You flush out an excellent topic that deserves special consideration in light of the current thesis. When we talk about the Racial Hierarchy and everything that emanates from it, we are analyzing a Euro-American construct that incorporates group animus solely based on the feature of skin colour and nothing else. It is not based on ones ethnicity, not ones culture, not ones language, not ones religion or spirituality, nothing. Just skin colour.

Countries in Africa are just that … countries. No different than countries is Asia or Europe. Every country has its own dominant language, culture, ethnicity, governance, etc. Africa is a very big place. In terms of people, it is the most diverse continent on the planet. But the Racial Hierarchy puts all Black Africans and its descendants in the same basket. It does not distinguish according to the features previously mentioned. Anyone from anywhere on the continent could be captured and enslaved.

So when we talk about the Racial Hierarchy and group supremacy, we are talking about the creation of groups based on the color of ones skin and a determination of intellectual, cultural, religious and linguistic dominance as a sole function of skin colour. The language created to describe this social construct is “race” but this is not in the anthropological sense of race. The terminology is borrowed from the science of anthropology and demonized. It is pathologized in nature due to its reliance on inherent “racial animus” used to sustain colonial aristocratic wealth.

So this is what we are referencing when we talk about race as a social construct. It is a language that is exclusive to these dynamics.

In Africa, we do not apply a Racial Hierarchy to describe human atrocity that occurs on the continent. It is not “racial” in the Euro-American social construct sense of the word. It is tribalism. And this comes with features of human social pathology similar to the Racial Hierarchy minus the distinguishing factor of skin colour. The same occurs throughout Europe and Asia where groups of people with similar phenotype characteristics have, historically at least, attempted to assert dominance over others in the same region. Hence, we have different words used to describe these events; genocide, holocaust, ethnic cleansing, and other descriptions of mass atrocity.

With regard to the phenomenon of Black African and White African intersectionality, I think we should look at it this way: Imagine if American Indians managed to take back their homeland here in the United States. What would we call it? Indian supremacy? It seems that we would find a different language to describe that because it would have to take into account the historical antecedents leading up to the Indian repatriation. Similarly, Black Africans reclaiming the land of their ancestors taken away by the brutal force of European colonization does not fit into the Euro-American Racial Hierarchy ethos. Any form of repatriation is a different brew of dynamics inspired by the regions history.

So no, there can be no “Black supremacy in action” anywhere on the planet because the notion of a “Black supremacy” can only reference a Racial Hierarchy and this construct only exists within the confine of a Euro-American inspired monolithic mythology.