The Harvard Journal of Negro Affairs

The second issue of the Harvard Journal of Negro Affairs is a collection of six stimulating essays on as many topics. In the introduction we are told that the Journal "was conceived originally as a voice for young Negroes and Africans in the Harvard Community," but that as the planning for the first issue progressed, it was decided to make the publication "a discussion among several groups."

Although some of the essays are imaginitively conceived and brilliantly executed, the tone of the collection rings more of individual dissertation than collective discussion. The essays have little in common except that they all study Negro and African problems in the U.S. and abroad.

The Journal succeeds, however, in its breadth of scope. The authors, who come from a wide variety of backgrounds and educational experiences, have written on topics ranging from Los Angeles to Rhodesia, from suicide to the symbolic meaning of a well-kept lawn, from a study of Negroes' reactions to Harvard to the origins of Pan-Africanism. Although a few of the articles are scholarly, the aim of the Journal does not seem to be erudition; it is a platform for under-represented opinions and theories.

The most interesting article, Pan Africanism and the White Man's Burden, was written by Aryee Quaye Armah who graduated from Harvard in 1963 and is presently studying at the Institute for African Studies, University of Ghana. Armah attempts to prove that Pan-Africanism is not simply a reaction to British colonialism, but rather is an outgrowth of it. Summarizing his thesis, Ahmah says "that the seeds of Pan-Africanism can be found in Britain's imperial ideology, and that it is through the working out of the (British) ideology that Pan-Africanism came to fruition."

Armah indulges in an over-simplified historical approach to describe the ideology of the "White Man's Burden." An unequal conflict is depicted between the Britisher, "arrogant, triumphant, an industrial success," who attributes his prosperity to "biological and moral superiority," and the African, who from 1828-1875 was "not only weak, but throughly demoralized and degraded by the slave trade."

Development towards Pan-Africanism is then split up into four stages. In the first stage Armah describes how the African intelligentsia lost its influence when local priests and chiefs were defeated by Christian Imperialists. In the second stage the intelligentsia was deeply influenced by a recognition of its own impotence and only acted in humble obedience to British superiority.

The third stage was marked by an increased demand for some kind of partnership with the colonial powers by the native intelligentsia. Local leaders joined with the feudal elite and the growing middle class in an effort to demonstrate their collective power. The United Gold Coast Convention was formed, but Nkrumah soon split away from the UGCC to form a mass movement called the Convention People's Party.

The fourth stage, according to Armah, saw political independence and "the end of British ideology as an effective focre." The Ghanians had accepted the premises of colonial rule and simply used its most favorable application. Thus within the framework of colonialism, the local leaders had maneuvered towards independence.

What is most striking about Armah's article is his ability to verbalize the subtle shift of power from the Colonial to the Pan-African. He demonstrates how the British were caught in a logical inconsistency whereby they accepted infinite perfectability for themselves, but denied that it applied to Africans. There had been a total reversal of roles: the British, once optimistic about their own capabilities, were forced to take a pessimistic view towards African potential, while the Africans outgrew their sense of inferiority and were now optimistic about the possibilities of Pan-African growth. For all his vague historical generalizations, Armah has come to some original conclusions about the origins of Pan-Africanism.

The second issue is definitely worth buying if simply for the quality of the individual essays. I only regret that the Journal was not dedicated to one specific question as seen from a number of different perspectives.