You’re right. The more I think about it the more I’m also intrigued by the idea of meeting in family groups, especially if the family meetings include in-laws, cousins, gramps, etc. Or it could start with nuclear, then extend out to reach beyond the family box to the peer groups impervious to families; or failing that, coalitions of families might be merged. Whatever works. As Fanon suggested, much of these ideological/theoretical issues will develop and grow in and out of the process of action itself. Just thinking out loud, not trying to be “brilliant”; especially when I check out the brains on this list! My cursory count shows exactly nineteen! Enough to take over the world or cause it to take over itself. Fourteen persons, as I remember it from the mandatory high school course in Civics, signed on to the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. Jesus had only twelve against the world, down here on the ground, as his father was in Heaven . Nat Turner started with four, soon five, and had picked up something like seventy by the time the militia came. Of course, as the SCLC leader Rev Lowery said on t.v. when Nelson Mandela’s was visiting in this country and Lowery caught himself praising Mandela for violent struggle in South Africa: “of course we’re talking about love and nonviolence ourselves,” except maybe when I mentioned the in-laws. Come to think about it, some of these family meetings, with or without in-laws might better be held on neutral ground. And maybe that in itself, at the proper time, would work to move us beyond the clan, and the clique.
Finally, I’ve always said that we err in black unity efforts precisely because we strive to unify in a general way (from the outside in) instead of uniting from the inside out. As it is we have brothers talking about worldwide African unity and can’t even get along with the woman they say they love. And that goes for the woman too. So whatever works; we got work to do.