ACAS – Page 2 – Association of Concerned Africa Scholars

The Africa Initiative and Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University are pleased to announce a two-day symposium on October 29 and 30, on the theme of healing, reconciliation and reconstruction in Zimbabwe. This meeting brings together key figures from Africa and the United States to deliberate on the question of Zimbabwe’s future, the role of healing in socio-political reconstruction, and the role of democratic institutions and an informed citizenry in a peace process that goes beyond partisan proclivities.

Conference participants will include:
* MP Sekai Holland, Zimbabwean Minister for Healing and National Cohesion
* Gertrude Hambira, General Agriculture And Plantation Workers Union Of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ) ,
* Brian Raftopoulos, Distinguished historian, author of Becoming Zimbabwe: A History of Zimbabwe from the pre-colonial period to 2008, Weaver Press, Harare, 2009
* Machivenyika Mapuranga , Zimbabwean ambassador to the United States
* Elinor Sisulu, author of Walter and Albertina Sisulu: In Our Lifetime
* Mmatshilo Motsei, Author, The Kanga and the Kangaroo Court: Reflections of the Rape Trial of Jacob Zuma,
* Tawanda Mutasah, Lawyer, Human Rights activist
* Esau Mavindidze, Zimbabwean activist and organizer
* Horace Campbell, author, Reclaiming Zimbabwe: the Exhaustion of the patriarchal Model of Liberation

At the Africa Initiative, we are aware that under the articles of the Global Political Agreement, the members of both ZANU-PF and MDC are committed to promoting equality, national healing, cohesion and unity. It is challenging to work towards healing in a way that does not begin with a desire for revenge. In the words of Albert Einstein, “You cannot solve a problem by using the mindset that caused the problem in the first place.” Thus, we believe that healing and reconciliation are processes (not events), that arise out of new ways of societal thinking. While a legal basis for healing is impossible, a legal framework to protect people and institutions against future criminal acts and impunity is possible.

Consistent with Syracuse University’s on-going commitment to Scholarship in Action, we invite all members of the general public, the local community, and university students to attend this event. The Symposium will take place at the Herg Auditorium, on the Campus of Syracuse University in New York. It is co-sponsored by the Africa Initiative, Newhouse School of Public Communications, and the Department of African Studies, and Pan African Committee of New York

For further information contact
Africa Initiative
Syracuse University
orwamike@yahoo.com
nyasa09@syr.edu

Sep 26, 2009

by ACAS

in Announcements

Call for Nominations Bud Day Award: Due October 1

Each year, in memory of Warren Bud Day, ACAS honors activist scholarship on Africa with the Bud Day Award. The call for nominations is now open. ACAS asks its current members to submit names and brief bios to Frank Holmquist (fholmquist@hampshire.edu), the award committee chair. The 2009 award will be presented during the ACAS and African Studies Association meetings scheduled for November 19-22, 2009 in New Orleans.

The award honors activist work in the tradition of Bud Day, whose life work exemplifies a concerned activist scholar of Africa. Bud was committed to anti-racist activism, national liberation struggles, the global fight against war and militarism, ending U.S. destablization policies, and to bringing clean water, sanitation, and affordable health care to those in need. He worked in India, Bangladesh, and across Southern Africa, Central America, the Middle East, and the United States.

The recipient of the Bud Day Award should be an individual who is:

1) working in the U.S. for Africa/Africans
2) involved in ongoing work for Africa/Africans
3) doing work that spotlights a neglected group or problem or critical situation for Africa/Africans
4) doing work that relates to U.S.-Africa policy

Previous recipients of the Bud Day Award are:

2008: Prexy Nesbitt, a long-time activist for African liberation and progressive causes on the continent. He was and is an educator, writer, frequent speaker, and leader of activist organizations at the national and local levels. He was a catalyst of nation-wide agitation against apartheid and for divestment from South Africa. More recently he has been speaking on war and militarism issues. He has also worked for the World Council of Churches and the MacArthur Foundation.

2007: Imani Countess, who for more than two decades has promoted U.S. policies supporting sustainable development, economic equality, and participatory democracy in Africa. She has worked for a number of social justice organizations, including the American Friends Service Committee, Jubilee USA Network, Shared Interest, Africa Policy Information Center, and the Washington Office on Africa.

