In spite of the many material contributions Ture and the PDG made to the African revolution, one of Ture's most significant contributions was his writings. In fact, his critical essays, speeches, and books on African unity and the development of political parties dedicated to Pan-Africanism form much of the basis of the Nkrumahist/Tureist ideology of the A-APRP today. One of those classic writings/speeches by Ture was his speech to the 6th Pan-African Congress in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in 1974. In that speech, Ture took the unpopular position of attacking the philosophy of "Negritude." Ture described Negritude as the concept of making African people a race or a people who are identified by our race, instead of a people defined by our history and culture, which are directly linked to Africa. I realize that some of you who call yourselves Black Nationalists are going to be as upset by reading this as many of those people were who were in attendance at that 6th Pan-African Congress meeting, but I encourage you to respond intellectually with science and not emotion. Ture makes the undeniable point in this speech that Negritude as a concept was developed during colonialism when it was important for us to unite as a people who were oppressed by colonialism wherever we were on the planet. Consequently, during that time, it makes sense that we would recognize ourselves as oppressed "Black" people, but Ture argues that this was always at best a temporary analysis based on the end of the colonial era which was mostly over with by the mid 1960s. His point is before, during, and after colonialism, we have always been and will always be African people and that "African" is a political definition based on our connection to Africa, not a racial designation. What do I mean by political definition? Ture provides a concrete example on page 197 when he talks about Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Both white men who have made unquestionable contributions to forward African progress. Ture discusses how Castro is fond of saying African blood flows through is veins and then Ture makes the point that why would any African reject Castro, who has done everything to advance Africa e.g. sending military troops to defend Africa, doctors to help cure Africa, providing safe spaces for African freedom fighters like Robert Williams and Assata Shakur. Ture further argues that whether we like it or not, people of Arab descent and yes - European descent - have for whatever historical reasons, some related to colonialism and some not, been a part of Africa for centuries. Now keep in mind that Ture is making his analysis based on his class perspective of the people's class versus the anti-people's class so he is talking specifically about people who make contributions towards Africa's forward progress. So, in the final essence, Ture is defining an "African" as someone who is dedicated to the forward movement and emancipation of Africa. This is going to be difficult for those of you who define an African based on the narrow parameters of biology or race. You will have a hard time seeing that Ture is arguing that we really have no commonality with one another because we look the same. When you see a "Black" person on the street you of course have to hope they are interested in African liberation. You have an obligation to work with them and help them grow to making that commitment, but the truth is their physical appearance has nothing to do with whether they are committed to being an African revolutionary or an agent for imperialism. This is the point Ture is making. Since the A-APRP has the ideology of Nkrumahism/Tureism, this is why we adopt the class/nation/gender analysis because we cannot just have a race analysis because if you understand the history of class struggle (which means you have to understand what class structure and status mean and how it operates) you know that there have always been "Black" people who worked on the side of our enemies. They did this not because they were confused. They made conscious decisions to work for the enemy because they had a class interest in doing so. For example, many "Black" people walk around today calling each-other "King" and "Queen." If we understand class history, there is no way a king or queen is going to represent the interests of the masses of people no more than it's possible for a slave master to represent the interests of the slave. So, class struggle isn't new. King Tut was not your friend and Barack Obama isn't either. No matter how cool they are and how proud looking at them makes you feel, these people are representatives of the ruling class. This is why literally millions of Africans have been killed and displaced under Obama's watch. AFRICACOM and structural readjustment from the International Monetary Fund have devastated Africa and opened it up for imperialist expansion and the destruction of the Libyan Jamihiriya and Muammar Qaddafi, led by Barack Obama, has set Africa back by unimaginable levels. These are the types of things Ture is talking about in his speech and many of you need to learn how to listen to this science. You would reject Qaddafi, because he was an Arab while ignoring his work to bring potable drinking water to the Sahara desert, a feat that was essential to liberating Africa. Now, all of that is gone in large part by your "Black" president. You would ignore the millions of dollars Qaddafi loaned to the Nation of Islam, an African in the U.S. organization. You would ignore