Henry Ford once said, “You can have any colour as long as it is black”. Similarly, native inhabitants of Africa say, “You can be an African in any colour as long as he is black.” There has been a sudden demand for an African to come in a variety of colours. During days of slavery when an African was a commodity traded over the counter, there was never a demand for him in any colour but black. There is now an attempt in the 21st century to redefine the colour scheme of an African. Whites want to be classified as African.
Whites have been relentless in their attempts at historical revisionism in respect of the definition of “African” since the 1994 democratic dispensation, and their efforts appeared to have intensified after the collective hoorah of reconciliation had dissipated. Historical revisionism is generally a legitimate re-evaluation of existing understanding and knowledge of particular historical aspects in order to correct any distortions; but there are also those with deliberate motives to revise history in order to mislead or reflect them in favourable light.
Historically, the term “African” never had any ambiguous meaning. To Africans today it still does not have any ambiguous meaning. Africans across the continent and in the diaspora have long understood its meaning to refer to them as black people. African leaders from all walks of life who waged a relentless struggle against the thuggery of colonialism in the continent, were of one mind with regard to who Africans were. The fight against colonialism was to liberate Africans from the thuggery visited upon them by Europeans who had arrogated to themselves the power to rule with brute force and dominate vast territories of the African continent.
When both Arabs and Europeans enslaved Africans and traded them as disposable commodities there was never any misunderstanding with regard to who Africans were. These were native inhabitants of Africa who were regarded as sub-human, and even “savages and barbarians”, as the British warlord Winston Churchill perceived them. These are people who in historical texts have been described as “African slaves”. Neither Arabs nor European slave-masters ever imagined themselves as Africans. When an order for an African slave arrived, it was clear that it was a commoditised black person who needed to be captured and a price put on his head.
On the occasion of Nelson Mandela’s inauguration as the first democratically elected president of the Republic of South Africa, he said: “The South Africa we have struggled for, in which all our people, be they African, coloured, Indian or white, regard themselves as citizens of one nation is at hand.”
Mandela, too, understood the true meaning of the term “African”. He knew that the term “African” referred to black people of this continent; that black South Africans were the Africans.
When Thabo Mbeki stood before the National Assembly on the adoption of the Constitution of South Africa and proclaimed himself an African during his seminal speech, he said: “I am formed of the migrants who left Europe to find a new home on our native land. Whatever their own actions, they remain still, part of me. In my veins courses the blood of the Malay slaves who came from the East. Their proud dignity informs my bearing, their culture a part of my essence. The stripes they bore on their bodies from the lash of the slave master are a reminder embossed on my consciousness of what should not be done.”
Mbeki recognised and acknowledged that other cultures and the acquired knowledge of the history of various races had shaped his being and person as an African. The speech has been misinterpreted for social expediency by some to mean that all who live on the continent are Africans.
“The African is conditioned, by cultural and social institutions of centuries, to a freedom of which Europe has little conception, and it is not in his nature to accept serfdom forever.” These are the words of Jomo Kenyatta, first president of Kenya, from the conclusion to his book Facing Mount Kenya in 1938. Kenyatta, too, does not appear to have suffered from the illusion that the term “African” referred to anybody else other than native inhabitants of Africa — the black people.
The rise of Pan-Africanism in the 1920s was a consequence of the need by African intellectuals to challenge white supremacy, to defeat the absurd notion that Africans were inferior to whites and to agitate the African diaspora towards unity with the rest of Africans. The fifth Pan-African Congress that was held in Manchester in 1945 was meant to galvanise Africans against colonial rule and promote self-pride among Africans.
It was in all probability this congress, which was attended by Kenyatta, WEB Du Bois, George Padmore, Kwame Nkrumah, among others, that set the wheels of decolonialisation of Africa and the British West Indies in motion. There was a determination of purpose and single-mindedness of who an African was within the context of Pan-Africanism. Progenitors of colonialisation and their descendants were never seen or imagined as African. They themselves did not imagine themselves as African.
