While walking across 125th street in New York City on a cold and sunny mid-winter day, I stopped in front of a vendor. He was in his late sixties, about five foot five, with dark-chocolate colored skin, and white peppercorn hair. The vendor was selling books related to the anthropology, ontology, and psychology of African people. Suddenly, as I looked at the books, he began to speak to me.
“How are you?” he asked with a southern accent.
“I’m good. Just looking at what you got,” I replied.
He quickly broke into a broad smile and said, “Take your time.”
However, I was not seeking to purchase anything. I rather wanted to ask him a question, so I asked, “Sir I have question for you.”
He looked at me obligingly and said, “Yes?”
“Is Louis Farrakhan Black?” I asked.
The vendor looked at me for a second, put his head down, and abruptly jerked his head to the side and answered without conviction, “Yeah, he’s Black.”
I widened my eyes and looked at him curiously.
“I mean in the USA he is,” he clarified.
“What do you mean by that? Isn’t African synonymous with Black? And African people have traits? Or am I missing something?” I inquired.
The vendor looked towards the ground and with a blank stare argued, “In the USA as long as someone has one drop of Black blood they are Black. I don’t agree with it, but a Brown person uniting with Black people isn’t a bad thing”.
I cautioned, “But doesn’t that devalue Africanness to consider Louis Farrakhan African?”
The elderly man suddenly looked at me exhausted. He replied in a conciliatory fashion, “No, he isn’t really Black. You are right but that’s how it is, and Farrakhan speaks for Black people when very few full blooded Blacks do.”
I smiled although I disagreed – gave him a dollar, and made my way home.
This conversation stayed with me for quite some time. Here I had spoken to a man who if placed in West Africa would be indistinguishable to the natives. Indeed, a man who admitted in a roundabout way that the One Drop Rule was scientifically invalid. Yet, he still clung to it despite how preposterous an idea it was.
When sitting down to write a political ideology for the African species, I made a clear decision to answer some questions I felt were either being ignored or deliberately obfuscated:
- Who is African?
- Why is it important to define the word?
- What are the responsibilities of African people towards one another?
- Who are African peoples’ historical enemies?
- How must African people organize against their historical enemies?
- Why are African people socially and politically backward?
I asked myself these questions so as to develop an approach to solve African oppression around the planet.
I also researched the behavior and cultures of non-Africans, the many subspecies of the African. Why were they somewhat successful at gaining a surface appearance of consensus within their groups regarding their group self-identification? What successful approaches did they take to arrive at these conclusions?
After researching and answering some of these questions, I came to the conclusion the paramount problem facing African people was their lack of adopting a biological, ethical, moral and cultural doctrine designed to emphasize African biological survival.
I noticed non-Africans had a general, although flawed in many cases, idea of who was part of their group. These definitions were based on primarily two factors: their subspecies type and cultural customs.
As Africans begin the 21 century, we need to ask ourselves, is the direction we are currently on ensuring our biological survival?
I have proposed African Centered Biological Nationalism; an ideology and approach encouraging a union based entirely on our shared phenotypical -genetic ancestral traits foremost, and secondly; the individual and group practice an adoption of life affirming ethical and moral doctrines amongst one another.
Delaying gratification is a cornerstone to being an African. It teaches a man or woman how to appreciate satisfaction, and how very few things should satisfy him or her.