Black Nationalism and African Nationalism are both movements that aim to liberate any oppressed or exploited peoples of African descent due to the unsatisfactory political movements of surrounding countries. Such political movements may include imperialism, neocolonialism, or capitalism.
A major difference between these two movements is the correlation to race. While Black Nationalism is anti-white, African Nationalism is thought to be anti-racist. Garvey, on Black Nationalism, takes a direct and unforgiving approach. His ideas openly attack any white oppressors and he seems amenable to using force in order to accelerate results.
On the other hand, Nkrumah's African Nationalism is non-violent, as his view is centered on Christianity. Like Garvey, Nkrumah is adamantly opposed to exploitation and repression. However, he can not accept Garvey's redemption approach because of the Christian values and morals that Nkrumah centers his philosophies around. Nkrumah points out that "along with colonial domination comes spiritual, cultural, and economic control" (p6). While Garvey simply rejects the idea of the oppressed accepting the ways of different "culture", Nkrumah recognizes that it is difficult for peoples to suddenly change their entire lifestyle. In my opinion, Nkrumah's African Nationalism offers more of a world-view than does Garvey's Black Nationalism.
3. In what ways does Towa agree/disagree with both Henry's and Hountoundji's views on religion in philosophy? (Or choose another point of contention to discuss).
It is interesting to contrast the metaphilosophies across philosophers themselves. Towa, Henry, and Hountoundji, while all well-known and highly respected authors, philosophers, and speakers, hold some drastically contrasting opinions as to what is included in the definition of philosophy. A primary debate is the role of religion in philosophy.
Towa argues that philosophy is secular.