Marcus Garvey famously agitated the conscience of the African diaspora when he advocated for the return of Africans to Africa. Garvey was not inviting the mass exodus of Europeans to Africa. Each understood that by African, Garvey was making an impassioned plea to black people to return home to Africa and rebuild it into what it should be for themselves. Ironically, Du Bois was one of those Africans in the diaspora who opposed Garvey’s plan for the return of all Africans to Africa; but in his old-age he relocated to Ghana on the invitation of Nkrumah, were he died.
Our historical revisionists who want to be reclassified as Africans and no longer as Europeans or white, tend to look north at Arab countries and claim, in their state of bewilderment, that Arabs are Africans, therefore, they too have the right to proclaim themselves African. Perhaps it is the lack of historical knowledge that leads some to conclude that Arabs are Africans. The term “Arab” denote the racial identity of people from the Arabian Peninsula who conquered Egypt (then part of the Byzantine Empire) and Libya in the AD 600s and ended up controlling much of the northern part of Africa, including Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. Therefore, Arabs are not Africans.
The historical revisionism by whites becomes even more troubled given the recent archaeological evidence that appear to challenge long-held view that Africa is the cradle of mankind. Palaeontologists have recently unearthed the oldest human fossil in China, which is said to be 60 000 years older than the next oldest Homo Sapiens remains. According to these palaeontologists, their discovery suggests that anatomically modern humans had arrived in China long before the species began acting human.
Popular theory among whites has been that their ancient ancestors came from Africa. However, palaeontologists after an analysis of more than 5 000 ancient teeth, concluded that first Europeans were from Asia, not Africa. This discovery reconciles with the discovery of the oldest human fossil in China, that whites have no direct ancestral lineage to Africa. Even when we disregard the pattern of migration of hominids from Africa to Europe and Asia; we can conclude that there was no species of mankind that evolved in Africa from hominids into whites, who then migrated and settled in Europe. The true origin of whites according to archaeology was elsewhere, not in Africa. Given this history, it would make much more sense for whites to want to be reclassified as Chinese.
While ancient and recent history confirms that whites are not Africans; the notion that they are persists, primarily born from the lack of distinction between racial and national identity. Europeans who migrated and settled Africa through naturalisation assumed the national identity of countries in which they adopted as their own. Their descendants in later generations through birth assumed the national identity of those countries, not the racial identity as Africans. They remained whites or Europeans, as oppressors of Africans saw themselves. No white person can either through birth or naturalisation assume an identity of African. African is not and has never been a national identity. Nowhere does a country called Africa exist.
Whites who had lived in South Africa for countless generations, now after many years of considering themselves Europeans during the apartheid years, proclaim themselves Africans. When white Afrikaner supremacists had signs saying “Europeans” and “Non-Europeans” to enforce segregation between Africans and Europeans, there was never any ambiguity around the term “European”. Almost all whites understood themselves to be Europeans, other than the few who stood on the side of Africans to fight for the abolishment of segregation laws and emancipation of the oppressed people.
It is puzzling that whites readily accept African languages to be exclusively those commonly known as black languages; yet they cannot accept that the description “African” exclusively refers to Black people. The notion that Afrikaans is an African language is as ridiculous as any claim to Africanism by the progeny of European settlers. Afrikaans by its origin is bastardised Dutch and as some say, “another form of Fanagalo”. It is not an African language in the same manner that Arabic-dialect in Egypt is not an African language.
If this historical revisionism is to continue, soon whites would find the racial identity as African not enough, and proclaim themselves “black” and accuse those who refuse to recognise them as such to be racist and intolerant. Hopefully sense will prevail with regard to the contested description of African and we would never reach such point of racial absurdity. I have generally understood whites in South Africa to be opposed to name-changes. They have lambasted the ANC when it embarked on a name-changing adventure. It seems a bit hypocritical of them that they want to change their racial description and assume a new identity. This quest for blackness can be readily achieved through simple process of sun-tanning; though perfect results cannot be guaranteed. There is an increased risk of turning orange than black, as Debora Patta has learned.
