What is wrong with Muhammad Ali and Kwame Kwei-Armah?
The reason why I have always felt very enthusiastic about publicising Booker T. Washington’s work is because of the foundation that he laid for Blacks in America in matters of Cultural Affirmation and political destiny in the Anglo-American world. In fact, Washington’s whole struggle was centred on the necessity to help non-White Americans understand that as long as the USA was an Anglo-Saxon establishment, they would be taking the risk of becoming sub-Anglo-Saxons and would remain mediocre in matters of achieving excellence in a world marked by the Anglo-Saxon culture if they gave in to anti-Anglo-Saxonism, unless they simply chose to go back to Africa to re-integrate their true cultures – the marks and the locations of which they had, unfortunately, already completely lost. This is, for example, the condition that the Jamaicans and many other Anglo-Saxon Caribbeans are suffering today – sub-Anglo-Saxonism –: the fact of depending on the Anglo-Saxon cultural expression without, yet, being recognised a full members of the Anglo-Saxon culture or full citizens of any proper Anglo-Saxon political structure and jurisdiction. Even the Liberians and the Sierra-Leonians, in West Africa, have not yet managed to fully be liberated from sub-Anglo-Saxonism. I was recently having a conversation with Jean Gilbert Enal, who is from the island of Martinique and who is so aware of similar issues in Martinique that he confessed to me how much he disagreed with those who fight for the independence of Martinique from France. “Martinique does not even have a culture, since there is no such thing as a proper historic Martinican language. The only thing that is spoken in Martinique is Creole – some form of broken French. But how can one expect to build one’s nation with a broken way of speaking someone else’s language?” he posed and went on “Or else, are we going to keep the French language after we get our independence? – In this case, what is the independence for? Sub-Frenchness? – I mean, if we had a proper historic culture and language, I would have nothing against the independence of Martinique. On the contrary, I would be the first one to stand for it. But, as things stand, I’d rather be French than sub-French!” It was exactly this type of pitiful cultural limbo that Washington did not want the American Negro to find himself in. Rather, he wanted him to be a full Anglo-Saxon, an entity capable of taking control of his destiny in his cultural and civilisational universe. This is why I regret the fast-running momentum of the present war on cultural assimilation in the Anglo-Saxon world as well as the rest of the Western world where non-Whites seem all very enthusiastic about cultural resilience; because I know the harm that it does to those who are carried by that deceptive wagon. The idea of cultural assimilation itself has even become some sort of heresy. Nowadays, trying to understand the call for cultural assimilation is unforgivably translated as a way to justify submission. It is now close to what it is like trying to understand the call for suicidal resistance: it is translated as a way to condone terrorism. Many anti-integrationists across North America, Britain and Europe are now rather keen on claiming that the old “melting pot” metaphor should give way to a new metaphor – the “salad bowl” metaphor – advocating, as they say, ‘the mixture of various ingredients that keep their individual characteristics.’ On this premise, they believe that ‘immigrant populations within the United States or within Britain should not be melted into a homogenous culture. Instead, they should be transforming their society into a truly multicultural mosaic.’ Fair enough. But even a ‘multicultured’ Anglo-Saxon is still an Anglo-Saxon of some type although he might be, at the same time, somehow different fromother types of Anglo-Saxon. Typical Aussies are quite different from typical Yankees, just the way typical Scoucers are quite different from typical Cockneys. But they all remain Anglo-Saxons, however still different from one another in aspects of their style – accent, tastes, manners etc. –; and if you want to be a typical ‘Brooklyn type,’ or a typical ‘Brixton type,’ or even a typical ‘Kingston type,’ you are still an Anglo-Saxon of some type within the Anglo-Saxon ‘salad bowl’. Not an African or an Egyptian. You might even change your name into Muhammad or into Kwame; but this will not turn you into an Arab or a Nzima of any type whatsoever. It will not turn you into an African. You will still be an Anglo-Saxon of some type, despite your delirious and fussy change of name. Source: New Book: “What is Wrong with Black People? – How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocentricity are joining with Colonialism to undermine Black Africa’s Cultural Integrity” (2007), by Joe Mintsa. For more info, please visit http://www.JoeMintsa.net