2006: Bill Minter, an ACAS Board member and editor of the AfricaFocus Bulletin, who has worked as an independent scholar and activist on Africa since the mid-1960s.

2005: Kassahun Checole, publisher and editor of Africa World Press and Red Sea Press. The press exemplifies the famous African proverb: *Until the lions have their historians, tales of hunting will always glorify the hunter.*

I am looking forward to receiving your nominations. Thank you.

Frank Holmquist
Professor of Politics
School of Social Science
Hampshire College
Amherst, MA 01002

Jun 02, 2009

by ACAS

in ACAS Review (Bulletin)

Comments (18)

AFRICOM and the Geopolitics of African Oil

On 1 October 2008, the new Africa Command (AFRICOM) officially became operational as America’s newest combatant command, with its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, to oversee U.S. military activities on the continent. Until the creation of AFRICOM, U.S.-African military relations was conducted through three different commands: the European Command, which had responsibility for most of the continent; the Central Command, which oversaw Egypt and the Horn of Africa region along with the Middle East and Central Asia; and the Pacific Command, which administered military ties with Madagascar and other islands in the Indian Ocean. This reflected the fact that Africa was chiefly viewed as a regional theater in the global Cold War, or as an adjunct to U.S.-European relations, or—as in the immediate post-Cold War period—as a region of little concern to the United States.

But since the late 1990s, Africa has become an increasingly important source of American oil imports. World oil production has peaked and, as production from older fields declines, there are only two parts of the world where significant new fields will come into production over the next 10-15 years: Central Asia and Africa. Africa now supplies more oil to the United States than the Middle East; it currently provides some 15-20% of total U.S. oil imports and is expected to provide at least 25% by 2015. In 2002, the Bush administration declared that access to Africa’s oil supplies would henceforth be defined as a “strategic national interest” of the United States. As a result, Africa’s status in U.S. national security policy and military affairs rose dramatically.

Administration officials have sought to portray AFRICOM as a demonstration of America’s commitment to help Africa and its benign intentions toward the continent. But the military officers who will run AFRICOM are under no illusions about the purposes of the new command. According to General William Ward and Vice Admiral Robert Moeller—the commander and deputy commander of AFRICOM respectively—the primary mission of AFRICOM are to protect access to oil and other resources, to make Africa a major front in the Global War on Terrorism, and to counter China’s growing economic and political involvement in Africa.

The creation of AFRICOM, thus, represents the globalization of the “Carter Doctrine,” the pledge made by President Carter in his final State of the Union Address in 1980 that the United States would use all necessary means “including the use of military force” to ensure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. This pledge has now been extended to the entire world, driving the growing U.S. military presence not only in Africa, but in South America, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia as well. It is important to recognize that the United States is not the only country that is responsible for the militarization of African oil production and that China, India, Russia, and other countries are also playing significant roles.

So, what will AFRICOM actually do to fulfill its mission? When AFRICOM became operational in October it took over the implementation of a wide range of ongoing military, security cooperation, and security assistance programs that have already led to a series of U.S. air raids on Somalia as well as the establishment of a new U.S. military base in Africa—located at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti—and a vastly enlarged U.S. naval presence, particularly in the oil-rich Gulf of Guinea. It will also manage the delivery of increasing quantities of U.S. arms to Africa and a host of new programs that have been created in recent years to provide weaponry and military training to African allies. Over the past seven years, the value of U.S. security assistance to Africa has risen from about $100 million each year to an annual level of approximately $800 million.

The Pentagon would like to avoid direct military intervention in Africa whenever possible, preferring to bolster the internal security capabilities of its African friends and to build up the military forces of key states that can act as surrogates for the United States. But it is also preparing for the day when a disruption of oil supplies or some other crisis will lead to further direct military intervention. Washington has substantially increased the size and frequency of U.S. military exercises in Africa and has negotiated agreements to guarantee that U.S. troops will be able to use local military bases in a number of African countries, including Algeria, Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Tunisia, Namibia, Sao Tome, Senegal, Uganda, and Zambia.

