To unpack the complexities of Africana resistance, particularly its most “radical” elements—whether expressed through collective or/and individual activities and thought, it is vital to identify and map the traditions that inform and challenge their praxis. To be clear, the processes of identification and mapping is to highlight points of continuity and discontinuity, in order to understand distortions to expressed objectives, particularly if those expressed objectives are justice, equality and freedom. Being so, let’s apply this perspective to Kwame Ture aka Stokely Carmichael. The 1967 Dialectics of Liberation Congress held in London, proved to be an important catalyst in the praxis of Kwame Ture. The Congress on the Dialectics of Liberation (for the Demystification of Violence) took place in London’s Roundhouse between the 15th and 30th July 1967, it was an attempt to ‘demystify human violence in all its forms, and the social systems from which it emanates, and to explore new forms of action.’ Ture (Carmichael at the time) contribution to the Dialectics of Liberation conference and elsewhere, were premised by his expressed purpose to expose the forms of oppression endemic to the institutionalized norms and practices of white, Western, or “advanced” nations. Unpacking the endemic violence inherent in racial capitalism and its fortification in Western institutions, Carmichael exposed the limits of white liberalism, which he characterizes as “sympathetic [to the cause of black struggle] in an empty sense,” missing the big picture of the institutional forms to which its adherents contribute, despite their “good intentions” (Stokely Speaks: From Black Power to Pan Africanism: 78-79). The importance of revisiting and deeply exploring this lecture from Kwame Ture in this period of being quote ‘woke’ unquote and the rampant and narrow postulation and self-congratulatory circles that posit that scholarship is in fact activism (i.e. write a book about history, not understanding or even unpacking the relevance of their ideas to the ‘now moment’ and in many cases not even reading the very people these scholars- activist are writing about today) is absolutely essential. The extreme danger in such individualistic, neoliberal sensibilities are: 1) they coopt and distort the range and foresight of the ideas presented, relegating them and subsequently binding them to a period. And the way time is understood in a Western context is antagonistic and debilitating to the way ‘time’ is understood in relation to space (physical mental and spiritual) as well as the power of the ‘word’ in an Africana context (we will deal with this in another program); 2) this framing ensures that future generations betray the instructions of those who come before are urge us to create another future through substantive engagement with the past. Knowing an event happened on a certain date does not necessitate an understanding. Nor does it consolidate into a movement. In short, it does something that one of our important thinkers, Tom Porter, always reminds us of: it is the Negation of the Negation. Moving unconscious to conscious is an intentional, protracted, collective process that requires 1) (collective) study; 2) (collective) deep thinking; 3) (collective) engagement/application; for collective 4) refinement/evolution/correction. More important it provides accountability and serves as a mechanism of self and collective critique. Study, thought, and action must always equate to collective progress. These factors are exemplified through the praxis of Kwame Ture.