Pan-Africanism & Feminism (A comparative weave)

In a few of my previous musings, I have gone on (infamous) record, as one implacably contemptuous of the feminist cause.

I’d like to make an attempt at my redemption this time – by running a comparative examination, and evaluating feminism against the scoreboard of what many agree is a noble and just, if not justifiable, movement for affirmative action – namely, Pan Africanism.

While I won’t promise that this essay will provide conclusive resolution, and certainly not intellectual closure, to the matter – I hope that by attempting to examine two movements and ideas that (purport to) speak for sections of humanity’s disenfranchised, we may arrive at a commonality in them that marginally, if not far, exceeds their shared stereotype of rebellion against a less than savory status quo.

We’ll engage first gear by hazarding a few (sweeping) definitions of the two concepts, or at least appeal to essentialism, and label them on the basis of their most popular sloganeering.

Pan Africanism, since its inception by the fabled black-nationalist and nautical entrepreneur Marcus Garvey and his Back-to-Africa Movement, has heralded itself as a counter to the hegemony of white supremacy.

Probably in response to the twin evils of 18^th Century European colonialism and 16^th Century African slavery – Pan Africanism started out purely as a cause of, by and for black people, mostly  in the Diaspora, seeking to unite themselves against what was seen to be a common enemy in their Arab slave makers, white slave owners and European colonial masters.

After this initial, largely racialist and jingoist wave – with its rallying cry of ''An Africa for Africans! '' – Pan Africanism then went through a few ‘refining’ stages to embrace Arab North Africa in the heydays of African multiculturalism; owing principally to the efforts of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser first, and Libya’s Muammar El Gaddafi later on.

Today – despite a few frustrations and inter-racial skirmishes, it is not a surprise to find White Africans engaged in Pan African causes – many of them descendants of Portuguese, British and French settler communities.

Turning the definitional beam onto Feminism - one wouldn’t be wrong in saying that the Christian mythological account of the first human couple in Eden, itself plagiarized from sundry ancient creation myths, provides valuable insight into how feminism can be ontologically justified.

Eve, the mother of women – initially nothing more than a spoke in her husband’s rib-cage anthropomorphized for scullion duty; torches off feminism when she questions her husband’s loyalties to God and his instructions – and by extension, Adam’s intelligence (or lack thereof) in conforming to divine directive, minus query.

While ‘‘modern feminists’’ portray themselves as avant garde – the recent history of feminism, traceable to 20^th Century Industrial-age Britain, is rooted in a desire by women to share fairly in the fruits of Europe’s capitalist advance, through equal pay for equal work, and fair representation in labor unions.

For centuries – European women had been content in, or at least accepting of their legal inferiority;  an inability to inherit property because of prevalent primogeniture, inability to vote, give testimony in court, or even pass their names onto their children.

Some of these elements and gender-based exclusions, exist in ‘‘good’’  Islamic society to date.

Because marriages in European aristocracy, and later the commons, were primarily transactional – women were seen merely as an extension of their husband’s property; which is why they had to take on their husband’s names upon marriage.

''Modern'' Africans follow this tradition, thinking themselves civilized, because of Europe's colonial influence. 
(Pre-colonial Africa didn't have this level of nuptial 'proprietary' - and a married woman retained her maiden name.)

Down the years, feminism has gradually conquered more territory in its battle against what it considers its arch nemesis – Patriarchy.

Peopled by these ''newly vanquished lands'' are age-old cultural and religious practices; like polygamy, female circumcision, priesthood, bride price, property rights, and etcetera.

While it is debatable whether patriarchy is synonymous with male chauvinism – feminists seem unable, or at least unwilling, to draw any line of distinction.

Any effort by men to undertake social enterprise excepting female involvement, or deputation, is immediately objurgated as an attempt to ring-fence opportunity.

There are those, more cynical (or perhaps more knowledgeable) than myself, who view the modern feminist movement as a sinister Anglo-American ploy to destroy the sanctity of the African family – by portraying the African man as a beast, and the African woman as his victim.

I’m not too certain they appreciate the full extent of feminism’s modernizing impact on Indian, Arab and even European society itself.

If any sinister ploys are involved – they certainly cut across the continental and racial boards.

It may be necessary, if not simply humble, to admit that Pan Africanism and Feminism have much more in common than detractors of the latter, like me, often care to credit.

Both are arguably noble movements fighting for an end to oppression – and the dawn of a more egalitarian society in which none need suffer for their biology, or nature-endowed attributes.

Both are at their heart no different from the oppressed cry of India’s Dalits, otherwise called untouchables, who seem to have been deliberately created inferior to their neighbors and countrymen, as taught by Hindu theology.

At least the God (or gods) of Hinduism happen to be less pretentious than the Judaeo-Christian trinity; which starts off as exclusively Semitic, before conveniently availing itself for use as a tool in the world’s political-cum-spiritual unification.

If for naught else, Hinduism must receive credit for its honesty (albeit skewed) - and an internal consistency between preachment and praxis.

A little more on definitions:

Feminism has been cleverly and poignantly defined as ‘‘the basic idea that women too, are human beings …’’

Pan Africanism, in its manifestation as Black Consciousness, was comparably defined by Steve Biko in 1975 as - ‘‘an inward-looking process to pump life back into the black man, an empty shell … a man who had become a shadow of a man … to infuse him with pride and dignity …’’

From this - it follows that ''black feminism'' comes to us in a unique context, far removed from that of ''white feminism''. 