The need for belonging is well understood and appreciated. Africans embrace other races as their fellow countrymen, whether white, Indian or Chinese; in the hope for unity under one flag, for the betterment of the country we all live in and embrace as our own. Africa is for all who live in it, African, Indian, Chinese, Arab, etc. Perhaps Africans should embark on a countrywide hug-giving exercise to reassure their white compatriots that they too belong in Africa, in any colour but black.
Responses
Poor old soul…a confused old soul
You people (so-called white people), are a European RACE, with African nationality. All along you’ve happily called yourselves Europeans, what’s wrong now? My family’s living in Europe for 10-generations won’t make us European in terms of race. But it will make us European nationals. Dumbos.
I think this is a brilliant piece of writing. You comment that people seem to confuse nationality with race, and I think that’s certainly true of the people who’ve commented here. However, I’d definately not be comfortable calling a black Englishman ‘African’ over ‘European’. In London, my friendship circle includes representatives of every ‘major’ religion, which just goes to show how much BS there can be in sone post-colonial discussions. I think what you’re saying is important but at the same time I get annoyed when people seem to loose sight of the most important thing: human is human. If I’m in a house fire and a black man runs in to save my life, I’m not going to sat, “sorry, whites only” am I?? and vice versa. We’re all human and one day I hope that we’ll be able to live outside socially constructed ethnic and cultural boundaries. This obession with labels leaves mixed-race people in the lurch. And what about a white person who’s great granddad was black? or a black person who has a white ancestor? Or a white woman married to a black man — what happens to her identity, if the love of her life is African but she is not, and her children African but she is not? Labels are just labels; as reductive as they can be useful.
XhosaBoy – “White South Africans need to revisit their own history, because during apartheid terms such as “African” or “native” were commonly used to describe “blacks” in this country…why were the minority groups so silent then?”
I was 8 years old and parents told me one day I will understand why black people can’t use the same public toilets, beaches and crockery than me. I still don’t.
I’m sure I hate Verwoerd et al more than any black person could ever. Thanks to these “crazy baldheads”, I belong nowhere now.
Wow! Wow, thats all I have to say.
What an interesting read until I got here;
“Given this history, it would make much more sense for whites to want to be reclassified as Chinese.”
You are correct sir! And because Chinese people in South Africa are now considered black, It stands to reason that I am now an African!
Dear sir richard, your british empire were the tip of the sword regarding the creation of colonies.”Britain had commited to protecting itself and the indigenous people…” What BS! You came for gold greedy buggers, to enrich the pockets of the United Kingdom, you were the first of “slavemasters”, stop hiding you own agenda. Your history seems one-sided englishman. I saw the documentary of SA on the history channel aswell, looks nice from a bbc point of view.
To other readers, pardon me for being off-topic.
Sentletse I understand your perspective in and for the most part i do agree. I feel that being African is more than birth or generations.It’s also involves standing together. African at one point was a word used to describe discredit. So people to be African has to be earned and i feel majority of them that want to be regarded African have not earned it.
Cano what have you done to deserve the title “African” more than me? Please tell me
I am a white male and 31 years old and I will ALWAYS be an African! I was born here and raised here during the apartheid era. My parents never instilled in me the hatred that is associated with apartheid and I do not see myself seperate from any other human in this country of ours. I do not wish to claim my “African-ness” as it belongs to me and no politcian or publisher can take that away from me.
This classification nonsense is just another way we as humans seperate ourselves from each other as we do with class, religion and (as we have always done) with race. So lets rather focus (and maybe even write an article or two) on what unites us. . . what makes us the same (because we are) and then maybe we can all move on and make everyone else on this planet want to be an AFRICAN!!!!
Cano .. what does one have to do to “earn” being African. And why do you discuss being African as some kind of status symbol or privilege that only blacks can confer? Because SA hosted the World cup football and is now the subject of commercial Chinese interest? Are black (South)Africans now carrying on like black Zimbabweans? Getting jealous and possessive of something that would never have happened without the arrival of European or “white Africans”? Keep it real. You didn’t build SA to what it is today .. we all did and in that context we all have a right to call ourselves Africans.
