balances is obvious. And so, in grade school, we learn about the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.

And we learn about how they all work together and how neither of them really possess any more power than the other. These facts, of course, are all a requirement if one is to have, at least, a basic understanding of American government. Even those simple facts, believe it or not, nowadays, ironically mid an epoch of unrivaled information, still are unknown by a great majority of Americas voters.

There are also balances within American politics that are not as easily observable by one without political wisdom. It is the job of the wise voter to know who or what or why they are making such a weighty decision. One, in order to make a wise decision in a vote, must have a sturdy foundation in political history and political literature.

Political history no doubt advises us as to the nobility or infamy of sovereigns in the past. It allows us to use prior experiences as a torch to illuminate the pathway to successful government. Political literature, on the other hand, affords the ability to obtain a political mindset. To delve deep into the minds of historical figures, the minds of noble men, is but a means to, in turn, shape noble men of the present.

Now, in American politics, however, one must be able to recognize the hidden balances. What, then, do I mean by hidden balance? Republican and Democrat represent, in addition, something that is hardly recognized by an ordinary voter. They represent a fundamental balance–a balance, in shaping a successful government, that cannot go underestimated. And that hidden balance is Good and Evil.

Now, what is good, what is evil, can be debated some other time. For now it suffices only to define each ideology and allow the reader to decide. Republican, as we discussed above, represents conservative. In America Republicans (conservatives) are catorigized as, more or less, religious, rich and frugal, family oriented, etc. This, of course, is not concrete.

There are multiple engenderments of Republicans. I am only speaking, I must admit, stereotypically. And Democrats (liberal) usually are less religious, liberal with money, not very family oriented. Notice also that the prefix Demo has never denoted a positive meaning. From this prefix there are words such as Demon, Demolition, Demolish. All of which are no doubt frightening words.

The reason, I think, this prefix appears in the word Democracy is because a democracy, historically, has been a frightening idea. It’s a government where there is no government, and all is ruled by the populace. That sounds like chaos. Note, that Amerca is not a democracy, but a Republic. In a Republic, the populace, through whatever system, authorize who they deem responsible and wise to rule.

Theoretically, of course. If the people in a Republic are oblivious to true political wisdom, then still it could end in chaos. And notice, as well, that the prefix Re, begins the word Republic. A much, so to speak, positive word, meaning to do over and over. Who knows which, of the hidden balance, truly represents the Good or Evil?

That decision is determined by wise voters–presuming, of course, they take the time to evolve into political scientist. And if, indeed, they elect to choose, then they will choose, and they will choose wisely.

Though often portrayed as harmless, gleeful, and merry, modern video games are sub consciously shaping American children into sociopathic killers. Video games are vastly more dangerous, psychologically, than television and radio, per se. And if not carefully observed and thoroughly explained, the virtual world video games attempt to simulate will indeed become “realities.” Now, Radio, on a phenomenological level, is one-fold.

By this, I mean, in its application it, exclusively, revolves around the dispersing of language. This, no doubt, in no way subtracts from its potency as a psychological vehicle, in marketing, and in other persuasive agendas. Television, on the other hand, adds another variable to the formula.

Television, on a phenomenological level, is two-fold inasmuch as in its application, it revolves around the dispersing of language, and imagery. This, indeed, adds to the persuasivity of the device. One last conduit of media that I failed to mention above, but still is indespinsible to the discussion is the computer.

Computers, of course, add yet another variable to the formula. Computers, on a phenomenological level, are three-fold in that they involve language (spoken or written), imagery, and, what I shall refer to as, “user-ship.”

Usership is an important idea for the discussion before us. This usership brings the “mental” into a kind of “network.” Usership is a tool that, during this technological epoch, can be engendered in myriad different facets. A traditional computer uses usership with its mouse and its graphic interface. This allows the mind to not only listen and observe, but to “participate.”

Video games, which are extensions of computers, take this “participation” and intensifies it. It, I must say, is quite the “experience.” Hold on. Then again, it’s not quite the experience: verily, it’s not an experience at all. And unfortunately, for many of our glorious, courageous, and patriotic American children, from all backgrounds, and of all shades, its extremely difficult for them to distinguish between real experiences and imitative experience.

A truly devout, strick, loving, and caring parent will no doubt chastise me for my claim. They will say that through their good parenting and guidance their child will not be led astray. And they most certainly will be correct, for our wise ancestor King Solomon tells us to “train up a child the way he should go, and when he is older, he shall not depart from it.”

It is not that I am challenging one’s judgement as a parent in allowing their children to play any video game they fancy. Nor am I being a hypocrite. For I, with my eternally youthful spirit, on many an occasion, have fancied the adrenaline rush of virtual simulation. It’s for this very reason that I am concerned.

I have witnessed a generation grow up playing Grand Theft Auto, and, when they are well into their teens, they’re getting arrested for carjacking. And most of their first time stealing a car or carjacking some helpless person was on a video game.

Of course, probably they were introduced to the idea of these crimes by the T.V, or by some song on the radio. I would say by their environment, as well, but their environment is only a reflection of what’s going on inside its homes. Thus, if kids are playing games that encourage crimes (and violent ones at that); if they are seeing films and hearing songs that encourage the same thing; then, what do we expect their environments to look like?

The current game that has captured the minds of American Youth is a game called “Fortnite.” In summary, its a violent, wasteland, every man for himself, type of game that connects a network of users to one battlefield, to build forts, to hideout, to even practice guerilla warefare, as if in a true anarchical wasteland.

We have yet to see what type of zeitgeist it will produce in a future generation. But if it’s anything like the Grand Theft Auto generation, then I think we have a lot to worry about. Aristotle, in his infinite wisdom, once said, somewhere along the lines, that the future of a society depends on the education and wisdom of its children. Is it wise to allow our “future” to virtually go to war? It could be. But I seriously doubt it.

But there is one thing we all know for sure: there is nothing like the real thing.

These shoes my feet hold
Done walked many roads
Are scuffed up, very old,
And carry with them many holes
From walking when it was hot
From walking when it was cold
These shoes my feet hold
No, they aren’t fancy or made of gold
These shoes have seen all terrain,
Concrete, and wood.
The walks they have had a wonder to behold
Take a walk in these shoes, one could,
But what’s a shoe without a sole?

Walker 2018

Life began in innocence
What’s wisdom, without experience?
Without knowledge, mind is delirious
What the spirit is, no one will remember this
Once upon a time didn’t exist
And before light was born there was an abyss
And so heaven reached out, and gave them a kiss,
And Death, out of jealousy, aimed at the heart its sorrow , but it missed
Love will cause a drift
Behold, Change! the big shift
You’d dare venture the edge, the steep cliff?
It may be living that they all dread
Not much of it to be done, but much of it to be said
Before opposites were wed,
Balance was dead
And from that void of instability,
Equality rose like bread
Oh mighty Sun, We praise the light ye shed
Mankind is the god that bled.
It was From himself that he fled
Only thought moves faster than light
Ones self is outta sight
And finding it is quite the plight
Trust, everything will be alright.

Walker 2018