Race, color, ethnicity, nationality, whatever method you use to articulate it, is a social construct, but it is a very critical social construct because the basis of social relations on the planet today are defined in large part by it. In other words, race as a social construct has played and continues to play a very significant role in world economics e.g. who has stability and who doesn't. For those who doubt that, all you must do is study the history of banking and how it developed in the capitalist world and you would learn that the trans-Atlantic slave trade played a major role in developing the modern banking system (Google every major bank or insurance company e.g. Lloyds of London, Barclays, Wachovia, Merchantile, etc., and slavery and you will see these financial giants have all had to come out and admit in recent years that their industries started by investing in the buying and selling of African slaves). This is important to understand because who has economic stability determines who has power and who doesn't. These historical factors surrounding race are the central reasons why Europe, the U.S. occupied Palestine (Israel), etc., are the controllers of the world and the people's of Africa, the Americas, Asia, are not. Of course, this issue cannot be reduced simply to race, but I use race as a social construct here to make the argument that millions of people's fortunes today are decided based on who they are and much of that is defined by their race, national origin, color, etc. This is the reason why if you look at social relations in the U.S. for example, people who are born to parents of African and European descent are forced to acknowledge their African identity, even if society gives them no incentive to do so. For example, a white couple can adopt an African child and never talk to that child about race or expose them to anything related to African culture. Still, due to social relations in this country, there is a 99.9% chance that at some point in that child's development, they will become socially aware of race and that they are not the same as their parents. If we could create our own identities independent of historical circumstances this could not be the case. The reason why it is our reality is because that child's social experiences will play a significant role in defining his/her existence and those social experiences are shaped by that history just as your perception of the lion. So, in other words, you can see yourself as an apple all you want, but at some point, probably sooner than later, you will be confronted behind this and have no option than to respond to it. This is also true if you are an African. Not the African that represents "all of humanity as the birthplace of civilization." Not the African who may have been born in Africa geographically, but have no historical connection to Africa or her reality. Due to colonialism, there are many people who fall into the latter category. The actress Charlize Theron was born in Benoni, Azania, South Africa. The golfer Gary Player was born in Johannesburg, Azania, South Africa as examples.
So when you look at Theron, Player, and people defined as Black who are born in Africa or in other parts of the world like Europe, the Caribbean, the U.S., etc., the question is whether identity is simply the question of where you are born and/or is it defined by whatever factors you want it to be? Although I have no interest in taking anything away from anyone or stealing your creativity to define yourself as you see fit, I am arguing that there are some historical facts that cannot be ignored. Kwame Nkrumah addressed this in his landmark book "Class Struggle in Africa" when he said "Common territory, language and culture may in fact be present in a nation, but the existence of a nation does not necessarily imply the presence of all three. Common territory and language alone may form the basis of a nation. Similarly, common territory plus common culture may be the basis. In some cases, only one of the three applies. A state may exist on a multi-national basis. The community of economic life is the major feature within a nation, and it is the economy which holds together the people living in a territory. It is on this basis that the new Africans recognise themselves as potentially one nation, whose domination is the entire African continent." Nkrumah's statement reminds me of years ago when I visited Havana, Cuba. I was quickly able to integrate with the local people, despite very limited Spanish language skills. The Whites who accompanied me on the delegation who spoke fluent Spanish didn't have the same ability to integrate. When the issue came up at the end of our trip, I explained to them that the Africans, or Afro-Cubans as they are popularly known, who I befriended, and I, have the common history of being stolen from Africa and experiencing 500 years of slavery, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. We have the common experience of having our culture raped and our African identity denied us. As a result, our strong tie to Africa and each other and our burning desire to undue the injustices inflicted upon us are much stronger than simply the ability to speak the same colonial language. Of course, those people were unwilling to understand my point, but that didn't matter. We Africans understood it in spite of the language issues. We understood that we shared common cultural communication styles and practices. We shared common humor and perspectives. Due to the violent and shocking nature of slavery, we may have even shared blood lines and we understood that too despite the inability to speak verbally to it. So, the point here isn't to diminish Ms. Theron. I think she's an outstanding actress and I admire some of her anti-AIDs work in Southern Africa, but since identity is really more than where we are born it raises a lot of interesting questions. If Nkrumah states, identity is common history, culture, and experiences, regardless of where you are born, and the significance of those experiences to African people is that they connect us in ways that speak to the work we must do to undue the suffering we are experiencing, then maybe we should be looking at identity with an even more radical twist. Maybe being of African descent is really ill relevant. Maybe the question isn't where we came from, but where we are going. Maybe we should be saying we are of African Accent. Think about it. Here's an example. I was arguing with a brother from Ethiopia who lives here in the states. I entered his store and I was dressed in an African shirt. He asked me where I was born and I told him San Francisco. His response was "you are an African American." I retorted that no, I wasn't the African-American, he was. He looked at me with dismay. "I'm from Ethiopia!" I smiled at him and said "you may be from there, but everything you are doing now is about assimilating into this society. Your interests are in America now so you are actually an African-American. My interests are in the liberation and forward movement of the African continent so in spite of the fact I was born here, in spite of the fact I currently live here, my interests are connected to the African continent so unlike you, I'm an African living in America." He and I debated the issue, but he could say nothing to refute my logic. So, hopefully this all makes sense to you. Stop calling me African-American because that isn't my identity. America has spent the last 500 years trying to destroy me, my homeland, history, culture, and spirit. So I could never be an American. In fact, as rapper KRS-1 once stated ingeniously "African people calling themselves African-Americans is like Jewish people calling themselves Jewish-Hitlers." I'm an African in the U.S. fighting against U.S. imperialism. Charlize Theron became a U.S. citizen in 2009. If you are looking for an African-American, she, and people like her and the Ethiopian store owner - people unwittingly contributing to U.S. imperialism - they are the people who earn and qualify for that title.