Guys you don’t have prove to me that your African you have only yourselves to prove that point.
Sentletse, I only want to correct you usage of the term “black” because it really means nothing and does not tell you anything about the people who are “black”. If one were to read Genesis, one sees that Adam being given the power to name things. Through being given the power to name things, he was given dominion. There is a connection between naming and dominion, between naming and bringing into reality. When we permit another people to name and define us, we permit another people to gain dominion and control over us. The languages that people learn and speak are most frequently directly related to the power relations between them. Many people will now learn Japanese, as for a while they learned Russian, as for a while they learned German, Latin, etc. Why? Because the people who speak or spoke those languages were or are in ascendance or in power at that or this time. There is no “good” English or bad “English,” or”Good language,” or “bad language.; there is language that’s connected to power. People tend to learn first after their native tongue, whatever language language is spoken by the people, in power. There’s a connection between the capacity to have other people speak your language and to call things by the names you give them, and power. If we wish to assume power, then we must assume the capacity to name and define things..And if the only history we know is other peoples history,
..then our personality has been created by that history. To say that people African means that one can locate them geographically, culturally, through their customs, practices and languages. At present there are Nine African languages, and we must realize that we are not playing games here. Identity is very important, as is the idea that African people would dare to name themselves “Africans”. Whites recognize that as an incursion on their power of naming and an incursion on their power of domination. History is what creates a shared identity in a people. It is based on that shared identity that they act collectively. To take away a people’s history, to degrade their history is to degrade their sense of shared identity, is to remove the basis upon which they must behave collectively. That is why the history is re-written and why people get alarmed about it. When we become socially amnesic, we forget our location in time and space, because history is about locating one’s self in time and space. History is a grid, a set of coordinates that permit the individual to locate himself in reference to other points in the world. History is a mathematical concept, it is a geometrical concept; it locates and positions one relative to other things. African people know and recognize that a name is connected to social social role. A name is not just something you call people, but the name a people are called signifies their role. Africans know this.
YEP I am an Afrikaner South African African and proud of it!!! I am just as proud of the Zulu/Xhosa/Sotho etc South African African. Screaming for the Kenyan 7s rugby team at the Hong Kong competition with other Africans felt good. South Africa first then any other African country that is competing against a non African country. Have felt that way since I can remember!!!
My son-in-law’s parents is from mainland China but lived for 15 years in Malaysia and for the past 25 years in Australia. My son in law is 30 but of that he has lived 25 years in Australia. Is he now Chinese, Malaysian or Australian? WELL HE SAYS HE IS AN OZZIE THAT LOVES BEER, BBQ, OZZIE RULES FOOTY AND THE OZZIE PEOPLE AND WAY OF LIVE!!!!! (GETTING INTO RUGBY BECAUSE OF MY DAUGHTER). He says he is Australian because this is where his character was formed and is the country that he loves!!!!
SO THE SAME GOES FOR ALL PEOPLE IN AFRICA — PEOPLE MOVE FROM ACROSS THE WORLD TO SETTLE IN COUNTRIES IN AFRICA — NOT TO SEARCH FOR THE LIFESTYLE OF THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, BUT TO EMBRACE AFRICA AND BECOME AN AFRICAN — NO MATTER WHAT FLAVOUR OF AFRICAN THAT IS (SOUTH AFRICAN, NAMIBIAN, EGIPTION, ZULU, XHOSA, MASAI, AFRIKANER etc. — AS LONG AS IT IS A POSITIVE FLAVOUR).
But the reality is that in all flavours there will always be a few negative and rotten ones.
Your article is illogical, racist and definitely a troll – anyways, here is some troll food: you use the term “native” in your first para – I quote – “Similarly, native inhabitants of Africa say, “You can be an African in any colour as long as he is black.””
now, what is a native inhabitant of Africa? you will find – as below – that a native is one who was not foreign born.. so anyone of any colour, born in Africa. And you claim that they all say that Africans can only be black? Hayi Bhuti, wrong this time and every time. I was born in Africa and remain an African until I die and you cannot remove that privilege from me, no matter how many times you issue your racist incantations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native-born_citizen
firstly i would like to applaud Sentletse on writing such a thought provoking piece.
i found it highly entertaining reading ppls comments esp ones by ppl who found the need to hurl insults,you have only proven your limited vocab as well as a lack of understanding of the english language in which case we wouldnt expect you to fully grasp the essence of this piece.