For, while the white female was understandably seeking her liberty from a white male (or male-centric society) who had never known the meaning of a collective and/or targeted oppression, but for centuries yoked and subjected the darker races of this planet, often with her approval and for hers and her children's ultimate pleasure - the irony with ''black feminism'' is that it represents a black woman seeking reprieve from a black man who himself has had to strive for his own freedom from the oppression of both the white man and woman - for the sake of not just himself, but his black woman and her black child as well.

But another distinction must be drawn - this time between persons and the super-structural systems which drive them. 

While for many years Pan Africanism identified its enemy as White Supremacy – it became easy to reduce this enemy to the White Man, in flesh.

In many ways, there are several zones of intersection between White Supremacy as a system, and the white race as human beings, but to accept this as a black-and white affair would be sophomoric.

Systems thrive, not through compartmentalization, but by involving - in almost equal measure - both oppressors and oppressed in their propagation.

For instance – it would be quite easy to destroy racism as a system if a good number of black or brown people didn’t really believe that they were inferior to the lighter shades of humanity.

In the same way – male chauvinism seems intractable, as a consequence keeping even the most extreme of feminists in business, because millions of women have been inculturated into accepting their innate inferiority, a phenomenon popularly dubbed internalized misogyny  (a fancy name for a non-fancy concept).

This is probably why in the most ''pious'' Islamist societies - elder women are the ones to be found most enthusiastically enforcing the wearing of the burqa, or early marriages for younger girls, vehemently denouncing ''Western Culture'' for attempting to rob the moral dignity of their daughters in an ill-conceived matronly pride.

In the few places such as Sebei in Uganda where female circumcision still occurs - the vast majority of ''surgeons'' are not men, but elderly women; who consider it their bounden duty to pass on this cultural gift of a truncated clitoris to their grand daughters. 

This isn't to exonerate the extremists from their iniquities.

The vanguards of white supremacism would rightly be expected to be white extremists; such as the Klu-Klux-Clan or the White Masonic Order in the United States; but after many years of oppression, black people too begin to become stewards of their own oppression, by accepting the role of what Malcolm X called House Negroes, or what the animated film, The Boondocks, dramatically characterized through Uncle Ruckus.

The failure to draw a margin between those two areas of manifestation is what may account for the perceived obsoleteness of Pan Africanism as a concept in the modern day.

With the demise of slavery, colonialism and white minority rule – modern Africans now see Pan Africanism as having long outlived its relevance, or outstayed its welcome.

This notwithstanding the acute oppression and proxy-colonialism the African masses currently suffer at the hands of their new masters – black Presidents and their parasitic governments, the black middle-class and black capitalists.

Feminism, unless it’s able to stem its sometimes misguided temptation to make male chauvinism synonymous with men, seems bound for a similar destiny, or even worse.

Like White Supremacy before it, male chauvinism too has become an entrenched system of social dysfunction – buttressed by religious teaching, economic capitalism and the media.

In the same way that white people are no longer (solely) responsible for White Supremacism, it isn't men responsible for male chauvinism – and neither group need be seen as the avatar of enmity.

In many historical movements, though grudgingly accepted as partners, many white people were instrumental in bringing about the downfall of African slavery and territorial colonialism.

Several willing men therefore, can also be readily enlisted in some of the (more reasonable) wars waged by feminists against the mutual threats of society.

It is wrong, if not untenable, to teach our daughters that it is our sons, and their brothers, who are responsible for their oppression.

And it is at this point that Pan Africanism, even in its moments of the blanket condemnation of white people as oppressors, may have an edge over Feminism in its broad-brushing incrimination of men.

For, while the races can sustainably live apart, the sexes cannot be seen to.

Physical segregation would, by some stretches of the imagination, be even of mutual benefit to the races – since each racial community is a complete social and biological unit in itself; and hardly requires the presence of others to self-perpetuate.

The experience of Australia’s aborigines, South Africa’s Bantu and Sudan’s black nations - lends bitter credence to the practicability of apartheid.

On the other hand, the isolation of men from women, within or across races, can only be a sure harbinger of doom and extinction for the society affected, or the human species as a whole.

Notorious ex-South African Premier P.W. Botha, perhaps apartheid’s least impious proponent, actually advocated the separation of black men working in townships and mines from their women in the ‘homelands’ – as a way of controlling and, it is suspected, eventually decimating the black population of that country.

The prolonged physical separation of black men-slaves from their women was a key component of the African slave experience in the Americas; to control breeding and essentially keep the slave population in check, as one would do for live-stock today.

Modern capitalism – as a marketplace for labor; especially in its industrial stages and with its convenient marriage to Christian monogamy, has also been accused of turning people simply into factors of production – keeping families apart and putting husbands and wives to exhausting work that leaves them too tired to think of procreation at day’s end.

In this critical area – one sees that Pan African sentiment significantly edges Feminism out of the picture, and that while both movements may rightly be called reactionary and divisive of the human family, Feminists have the shorter end of the stick.

After all, for millions of years before the advent of seafaring and maritime travel – the races (a contestable biological classification today) had lived apart and in relative bliss, despite absolute ignorance of each other’s existence.

A single generation of shipping all men to Mars and all women to Venus however, is sufficient to ensure the extinction of our entire species.

This immediate and direct risk of species-extirpation is probably what makes sanctioned homosexuality anathema to several of the world's more conservative quarters. 
Its critics feel that the phenomenon poses an existential threat to humanity -  in the event that it spreads unchecked within the wider populace.

So yes – while Pan Africanism (Pan Arabism, Pan Europeanism) and Feminism can be said to share the basic tenets of their inspiration – no two forks in the thoroughfare of human progress, could be more divergent.