It is now up to the Obama administration to decide whether or not to follow the path marked out by the Bush administration—a strategy based on a determination to depend upon the use of military force in Africa and elsewhere to satisfy America’s continuing addiction to oil—or to chart a new path based on an international and multi-lateral partnership with African nations and with other countries that have a stake in the continent (including China and India) to promote sustainable economic development, democracy, and human rights in Africa and a new global energy order based on the use of clean, safe, and renewable resources.

Daniel Volman (dvolman@igc.org) is the Director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, DC, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars (www.concernedafricascholars.org). He is a specialist on U.S. military policy toward Africa and African security issues and has been conducting research and writing on these issues for more than thirty years.

From The Geopolitics of Petroleum ACAS Blog Series

Apr 20, 2009

by ACAS

in Announcements, Events

The Future of the South African Dream: Howard University, April 28

Africa Action, The Department of African Studies, Howard University, Department of Sociology, George Washington University, and TransAfrica Forum

PRESENTS

The Future of the South African Dream: Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma and the April 2009 Elections

Presentation and discussion featuring:

Mark Gevisser
One of South Africa’s foremost journalists. His latest book, Thabo Mbeki: the Dream Deferred, won the Sunday Times Alan Paton award in 2008. Palgrave Macmillan is publishing the American edition, which will be on sale at the discussion.

Sean Jacobs
Teaches African Studies and Communication Studies at the University of Michigan. He is a frequent commentator on South African affairs and is co-editor of Thabo Mbeki’s World: The Politics and Ideology of the South African President (2002).

Dr Ronald Walters
Professor of government and politics and director of the African American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland. He is one of the most prominent analysts on African American politics. He has a long record of involvement in South African issues, dating back to his activism in the anti-apartheid movement. Among his books are Pan Africanism in the African Diaspora (1993) and The Price of Reconciliation (2008).

Tuesday, April 28 2009

6:30PM – 8:30 PM

At Howard University, Ralph Bunche International Affairs Center
2218 Sixth Street NW. Washington, DC. 20059

Admission free – All are welcome!

Please confirm your attendance at outreach@africaaction.org; 2025467961

Mar 18, 2009

by ACAS

in Events

Africom Awareness Event in Berkeley

Association of Concerned, Africa Scholars (ACAS) & Priority Africa Network Present:

STOP AFRICOM
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
6:00 – 8:00 pm
At La Pena Cultural Center
3105 Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley

The new U.S. Military Command for Africa threatens to escalate the militarization of all aspects of U.S. policy towards Africa. Come learn what the Africa Command is all about, what’s at stake, and how we can stop it.
Multimedia presentations and speakers:

Daniel Volman, Director African Security Research Project (Washington D.C.)
&
Dr. Amina Mama, Nigerian Distinguished Professor of Ethnic Studies Mills College

Light snacks and refreshments available. This is a free event, open to the public.

Sponsoring organizations: Africa Action, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), Black Women Stirring the Waters, Global Exchange, Justice In Nigeria Now (JINN), KPFA Radio’s Africa Today, War Times, Women of Color Resource Center (WCRC), United for Peace & Justice (UFPJ) Bay Area, Vukani Mawethu Choir

*For tabling opportunities, contact Priority Africa Network at Tel: (510) 238 8080 ext. 309 or email us at PriorityAfrica@yahoo.com www.PriorityAfrica.org

Mar 16, 2009

by ACAS

in ACAS Review (Bulletin), Bulletin 82

Making Peace or Fueling War in Africa

Coauthored with William Minter

At the end of President Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony, civil rights leader Rev. Joseph Lowery invoked the hope of a day “when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors.” No one expects such a utopian vision to materialize any time soon. But both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have spoken eloquently of the need to emphasize diplomacy over a narrow military agenda. In her confirmation hearing, Clinton stressed the need for “smart power,” perhaps inadvertently echoing Obama’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq as a “dumb war.” Even top U.S. military officials, such as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, have warned against overly militarizing U.S. foreign policy.

