"Under American auspices and backing, three pan-African congresses have been held abroad for the discussion of common interests, colonial questions and the future cooperative development of Africa. In terms of the race question as a world problem the Negro mind has leapt, so to speak, upon the parapets of prejudice and extended its cramped horizons. In so doing it has linked up with the growing group consciousness of the dark-peoples and is gradually learning their common interests. As one of our writers has recently put it: 'It is imperative that we understand the white world in its relations to the nonwhite world.' As with the Jew, persecution is making the Negro international."

Okay this one's kind of a doozy. So hang in there, okay? Locke is basically arguing that all the injustices and brutality black people have had to face (i.e. slavery) have made them into "international" figures.

Why? Because the black man's suffering makes him that much more attuned to the plights of "dark-peoples" around the world. In other words, suffering creates sympathy and compassion for others. And this connection between African Americans and suffering the world over provides a foundation upon which "dark-peoples" of the world can unite.

How does pan-Africanism arise? For Locke, it's all about the pain. More specifically, shared pain—the collective suffering that comes from having dark skin.

That's what allows "the Negro" to "[extend] its cramped horizons." Of course, he doesn't mean he actually gets a bigger place to live; he's talking about how suffering can expand the mind. He thought it could give African Americans access to "the growing group consciousness of the dark peoples."

So, Pan-Africanism can only come about through a collective mind-meld among all the dark-skin peoples of the world—or, if you want the fancy term for this, the African diaspora. And that can only happen if the "Negro mind," having "leapt…upon the parapets of prejudice," understands how unjust his suffering has been.

But what's really interesting here is how Locke links the African American experience to that of Jewish people. Mind you, Locke is writing this before WWII and the Holocaust ever occurred. And yet Locke is acting like he's completely psychic.

It's like he already knows what the Jews will go through with the Holocaust and how afterwards, Jewish people will band together and create their new nation (Israel). Who would've thought that Pan-Africanism and Judaism could have so much common?

Notice how Locke refers to the "Negro mind" as if the "Negro mind" were a person? As in, "The Negro mind has leapt, so to speak, upon the parapets of prejudice and extended its cramped horizons." The lit term for what Locke is doing here is personification.

Personification is when a writer makes a thing act like a person. In this case though, the personification is pretty subtle. It's not a huge stretch to imagine that the "Negro mind" could represent the "Negro" himself.

Locke makes this rhetorical move here in order to emphasize his philosophical argument: Pan-Africanism can only work if the Negro has a meeting of the minds with all his other, international brothers.

You see? What Locke's doing in this passage isn't all that different from that thing that old, white dude Descartes once argued, "I think, therefore I am." Locke is more or less suggesting that for black people to be really free and empowered, they have to leave the idea of their bodies behind and think.

In other words, pan-Africanism isn't just about understanding shared pain. It's about thinking strategically and politically rather than reacting (thoughtlessly). Only then will the "Negro mind" become a full, "international," human being who is able to self-govern.

Fair enough, right? Who thinks it's a good idea not to bring your brain to the table when you're dealing with something as complex as international politics?

Let's pause a little, though. Is it even possible to separate the mind from the fact of the body? The easy answer is: of course not. Not unless you do something really gruesome and R-rated.

But philosophers have been trying to forget about the importance of the body and all its yucky reminders (like blood, pain, skin color) for ages. They've tried to overcome the very thing that houses the human brain. They've tried to transcend all the things the body represents—in Locke's case, the mindless black slave—in order to prove that they're "intelligent beings."

Hmm. We're not so convinced that we can leave the body behind. Or that we should. But you definitely can't argue with Locke's larger point: in order for a group to gain real power, it has to join forces with others.

Power in numbers, kiddos. Power in numbers.