Secondly i might not agree with everything that has been said by Sentletse however i do agree that we can not all call ourselves african. How convienent of us to all want to share the term African now when it holds so much weight on a global basis. When it ment walking around with ur id book and having separate seating areas we werent all so quick to be labeled that.
And no we are not saying we dnt appriciate the ppl who fought along with us for our freedom, but then again this piece is not about that is it. Its simply stating a fact WE ARE NOT ALL AFRICAN which ever way you look at it the man has a point. The problem lies with too many ppl being comfortable agreeing with whats socially acceptable or what doesnt ruffle ppls feathers.we have become to comfortable in our train of thinking!! Read and form a self generated opinion not what your being fed!
@Wendy,
“How convienent of us to all want to share the term African now when it holds so much weight on a global basis.”
What weight does being an African hold. The Chinese are not interested in “Africans” they are interested in exploiting them and getting their minerals.
Quite frankly I don’t understand why this insistance on being called “African”. Black Africans throughout the continents have little to be proud of. I’m happy to be a South African, I couldn’t care less what people think of my skin colour (white/pink).
@MF, I strongly suggest you read actual sources from the times. Go through newspapers, go through documents from the old Transvaal, Cape Colony, etc., and then look at the chain of events. This thread only exists in relation to this topic because it is not possible to say, as Lee O’Neill did, that the fact that the Boer War occurred shows that the Boers were fighting for “Africa” and therefore should be considered “Africans”. The strange thing is that the Cape Colony was light years ahead of either the Transvaal or the Orange Free-State in terms of the race franchise, etc. It was also self-governing. When I was growing up in SA, the National Party used the Boer War and Boer suffering to justify whatever they did (sound familiar?), changed names of towns, and, in 1937, introduced a law preventing people from changing surnames to make them “Afrikaans” surnames. They also introduced a law preventing immigration of people who would not contribute to Afrikanerdom. That included Africans. It is important to understand that the history of the Boer/Brit interface is complex (and I haven’t mentioned the German or Russian aspect as it is off-topic) as it fits into this topic. Had the Boers fought for indigenous peoples in the Boer War, that historical contribution might help to “Africanise” them. But they did not, and despised Britain for equalising (at least in terms of common-law) the races. And, by the way, I have relatives who
And, by the way, I have relatives who fought on the side of the Boers in that war.
Sentletse is right, the English noun ‘African’ does indeed mean ‘black person’. It is not, strictly, correct grammar but then, so is the use of ‘me’ in the nominative. Or, to put it another way, incorrect grammar, through popular parlance, has the tendency to become correct. Like the American billion that is now commonly accepted as a thousand million (it falls short of a proper billion by a factor of 1000) simply because there are more Americans than Engishmen.
@MoBear
i think its a little niave not to admit what the term african means in this day and age and i dnt think you honestly dont care or else you wouldnt be here making all these comments.
As for saying Black Africans have nothing to be proud of i personally think having fought and overcome being segregated by the old regime we have tons to be proud of unless you think that achievement was not worth the fight in which case would you prefer things left as they were more than 10yrs ago?
Lastley after reading all your comments you dont seem to have much of an opinion on the topic other than running loose on the page making all sorts of rude comments to ppl. I refuse to entertain you further as i have a feeling your next comment might just be as rude and more niave.
@Jacques: There is no such thing as “the American billion” or “the British billion.”
Look up the long scale and the short scale and you’ll find both values are correct.
What is interesting here is that your misconception about the word billion is common (in fact I used to also believe it) which in part backs your point. Incorrect information which is commonly accepted will often be taken as truth simply because it is common belief.
What this does not do is make the information any less incorrect. That many people only use the word African to mean black people doesn’t prevent non-blacks from being African.
