Evolution of African identity has bearing on name changes

A necessary debate has been raging in the Eastern Cape regarding colonial name changes.

Though initiated by the Eastern Cape provincial geographic names committee, for East London and Buffalo City Metro, the main motivation for name changes was set forth by executive mayor Xola Pakati.

To paraphrase him, he argues that the change of the colonial name of East London to its original name will restore dignity to the African people who, through the process of violent wars of dispossession and genocide, were forcefully subjugated to the violent rule of the British and later the Afrikaners.

As part of this process of annihilation of African communities, so goes his argument, the cultural identity of African people was destroyed through the imposition of colonial names such as East London on original African communities.

This reasoning by the mayor cannot be faulted by any selfrespecting pan-Africanist. We are Africans in Africa and we deserve our African identity without qualification. Our identity goes in tandem with the African soil, the trees, the rivers, the seas, the African sky and stars, the animals and all that defines us, as the original continent that gave birth to humanity as we know it today.

Therefore the makeup, the outlook, the culture and the names of African communities that reside in Africa fundamentally ought to, first and foremost, reflect this African cosmology, anthropology and epistemology.

Accordingly, we argue that we should be able to locate the debate of the changing of colonial names like East London within the broader vision of the African renaissance and also within the objective historical process of the evolution of the African identity.

Properly understood, the African renaissance has as its central goal the right of Africans to define their own future through an African-driven process of rebirth and renewal of Africa’s economies, political systems and cultural identity.

In this context, any discussion about the changing of colonial names should be able to pose the question: to what extent is the actual process of colonial name change contributing to the realisation of this central goal of the African renaissance?

Put differently, can we justify in real revenue terms that the expenditure on the process of colonial name change contributes in any significant way towards the realisation of the vision of the African renaissance as defined above?

Or is the process mere political symbolism with no real prospects, practically, to contribute to the vision of African renaissance? These and other questions are important if we are to demonstrate the actual economic, cultural and identity benefits that derive from the process of changing colonial names.

To only talk of tourism as a potential beneficiary to generate revenue for BCM is not enough, especially when this assertion is not based on scientific evidence.

In my view, it would be particularly essential that, as we change the colonial name East London to, let’s say eMonti, we align this process with the revitalisation of BCM’s economy along and within the globalising world and the fourth industrial revolution (4IR).

A process of changing a colonial name like East London should, of necessity, be accompanied by the opening up of, for instance, a big manufacturing company in the city to create job opportunities for local communities.

Also, and in partnership with local and international industrial actors, this process should be accompanied by the establishment of an innovation hub that seeks to harness the developmental benefits of the 4IR.

At a broad strategic level, BCM should, through this process, initiate and sign an economic partnership agreement with the British government on a plethora of economic initiatives, especially with the city of London.

This can be replicated with such other countries whose city names are found in BCM, like Berlin in Germany.

The assault on our identity as Africans by Britain came not only at the cost of human lives, but also at the cost of the development of Africa as a continent.

It therefore stands to reason that this economic partnership agreement is tailored to benefit more the renewed African city of eMonti as reparations for this historical injustice.

With our identity as Africans having evolved under conditions not of our own choosing, it is also important that we reclaim our dignity and identity by calling for a programme that campaigns for the cancellation of historical debt for Africa.

The continuing subjugation of African countries through historical debt does not only hamstring these African countries from evolving organically, but suppresses their potential to develop beyond the neocolonial paradigm.

That, in my view, is an example of a process of colonial name change that seeks to advance the vision of the African renaissance. We need to galvanise this process of colonial name change to ensure grass roots popular struggles for the renaissance of Africa.

For ordinary people to be aware of and participate in this historical call for African renaissance, they need to see its practical benefits, because people are not fighting so much for ideas as for gainful and decent employment, shelter, clean running water, education for their children and a sense of dignity and self-worth.

Therefore the process of the colonial name change presents us with an opportunity to bring the vision and benefits of the African renaissance closer to the people. We dare not squander this opportunity and fail the people.

A process of changing a colonial name like East London should, of necessity, be accompanied by the opening up of, for instance, a big manufacturing company in the city to create job opportunities for local communities