My concern is that “Africa” is constantly used by those who don’t see themselves as part of the unit out of laziness for any of the distinctions that exist within the continent. There are, of course, solid reasons to use the term at times, but when it’s repeatedly used to avoid caring about distinctions, or, worse yet, to not even acknowledge that any distinctions might exist between, say, Algeria and Namibia, there are problems. I can’t tell you how many people, for instance, warned me before coming to Malawi, to “watch out” because “Africa is a dangerous place” — in such constructions, the speaker doesn’t want to/can’t/won’t see distinctions, so anything they’ve read or seen about any country in Africa is attached to the continent as a meaningful overarching term that supposedly explains it all.

Yes, I agree completely that the nations of Africa are their own remnant of colonialism, so let me be clear / revise and say that it’s not that I want Malawi to hunker down and accept the borders that were given to it as natural, thereby turning to nationalism; rather, I’d like to see more reflection on the various identities that exist (whether those be “Malawian,” “Yao,” “Tumbuka,” or so forth). I realize, as I express in the post, that there are various very good reasons for those within the continent to engage in pan-Africanism, but I’d like to see more effort by media systems outside the continent to parse out distinctions, so that other, finer identity constructions and markers can also be adopted with pride.

Sure, we at times see the same with other continents (especially South America — or “Latin America” if the desire is to include everything south of the US border [while oddly excluding Belize and a few other non-Spanish/Portugese colonies]), but with nowhere near the frequency with which “Africa” is clumsily reduced to being a singular entity. And that’s where the “subjugated” comes in, since the term is so often used in constructions that belittle the continent’s billion people (“Africa is just a messed up place,” “Africans aren’t a rational people,” “Africa can’t get its act together,” etc.), and not just from everyday folk, but as part of institutions of power and supposed mouthpieces of Knowledge. Classic Orientalism, in other words.

The “trick,” then, is in clumsily creating a term that lumps a bunch of people into a group for one’s own convenience, and then using it enough that it takes on saliency for those in the newly constructed group. Creating identity for others, rather than letting them self-construct. I realize it’s not that simple, and the constraints of a blog post make it hard to tease out all the complexities, since I also realize that some “Africans” are now indeed self-constructing. Perhaps I missed it, though, but I see next to no examples in the American press of those self-constructions being privileged over the journalists’ or commentators’ own lazy, uninformed assumptions about what the game meant to “Africans.”

How is this a “trick” any more than any other large-group identity (national, regional, whatever)? And why should it necessarily have to do with “subjugation”? Would you say the same of an European identity (which is likewise assumed and denied depending on context)?

Whatever the limitations of various pan-African projects over the years, it’s rather stunning to hear the idea of African unity dismissed as a “discursive trap.” Especially when a “vigorous” nationalism is approved in its stead. Remember that Malawi is the legacy of a series of British protectorates, and thus no less a colonial invention than “Africa.” Not that it should matter at this juncture.