In practice, such a shift in emphasis is certain to be inconsistent. At a global level, the most immediate challenge to the credibility of change in foreign policy is Afghanistan, where promised troop increases are given little chance of bringing stability and the country risks becoming Obama’s “Vietnam.” Africa policy is for the most part under the radar of public debate. But it also poses a clear choice for the new administration. Will de facto U.S. security policy toward the continent focus on anti-terrorism and access to natural resources and prioritize bilateral military relations with African countries? Or will the United States give priority to enhancing multilateral capacity to respond to Africa’s own urgent security needs?

If the first option is taken, it will undermine rather than advance both U.S. and African security. Taking the second option won’t be easy. There are no quick fixes. But U.S. security in fact requires that policymakers take a broader view of Africa’s security needs and a multilateral approach to addressing them.

The need for immediate action to promote peace in Africa is clear. While much of the continent is at peace, there are large areas of great violence and insecurity, most prominently centered on Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia. These crises require not only a continuing emphasis on diplomacy but also resources for peacemaking and peacekeeping. And yet the Bush administration has bequeathed the new president a new military command for Africa (the United States Africa Command, known as AFRICOM). Meanwhile, Washington has starved the United Nations and other multilateral institutions of resources, even while entrusting them with enormous peacekeeping responsibilities.

The government has presented AFRICOM as a cost-effective institutional restructuring and a benign program for supporting African governments in humanitarian as well as necessary security operations. In fact, it represents the institutionalization and increased funding for a model of bilateral military ties — a replay of the mistakes of the Cold War. This risks drawing the United States more deeply into conflicts, reinforcing links with repressive regimes, excusing human rights abuses, and frustrating rather than fostering sustainable multilateral peacemaking and peacekeeping. It will divert scarce budget resources, build resentment, and undercut the long-term interests of the United States.

Shaping a new U.S. security policy toward Africa requires more than just a modest tilt toward more active diplomacy. It also requires questioning this inherited security framework, and shaping an alternative framework that aligns U.S. and African security interests within a broader perspective of inclusive human security. In particular, it requires that the United States shift from a primarily bilateral and increasingly military approach to one that prioritizes joint action with both African and global partners.

Read the rest at Foreign Policy in Focus

Mar 13, 2009

by ACAS

in Announcements, Call for papers

Rwanda: Fifteen Years Post-Genocide: Peace Review Call for Essays

In light of the fifteenth anniversary of the 1994 Tutsi genocide, Peace Review is soliciting submissions for a special commemorative issue on post-genocide Rwanda. We invite scholars from all disciplines, NGO workers, activists, writers, refugees and survivors to consider issues related to post-genocide Rwanda that concomitantly, contribute to progressive work in peace and conflict studies.

Potential topics include:

* Processes of peace, conflict resolution or reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda (e.g., gacaca, ITRC, grassroots organizations, commemorative or cultural production etc.)

* The role of Rwanda in global discourse (e.g., in light of Darfur, Pan-Africanism, francophonie, human rights, revisionist, activist, ethical or media discourse etc.)

*Political, economic, social or cultural development in post-genocide Rwanda, and/or its attendant issues and problems (e.g., governmental, humanitarian or local organizations, and/or internal/external intervention etc.)

* Health and rehabilitation in post-genocide Rwanda (e.g., trauma, AIDS, gender or cultural medical issues etc.)

* Commemorative praxes post-genocide (e.g., memorials, transnational or indigenous projects, film/art/theater or cultural representations etc.)

* Post-genocide Rwanda in literary, cinematic, artistic or cultural production (e.g., novels, testimonials, films, documentaries, art exhibitions, theater productions etc.) and/or analysis of select texts or films about Rwanda through the lens of post-genocide.

* Analysis of key actors in Rwanda post-genocide (e.g., survivors, perpetrators, bystanders, returnees, refugees, NGOs, government, the West, France, Belgium, U.S.)

* Theoretical, narrative, comparative or cross-cultural approaches to post-atrocity, post-genocide, conflict resolution, reconciliation or rehabilitation in light of Rwanda

* Testimonials or reflections by survivors, witnesses, refugees, writers, journalists, activists or humanitarian workers

Please direct inquiries to Madelaine Hron (mhron_at_wlu.ca). Interested participants should submit essays (2500-3500 words) and 2-3 line bios to Madelaine Hron (mhron_at_wlu.ca) or Peace Review (peacereview@usfca.edu) no later than April 15, 2009.

