In the heat of political movements such as the Black Lives Matter, Black Power + Garveyism, there has been a bit of butting of the heads of Black Activists, Scholars, and Students. We have yet to come to a common solution for Black Liberation, because of our different schools of philosophy.
All movements see the injustices of Afrakans; the economic and political disempowerment, disproportionate incarnation rates, uncivil and beastly murders, rapes, kidnapping and abuse done onto Afrakans by eurasians, as well as psychological, environmental and nutritional warfare. And yet, those who are extremely passionate and well read in studies revolving Afrakan Liberation, still cannot agree on just how Afrakans should truly attain freedom.
Generally, when speaking on Afrakan Liberation, the following techniques are introduced:
Though they are very similar, with the exception of traitorous techniques (integration and those techniques similar to it), there are key differences. Some techniques, however, are not new, as our Ancestors and Elders started the path many years ago. What is now needed, is throwing away what’s bad and keeping what’s good.
Separation vs Segregation
Definition of Separation (Webster Dictionary)
: the act of separating people or things or the state of being separated
Definition of Segregation (Webster Dictionary)
: the practice or policy of keeping people of different races, religions, etc., separate from each other
The difference between separation and segregation is that with separation, Afrakans and eurasians are completely away from each other, whether it being in their own communities, states, countries. With separation, there are clear borders, prohibiting those who are not part of the community to enter. This technique of liberation is considered radical and with that, not many are open to the idea of the complete and total power of their own, without the assimilation of others.
With segregation, people are divided politically, economically etc. Though it is proclaimed America was officially desegregated in 1965 with the removal of Jim Crow and signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Jim Crow still lives on not only in North America but applies to all Afrakans of the Diaspora.
Let’s say we are on a bus with Afrakans and eurasians. In segregation, Afrakans would be in the front of the bus, eurasians towards the back, or even perhaps on the floors of the bus. There is still contact with the opposition, but their political, economic and social endeavors are not assimilated. However, in separatism, Afrakans would be on their on the bus, as Eurasians would have to deal with their own means of transportation.
Reparation takes separatism a step further. The reparation technique is mostly known promoted by the Honorable Marcus Garvey and the UNIA. Reparation takes Afrikans back to Afraka to build their nations, which in theory would make the most sense. However, the opposing argument of reparation is the debate that Afrakans need not leave a land of which they are indigenous to and have sovereignty to, which both are true, but generally ruined with fanaticism. Hon. Marcus Garvey was known for staying “A strong man is strong everywhere” (Negro World, 1920). Garvey saw reparation being the best idea, where Afrakans should build their nations in an area where they are the majority, with their own natural resources, as well as the help of their own people. Though the Hon. Marcus Garvey was known for his “Back to Afraka Movement” philosophy, a phrase not made up by the UNIA, but by those who partially understood the goals of the UNIA, reparation was not a complete withdrawal of all Afrakans in the diaspora, but of those who can contribute the most to Afrakan nations.
Revolution vs Rebellion
Definition of Revolution (Webster Dictionary)
: the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one
Definition of Rebellion (Webster Dictionary)
: an effort by many people to change the government or leader of a country by the use of protest or violence
Revolution is a term that is misused and abused. There has been an uprise of the term revolution/ary, though it is nothing new in Afrakan studies. Revolutions have occurred all over the world for thousands of years, and contrary to popular belief, Afrakans participated in many revolutions. The most popular revolution is the Haitian Revolution, which deserves more recognition, as they successfully eradicated weak Eurasian colonizers to create their own nation, Ayiti (Haiti). Revolution is a complete and total change of a government. It is violently destroying the current government in place, and in turn, create a new government. Revolution is a necessary proponent of liberation, the majority if not all, nations received their nationhood by means of violence. Even the United States, who stole the land and resources of the indigenous people, used Revolution to successfully take over what they wanted. There is no such thing as a comfortable, safe, or non-violent Revolution. That is the difference between Revolution and rebellion.
Rebellions can be non-violent, where many rebellions are loud, yet peaceful protests, marching, petitions, and demands from those victims of injustices. On the other hand, there have been hundreds of successful violent rebellions, notably the Nat Turner Rebellion, however, with no planning to create a new system, rebellions are only the beginning. Without proper organization, rebellions will just be a time where there was resistance, where the current government can always jump back and continue their injustices. Now in Norway am I downplaying rebellions, because rebellions and riots are a great way to open the public to the disastrous acts of the government, but what happens after a rebellion?
The difference between the Haitian Revolution and the Nat Turner Rebellion is that a new government was put in place after the numerous amounts of rebellions in Haiti, and laws became more strict after the Great Turner’s rebellion.
Integration: Reformation, Conservation
I will not bother to explain the general concept of integration in where Afrakans see no wrong in their obvious disadvantages. However, there are differences between reformation and conversation, both forms of integration.
Both reformation and conservation see changes that need to be made but see it in different places.
Liberalism or reformation of capitalism is defined as the following:
Definition of Liberalism (Webster Dictionary)
: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.
Neoconservatism or conversation is defined as the following:
Definition of Neoconservatism (Webster Dictionary)
: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
An example of liberation in regards to Afrakan liberation is black capitalism, where Afrakans would continue the system of capitalism, but have it run by Afrakan politicians. In neoconservative, nothing has changed, other than the face of the government (such as having a so-called “Black president”). In reformation and conservation, Afrakans, although may seem politically liberated, are not necessarily protected from the horrendous acts of the government, because they only figureheads and not in charge of a new system.
In order to liberate the people of Afraka, it is imperative to completely remove the current system, which is white supremacy and make sure the system will never be put back in place. The only kind of government for an Afrakan people is an Afrakan-centered government; to be self-sufficient and in their own power. To keep a more placate reform or acceptance of any other has not worked and will not work.