Names are important to Afrikan=Black people of the continent and diaspora as, traditionally, one’s name is seen as playing a crucial role in the fulfillment (or lack thereof) of one’s life purpose. However, due to enslavement and neo-enslavement in the diaspora as well as colonialism and neo-colonialism on the continent, many Afrikan=Black people now give their children the names of their enslavers or colonial enemies. In this article, we utilize a comparative anthroponymic analysis making use of case studies from two institutions, namely, the Institute of African Studies (IAS)–University of Ghana at Legon and Abibitumi Kasa, with locations in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Accra, Ghana, in order to observe how some Afrikan=Black people adopt Eurasian names and/or reclaim Afrikan names, as well as the forms such names take. In our findings, we observe that in the case of names from Abibitumi Kasa, pulling largely from the diaspora, Afrikan=Black individuals tend to have names from all over the Afrikan world whereby the first name may be from one cultural-linguistic group while the surname is from another. There also may be a disparity whereby a preferred Afrikan=Black name may be different from one’s “legal” name, which may still be Eurasian. In the case of IAS, we find that names tend to be either from colonial enemies, a single Afrikan cultural-linguistic group, or a mixture of these two. In conclusion, we argue that these tendencies of the continent and the diaspora as represented by these two Afrikan=Black institutions may serve as a litmus test for understanding the current state of Pan-Afrikanism.

In 2013, the UK government settled a class action suit, which alleged that the British Colonial Government had subjected Kenyans to detainment, ill treatment and torture during the 1952–1960 ‘Kenya Emergency’. During the trial proceedings, the efforts of three expert historical witnesses for the prosecution – Caroline Elkins, David Anderson and Huw Bennett – led to the discovery of a cache of over 8,000 historical files from 36 former British colonies. The material contained within these documents suggested not only that Britain was aware of pervasive human rights abuses occurring throughout Kenya during the Emergency, but that the use of such violence was in fact endorsed and systematically regulated at the highest levels of the colonial administration. Drawing on Foucault’s conception of historical archives as ‘systems of discursivity’, and making use of the testimonies of the three experts, this article explores how the British Colonial Administration was able to dominate the discursive space surrounding Kenyan law and Mau Mau identity, allowing it both to justify the implementation of systemic violence throughout the Emergency, and to evade legal responsibility for these abuses at the time, and for decades afterward.

In 2016 Haiti, mentioned at the 1900 Pan-African Conference (at which the term pan-Africanism wascoined), applied to join the African Union but was denied. In that same year, Morocco, in which anestimated 219,700 people are currently held as ‘Abeed’ (a word meaning both slave and Black), wasaccepted as a full member. Using a variety of sources, we will examine the Haiti vs. Morocco treatmentat the hands of the AU as a manifestation of the ongoing struggle between the original Black Pan-Afrikanism and the modern-day counterfeit version also known colloquially as Continentalism, whichdisenfranchises Afrikan=Black people in favor of their white arab enslavers. The hijacking of the term“Pan-Africanism” has had lasting repercussions for Afrikan=Black people, some of which are only beingfelt today. In conclusion, we will offer solutions and a possible way forward for Afrikan=Black people whohave been disenfranchised in favor of arab invaders and colonists in North Afrika, where, to date, theyare still regarded as ‘Abeed’.