Peace Review is a quarterly, multidisciplinary transnational journal of research and analysis focusing on the current issues and controversies that underlie the promotion of a more peaceful world.

Peace Review publishes essays on ideas and research in peace studies, broadly defined. Essays are relatively short (2500-3500) words, contain no footnotes or exhaustive bibliography, and are intended for a wide readership. The journal is most interested in the cultural and political issues surrounding conflicts occurring between nations and peoples. For more information on the journal and issues of style and formatting, see: http://www.usfca.edu/peacereview.

Feb 01, 2009

by ACAS

in ACAS Review (Bulletin), Bulletin 81

Draft Statement of Principles (1977)

This statement of principles is presented in draft form for the consideration of ACAS members.

‘We are a grouping of scholars interested in Africa and concerned with moving U.S. policy toward Africa in directions more sympathetic to African interests. For political and practical reasons, our emphasis for the foreseeable future will be on southern Africa.’

We are encouraged by the overall direction of events in southern Africa, but we remain skeptical of U.S. government intentions in the area. We remember the crusading rhetoric with which the U.S. began its intervention in Indochina and the liberal image of the Kennedy administration during the time that intervention was expanded. We both recall and continue to be conscious of U.S. overt and covert intervention in Angola, of U.S. assistance to support Morocco’s aid to Zaire, and of the legacy of U.S. and NATO support for Portugal in its former colonies. We note the de facto support provided for the system of white supremacy in South Africa by United States economic, military and nuclear ties.

The people of southern Africa have in recent years taken enormous strides in their struggles to liberate themselves. There is real danger, however, that the U.S. corporate and government involvement will hamper their full attainment of their goals. We as scholars have both the possibility of, and the responsibility for, preventing this danger from materializing. We particularly feel the need for emphasizing the long-term interests of the African and American peoples, and for clearly distinguishing these interests from those of the transnational corporations and the U.S. government.

WE WILL ACT:

1. To promote scholarly analysis and opinion vis-à-vis the process of national and international policy formulation.

2. To formulate and communicate alternatives to U.S. Africa policies to the peoples of the U.S. and Africa.

3. To develop a communication network among concerned African scholars in order to (a) mobilize support on important current issues; (b) provide local sponsors for public education programs; (c) stimulate research on policy-oriented issues and to disseminate findings; (d) to inform and update members on important international policy developments.

This new organization is not intended to be in competition with other groups and organizations working on southern Africa but rather complementary to them. There is an important and distinct role that scholars can play in terms of research and analysis.

The scholarly community is both a forum for substantial debate and a constituency for action. And scholars’ very position in their community permits them to add credibility and legitimacy to particular analyses and policy positions.

Why Scholars Ought to be More Directly Involved

As students of Africa, we have a responsibility to Africa. That responsibility requires that we be particularly sensitive to, and provide support for, African aspirations. Whatever our disciplines and areas of research interest, we ought by now to be clear about the nature and causes of injustice, oppression, and exploitation in southern Africa. We also ought to be clear that peoples throughout Africa give high priority to the ending of white rule in southern Africa. Since the U.S. government and corporations are contributing to the perpetuation of white domination and underdevelopment of Africa, we must act consciously to challenge them.

This is a critical time. In the current verbiage about the reassessment of U.S. policy toward southern Africa, there may be some potential for new directions, or at least an opening to challenge a reaffirmation of the long-standing commitment to neocolonial relationships. We need to organize and act while we can have most effect.

This is also a critical time because black South Africans have once again reminded us of the vitality of their struggle. Their actions have once again exposed as myths the notions of African acquiescence and of the invulnerability of apartheid. Zimbabweans and Namibians are on the verge of genuine independence. We need to do what we can to remove the obstacles to their liberation.

Though our vision is broad, we do not expect to be able, quickly and by ourselves, to change the nature of world capitalism, or to initiate an entirely new U.S. foreign policy, or to overcome centuries of underdevelopment and racism. We do believe that on specific issues, at particular moments, we can employ our knowledge to exercise a positive influence. And we think that neither those issues nor our influence is inconsequential.