Nor does incorrect grammar become correct by being popular. It remains incorrect. What it becomes is commonly accepted usage, despite being incorrect. These are not the same thing.
@Wendy: Sentletse did not say ‘we are not all African.’ He said ‘only black people are African.’ One statement is true, one is false.
Richard, what is an actual source from those times? Newspapers would obviously only tell one side of the story, but yes I did research on the anglo boere war from a variety of resources (diaries, docs, etc). Your previous comment regarding britain as a saviour is total rubish, you are right on 50% of your comment, britain had to protect itself allright by invading the ZAR for the gold found on the Witwatersrand, what if another country became too strong? Saving indigenous people? Did you know there were concentration camps for “indigenous” people as well? They were more horrified than those of the boer population (and you should know what our tally was). As for the “national party” using boer suffering excuses, just because you can speak afrikaans doesn’t mean you fought against the brits, we had more than enough traitors. There were a variety of nationalities and races involved on either side of the war. I live in this Great country today, I do not have a foreign passport and certainly don’t need to hear untrue negative comments regarding our history that would only break down this country’s morale. Its quite hard to believe you had relatives on the boer side, as you should know the war was for freedom and independence from british imperialism, brits those days thought of themselves superior above anyone else. As you will notice there is a british flag present on the country’s old one.
@MF, what you may or may not believe about my ancestry is irrelevant. Ad hominem statements don’t further anything. There is no quibbling about the fact that there were concentration camps for indigenous people, and that their conditions were improved less because there was less interest in them in Britain. As I said, it was a stop-start affair: after the passing of the Slave Trade Act in 1807 in London, and the final abolition of slavery in 1834 throughout the empire, Britain did indeed see its role to protect the indigenous people in its care. That does not mean that action was always taken to effect that; but that was the (idealistic) sentiment at the time. The Boers harrassed local indigenous tribes, and were regarded by those tribes as British subjects (which they were by law) and expected Britain to act. If a South Africa citizen today goes to Botswana and causes trouble, you had better believe the South African government would be expected to intervene, and take responsibility for its citizens. Noel Mostert’s “Frontiers” is excellent in explaining this. The tribes appealed to Britain to intervene on their behalf – why do you think Lesotho and Swaziland become British protectorates (the term is illustrative) – which it did. Once minerals were discovered, of course the game-plan changed in more ways than one. The Transvaal began to arm heavily (perhaps to protect itself in case, perhaps as a prelude to invading Natal and the Cape) and the eyes of
Russia and Germany were cast southwards. However, the merits of debating this migration and constant skirmishing with regard to this topic of African-ness is non-sensical, excepting for the interesting fact that the trekboers (as distinct from the Voortrekkers) frequently intermarried with local black and Khoi tribes, as you will know, and produced many offspring. This means that genetically the Afrikaners as a group are more African than other white groups in South Africa, since they carry the DNA of those miscegenated marriages. The only Anglo grouping in South Africa of similar ancestry I can think of are the Flynns in Natal. So, there we are, Afrikaners can claim to be partically African by race, as well as by habitation. It is important that one try to be objective. When I was schooled in National Party schools we were fed the most ridiculous rubbish about the country’s history (I remember some textbooks in the Transvaal even sympathised with Hitler’s take on things), and it took me a long time to sort out fact from propaganda. You need to examine and re-examine what you hold as true, something very hard to do in subjective human affairs. And if you have some special way of disbursing honours, a peerage would be much preferable to me than a knighthood. I think it has more market-value.
I am with you on this one Sentletse,to be born in China does not make one a Chineese. And besides,if the forms at Home Affairs classify blacks as Africans,then we are not all African,Black people are.
With the recent discovery of ‘modern human teeth’
estimated to be 400 000 years old in Israel,how much water does the out of Africa theory still hold?
Yo, I’m disappointed. Sentlese needs a holiday. Get out of your little world and out into the big cities around the world then try and apply your silly backward notions. You need some, how do I put this, perspective. And yes, I do take offense. This does nothing for nation building or moving us forward. It’s just hen-pecking around a few old grains left over from last winter.
