AphroChic Magazine: Issue No. 12

Reference
cultures — the art, music, fashion, literature, rituals, traditions,
holidays and more — that our ancestors labored for centuries to
build in hostile lands and which we now carry forward? Or are
they as worthless as they’re made to sound — cheap knock-offs
cobbled together just to be cast aside for the genuine article?
if that heritage is truly something that we must purchase or
earn through service, or if our heritage is ours simply because it
is ours? Because if the latter, then no entity, not even Africa, has
the power to grant or deny it to us — and certainly not to hold it
out to us in trade.
Cash-for-Heritage
Perhaps it is because Harris’ Triadic Model so resembles
the specifically commercial “Triangular Trade” that Eric
Williams introduced in his 1944 classic Capitalism and Slavery
that the models presented here all envision the relationship
between Africa and Diaspora in such solidly economic (as
opposed to cultural or even political) terms — or perhaps it’s
just a coincidence. In Williams’ construction, enslaved Africans
were forced to work in New World agriculture to produce raw
materials. Those materials were then shipped to Europe to
become finished goods that were then sold back to European
colonies. Money from the sale of goods was then used to
purchase and enslave more Africans, and so on.
With so much of the history of the Diaspora bound to the
cruel exploitation of Black bodies as both labor and commodities,
it is understandably alarming to those descended from
Africans enslaved for centuries to know that they are regarded
on the one hand by the African Development Bank as “human
and investment capital,” while the African Union regards
Diaspora status as being contingent on our willingness and
ability to contribute to the development of the continent and
the African Union.
While Kilo posits the relationship unilaterally, with the
Diaspora strictly representing a resource for the Continent,
both the African Union and the African Diaspora Group present
it as an exchange — cash-for-heritage — in which contributions
to the Continent are repaid, either with membership in
the Diaspora, and by extension, Africa, or with the recovery of
culture. Both are tantamount to being granted access to one’s
heritage and culture. As before, it’s a position that invites
questions — ones, this time, that we must all, continental or diasporean,
ask ourselves.
Reflecting on Kilo’s statement, we must ask ourselves
if, after all this time, labor and commodities are still all that
the millions of descendants of the trans-Atlantic slave trade
represent to what is being held out as our ostensible homeland?
Or should any version of the relationship between the Diaspora
and the continent take into account the immeasurable amount
of cultural inspiration and intellectual support that has gone
both ways? And should the Diaspora be willing to enter into this
relationship when it is strictly tributary?
Responding to those who would barter with the Diaspora
for its African heritage, diasporeans must likewise ask ourselves
Questions and Non-Questions
None of this is to say that a strong relationship between
the many countries of the African continent and the rest of the
African Diaspora does not, or should not exist, or that that relationship
cannot or should not include financial support to the
continent from without. Moreover, the purpose of these queries
is not to suggest any sense of exploitative intent, ill will or bad
faith on the part of Africa or any governments, financial institutions
or individuals therein. The work of organizations like
the African Diaspora Group and the African Development Bank
is both laudable and vital. These are worthy goals, as suitable
a basis for international cooperation today as they were in the
days of Henry Sylvester Williams and W.E.B. DuBois.
What is in question however is how we choose to see these relationships,
the basis from which we construct them, and whether
they promote unity and shared benefit or offer yet another form of
division and exploitation. Do the constructs of the Diaspora-Continental
relationship presented in these examples truly value the
people, culture, history, contributions and full potential of the
African Diaspora, or are they simply perpetuating old cycles of exploitation?
Are we going to choose to see the cultures and people
of the Diaspora merely as children, derivatives and property of the
African continent, or do we recognize all African and Africa-descended
cultures as equals? And which version is most likely to
benefit all groups moving forward?
Africa (by Itself) Is Not the Answer
The danger of answering these questions incorrectly, or
of these constructions as they currently stand, is that they risk
putting us on sides — Africa and the Diaspora — which can
easily become Africa versus the Diaspora. It’s a situation that
doesn’t benefit any of us and yet it’s one that we already find
ourselves in too often, just as we find one part of the Diaspora
versus another, and almost always around some false notion of
hierarchy, authenticity or ownership.
Whether fully internalized or spurred on by outside
interests, it’s never anything more than an unwillingness to
value one another. As we continue to explore our relationships
and what they mean, and Diaspora continues to evolve, we must
learn to move beyond the notions of hierarchy, ownership and
commodification that are even now threatening to tear us apart.
So does the Diaspora “belong” to the Continent? Yes it does. But
the Continent must also belong to the Diaspora. AC
Guitar player in Puerto Rico by Christian Crocker
issue twelve 103