The image of a humane, peaceful, and just world, however distant, haunts and strengthens us; it clarifies what we have in common with the peoples of Africa. To have an effect at all, we must organize our strengths.

Originally from ACAS Newsletter 1 (1977), p. 2.

Reprinted in ACAS Bulletin 81

Feb 01, 2009

by ACAS

in ACAS Review (Bulletin), Bulletin 81

Summary of the Founding Meeting of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars, Houston, Texas, November 3, 1977

The meeting was chaired by Prof. Edris Makward, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who introduced the two main speakers: Prof. Immanuel Wallerstein and Mr. Edgar Lockwood, who spoke concerning “American Scholars and the Political Economy of Southern Africa” and “The Carter Administration and Southern Africa an Overview,” respectively. (See summaries elsewhere in newsletter.) A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously to establish the Association of Concerned African Scholars (ACAS) as an organization to achieve the following goals:

1. To facilitate the articulation of scholarly analysis and opinion with the process of national and international policy formulation with special focus on the policy of the United States government.

2. To formulate and communicate alternatives to U.S. Africa policies to the peoples of the United States and Africa.

3. To develop a communication network among concerned Africanist scholars in order to (a) mobilize support on important current issues, (b) provide local sponsors for public education programs, (c) stimulate research on policy-oriented issues and to disseminate findings, and (d) to inform and update members on important international policy developments.

4. To coordinate activities with other national and local organizations in order to facilitate each other’s work and not to compete.

A motion was made to elect officers of ACAS for a period of one year, beginning with the completion of the officer slate at the New York Spring Meeting, 1978. Co-chairpersons were to be elected, one at this meeting and one at the Spring Meeting in New York. The offices and persons elected as the first co-officer in each case were:

Co-Chairperson: Prof. Immanuel Wallerstein, SUNY-Binghamton

Co-Chair, Committee for Research: Prof. Ann Seidman, U. Massachusetts

Co-Chair, Committee for Political Education and Action: Prof. Willard Johnson, MIT

Co-Chair, Committee for Membership: Prof. George Shepherd, Univ. of Denver

Co-Treasurer: Prof. Tom Shick, Vniv. of Wisconsin, Madison

Co-Newsletter Editor: Prof. Michael Bratton, Michigan State Univ., on behalf of a group of persons at MSU who are cooperating.

An interim organizing membership fee of $5 was established, pending establishing regular activities and annual dues. Approximately 80 persons paid this fee and joined at the end of the meeting.

We made two decisions right at the start. One was that we would call ourselves “Africa scholars” and not “Africanists.” It was a moment of sensitivity about terminology. And the second was that we wanted ACAS somehow to bridge the split between ASA and AHSA. The way we would do that was twofold: We would hold our meetings neither during an ASA meeting nor during an AHSA meeting but separate from both. And we would have co-chairs at every level, in order that we could draw one person linked with each of the two organizations.

We did this for several years. It didn’t really work. First of all, it was expensive and difficult to hold a separate meeting, and not too many people could come. So, after several years, when the hostility between ASA and AHSA had cooled down, we decided to meet during the ASA meetings, and have been doing that ever since. We continued to have co-chairs, but it lost the element of balancing ASA and AHSA.

For a long time, ACAS concentrated on the issue of the liberation of southern Africa, which seemed the right priority. But once all that was finally accomplished, ACAS had to rethink its role and its activities, which was difficult at first, but has now, I think, been done.

Originally from ACAS Newsletter 1 (1977), p. 2

Reprinted in ACAS Bulletin 81

Page 2 of 7123 4 5 6 7

Author: ACAS

Zimbabwe: Healing, Reconciliation and Reconstruction (Symposium)

Call for Nominations Bud Day Award: Due October 1

AFRICOM and the Geopolitics of African Oil

The Future of the South African Dream: Howard University, April 28

Africom Awareness Event in Berkeley

Further Reading on Zimbabwe

Making Peace or Fueling War in Africa

Coauthored with William Minter

Rwanda: Fifteen Years Post-Genocide: Peace Review Call for Essays

Draft Statement of Principles (1977)

Summary of the Founding Meeting of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars, Houston, Texas, November 3, 1977