Paul Barrett: The number one million has one set of 6 zeros, a billion two sets of 6 zeros and a trillion three sets of 6 zeros, much like bicycle and tricycle with regard to wheels.
Incorrect grammar does indeed become correct; if this had not been the case there would have been no difference between Greek and ancient Greek, Afrikaans would never have developed from Dutch, Dutch would never have developed out of German and German would never have developed out of whatever was spoken in Paradise. English would still have been the type of Dutch (I think) that was spoken before 1066. Maybe a simplistic analogy and historically not entirely correct but you catch my drift.
Back to Sentletse: The adjective ‘African’ in English, strictly speaking, means pertaining to Africa but, like so many words in English (maybe any language for that matter), the meaning only becomes clear in context. The word ‘African’ in ‘An African sunset’, or ‘African safari’ differs in meaning from same in ‘African art’ or ‘African music’. In the latter case ‘African’ can be replaced by ‘Black’.
Sentletse was correct in his article.
@Jacques – did you bother to look up the long and short scales? If not, then you aren’t in a position to comment on the value of a billion. Both values are correct, but the lower value is the one common in modern usage in English speaking coutnries, and not just in the US. There is not, and never has been, a US billion and a British billion (it was the French and Italians that originated the alternate value,) there have instead been two accepted values and one was expected to state which scale was being used to clarify.
I take your point about grammar. The original example was one of grammar still considered incorrect despite popular usage, so seemed to contradict your point. Your other examples now are more convincing, and I will concede that point.
Regarding the meaning of African, all you have done is reiterate that it does not have a single meaning, it depends on context, and hence not only blacks can be African – only blacks can be African within a limited context that does not encompass all meanings of the word, which is far from being the same thing. This was *not* what Sentletse was arguing (or if it was he did an exceptionally poor job.)
Sentletse remains incorrect. This will become clearer over the generations as cultures integrate – just as the American identity is not bound to being either native American (original inhabitants) or caucasian (generations long inhabitants now considered native.)
Your argument is not clever, its just pedantic and silly. You need to move on bud, get a new life and join the rest of us Africans slaving away to make SA a success story.
@Paul Barrett: OK Paul point taken (re ‘billion’). I got my information from a recreational mathematics book where the author stated that his book was going to use the English and European billion, ie 10 to the power of 12, and not the American. But I suppose the ‘long and short scales’ (what are those and where do I find them?) would be more authoritative than a book on recreational maths.
Regarding ‘African’ I admit I have not expressed myself clearly: The DEFAULT meaning is ‘Black’, especially in political discussions and only in context will the ‘pertaining to Africa’ meaning become clear. Other words that have met the same ‘fate’, as it were, ie acquired a new meaning in the last, say, 100 years, are ‘cool, gay, maid, queen, queer, boy, rock’ etc, I’m sure you can think of a few more.
What Sentletse infers is that, now, aD (after ‘democracy’), everybody wants to be African, it is the Politically Correct Thing to do now that the the country is under new management. It is contrived, ‘sucking up’ if you will.
I agree with you, Sentletse. To a point. Flaws run amok in your argument yet you’ve managaged to get people yacking. Good on you!
Jacques, growing up in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, billion was taken to mean million million. It was only with the widespread advent of television that the current value of thousand million (previously considered “American”) came to be the norm. Lots of values and spellings, etc., in South Africa, are now Americanised.
True, true…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17m8OnHC7dQ&feature
With this African I agree. I can never call myself a African but I will insist on being called a South African. I’m a white male. The verdict is still out about where we are “from” . MtDNA suggests no concludes we are from Africa. Other findings suggest we are all mixed up with various Homo Species. Do we or should we care NO! When we start treating each other as human then we’ll start getting it right. Science likes labels, your this , she’s that. We need to get out of that thought pattern.
Ha ha. Ignorant bullshit. Ever heard of the Berber people ? White africans for 10.000+ years. Ignorance and contempt breed racism you know.
