Africa as a continent has experienced and still going through lot of negative, derogatory and dehumanizing experiences. This, in turn formed the basis of the identity crises that rock the continent. Some Western philosophers, historians, sociologist and so on are of the opinion that Africans do not have an identity nor history of their own; this is emboldened in the idea that Africa is not part of world history. This view may not necessarily be unconnected with the clash of culture (...) occasioned by the colonization of the continent of Africa by the Western world. Against this backdrop, the discourse examines what constitute African identity before the advent of colonialism. This is done to unravel the content and context of Africa(n) identity before the subjugation of the continent’s identity by the colonial master. This search, which seems to have formed the basis of the contemporary contention of the Africans’ diaspora wanting to know ifs they are truly Africans or a hybrid of different cultures remain the fulcrum of this discourse. In driving home the argument of the paper, different philosophies such as afrocentricity, afropolitanism, negritude, transnationalism as articulated by African scholars are reviewed with the aim of reconstructing the misconception and misrepresentation of the images alluded to Africa. Hence, using the analytical method of philosophical investigation, the paper project afrocentricity as a philosophy that is basic to the quest of identity in the African diaspora than afropolitanism. (shrink)

This article takes its inspiration from Jacques Derrida to consider how deconstructionism can be done inadvertently. This possibility is underscored when one considers how a very significant phrase in Ifá texts— “A díá fún...” has been construed away from its transliteration as “Ifá divination was performed for...” by each of Oluwole and Karenga. Oluwole justifies her “deconstruction” on the grounds that such transliteration does not capture the philosophic cogs gravid within Ifá verses. Karenga, through his Kawaida methodology, “improvises” to suit (...) the ethical inferences he seeks to deduce out of the corpus. On this showing, this research infers that each of these scholars have engaged in a reflective activity that passes, on Derrida’s reading, as deconstruction, unbeknownst to them. Would they admit that their intellectual drudgeries amount to postmodern philosophy? This is the primary research question that this disquisition interrogates. (shrink)