the support Qaddafi gave to African liberation movements like the African National Congress (when they were engaged in armed struggle against the racist apartheid regime). Meanwhile, you same people who won't accept Qaddafi are telling us that our salvation is tied to supporting "Black" businesses who's entire business model is patterned after the capitalist corporations that have hijacked our people for the last 500 years. We are expected to support these people with no evidence that they have any consciousness or commitment to supporting our people's liberation, just because they look like us? You don't even respect our people enough to demand that these people make any type of commitment to us. The only thing that corrupt model has proven it can produce is entities like the so-called "Black Entertainment Network" which even when it was so-called "Black" owned produced nothing of value and substance for the African community. All it produced was profits for the people who owned it. What Ture is arguing is a conscious and healthy minded African people would see Qaddafi and Castro as brothers, not enemies. And, we would be looking with suspicion upon these so-called Africans who do nothing for our people except take our money for their overpriced products. But, in order to fully understand Ture's arguments you must see land as essential to liberation. To do this requires you to see Africa as primary because Africa is the only land we have any justifiable right to. This doesn't mean anyone has to move anywhere. We know many of you love this plantation. It does mean that we have to see Africa as central to our existence, wherever we are. If we see Africa in this way, then our basis for unity is the liberation and development of the African continent. We would understand that this development, under scientific socialist development, would meet the needs of our people worldwide the same way splitting us up and disbursing us all over the world has helped develop and maintain imperialism. If you understand all of this, then you understand the basis of revolutionary Pan-Africanism.
The final aspect of this is related to my latest novel. The 542 page literary fiction work entitled "The Courage Equation." There are some people, all of whom are too lazy to at least read the book first, who criticize the book because the main character is a White woman who moves from the U.S. to Africa and joins up with Africans to engage in a sincere fight to liberate Africa from imperialist domination. I've heard it all regarding this character - who's name is Boahinmaa - which is an Akan name meaning "one who has left her community." The name was given to her by the children of Ghana because of their acceptance of her sincere effort to respect and fit into their community. Some of what I'm hearing; I'm disrespecting African women. I'm justifying pursuing a White woman...Blah, blah, blah. Wrong on all counts. First, I'm a writer. A fiction writer. Maybe you have trouble writing your name coherently, but I am very capable and skilled at writing large volumes of content. I have plenty of imagination and the ability to comprehensively translate what's in my head to paper. I've written before on several occasions the reasons why I chose to write this book and series the way I have. Whether you believe it not is immaterial to me. The point is Sekou Ture provides the philosophical and practical basis to give context for why I my story isn't some sort of warp minded betrayal of my community, but instead is a very honest portrayal of what the real African world actually looks like, whether you see it or not. I know this doesn't play well for the Umar Johnson crowd. I saw his very miss-informed analysis of socialism in the Pan-African movement on Youtube. I have nothing against the brother or those who agree with him. I just wish he would get an organization and build it to work towards his very suspect definition of Pan-Africanism. I assert again that we are Nkrumahist/Tureists in pursuing one unified socialist Africa which we offer as the solution to our people's problems without apology. My book gives a solid foundation for how Africans should work together and how the people who are around us can play a role without upsetting our cultural basis. This is our reality, but we see this because we have a very clear and dedicated strategy for achieving Pan-Africanism. So, my point is following Ture's logic, Boahinmaa Omawale is more of an African than many of the so-called Black Nationalists running around here viewing our people as a means to an end while contributing very little to actually advance our people beyond vomiting old tired capitalist solutions disguised in black face.
I reread Ture's speech recently, after not having read it for quite some time. And after doing so, I'm re-energized. I'm ready now to do battle with those who attack my writing because my work in a smaller way, is making a solid contribution like Ture's work in a big way. So, although he's already there, I'm going to make sure Sekou Ture stays with me. When I'm talking about my book I'll think about how he must have felt in 1974, delivering this revolutionary message to many who were not ready to hear it. And, I'll think about his classic statements that "if the enemy isn't doing anything against you, then you aren't doing anything" and his statement to Malcolm X when the latter was visiting him in 1964; "you are doing good work to transform our people. We need dignity, not money, and our dignity is tied to Africa's liberation."