I am a proud coloured South African woman. My forefathers have lived here for thousands of years. BUT I DONT WANT TO BE an AFRICAN.Look at Africa. There is nothing to be proud of.
This is the first time I have ever felt compelled to make use of internet slang/acronyms;
ROFL (rolling on the floor laughing)!!!
however, best sums up my reaction.
Thank you Mr Sentlese, for saying what had to be said AND, may I add, what a refreshing site it is seeing so many whites come forward, loudly proclaiming for their right to be called black (African).
I am black!!! and for that matter everyone living in africa is an african!!! sentletse we black people claim the african title and yet we still fight amongst ourselves ie: xenophobic attacks. all we need to do is to move on in building a better african continent!!! our lives should’nt be based on the past. we were not there so we cant carry our ancesters burddens #move on
This is a mudslide of tired. old, racist rubbish and ignorance of facts.
First, (Black) Africans, were as much involved in the African slave trade as Arabs and others.
Second you confuse social identity and nationality with skin colour – both naive and racist.
Maybe you think that all 250m non-native USA citizens should restore the continent to the original ‘redskins’ and go back to ‘countries of origin’ – England, Scotland, Germany, Norway, Japan, China, Poland, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Puerto Rico, etc. – and Africa?
You need to get out and travel the world some. There are hundreds of thousands of 2nd to 8th generation Americans, Europeans, etc. who are black negro. Just because they are black does not make them ‘African;’ nor would most consider themselves as, or want to be seen as, African – whatever ‘African’ actually means in Diakonyo’s muddled mind.
Does he mean Southern African? Countries and culture from Morocco to Egypt are on the continent of Africa but they are certainly not African. We know about them and their cultures, although some stretch back over 6000 years, because they left written languages and other artifacts, buildings and graves.
Where does D’s vision of his special ‘Africa’ come from? Does he know? / Does anyone?
One thing’s for certain – having a black skin and negroid features entitles no one to their ‘own’ exclusive space on the planet – any more than my white skin and European features entitle me to a…
the Greek word aphrike (Αφρική), meaning “without cold.” This was proposed by historian Leo Africanus (1488–1554), who suggested the Greek word phrike (φρίκη, meaning “cold and horror”), combined with the privative prefix “a-”, thus indicating a land free of cold and horror.
Massey, in 1881, derived an etymology from the Egyptian af-rui-ka, “to turn toward the opening of the Ka.” The Ka is the energetic double of every person and “opening of the Ka” refers to a womb or birthplace. Africa would be, for the Egyptians, “the birthplace.”[10]
yet another hypothesis was proposed by Michèle Fruyt in Revue de Philologie 50, 1976: 221–238, linking the Latin word with africus ‘south wind’, which would be of Umbrian origin and mean originally ‘rainy wind’.
The Irish female name Aifric is sometimes anglicised as Africa, but the given name is unrelated to the geonym.
source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa
Afri was a Latin name used to refer to the Carthaginians who dwelt in North Africa in modern-day Tunisia. Their name is usually connected with Phoenician afar, “dust”, but a 1981 hypothesis[6] has asserted that it stems from the Berber word ifri or ifran meaning “cave” and “caves”, in reference to cave dwellers.[7] Africa or Ifri or Afer[7] is the name of Banu Ifran from Algeria and Tripolitania (Berber Tribe of Yafran).[8]
Under Roman rule, Carthage became the capital of Africa Province, which also included the coastal part of modern Libya.[9] The Latin suffix “-ica” can sometimes be used to denote a land (e.g., in Celtica from Celtes, as used by Julius Caesar). The later Muslim kingdom of Ifriqiya, modern-day Tunisia, also preserved a form of the name.
Other etymological hypotheses that have been postulated for the ancient name “Africa”:
the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Ant. 1.15) asserted that it was named for Epher, grandson of Abraham according to Gen. 25:4, whose descendants, he claimed, had invaded Libya.
Latin word aprica (“sunny”) mentioned by Isidore of Seville in Etymologiae XIV.5.2.
source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa
This is all ridiculous! African does not mean black. I feel ashamed reading this.