3+4 = 5+2 = 6+1 = 7 ...True
But then, at the unitary level the same sums actually represent :
(1+1+1)+(1+1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1)+(1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)+(1) = 1+1+1+1+1+1+1

At the beginning, I asked if African liberation was one thing or many things. It could be said that it is one thing made up from many things, but if this is so, if it is a collection of various things, then there must be an underlying principle that all these things have in common. There must be one thing that is unchanging in all of them, because in all creation, wherever different things come from one root, that one thing that permeates differences is the only reason why they are overstood as coming from that one root. What do Africans have in common and how can that one thing be elevated above all else? Should'nt that one thing be elevated above all else? I ask because I think that without this being done, there will never be a real overstanding (at all levels) of what we need to do to survive and prosper as a species.

I also asked if there should be certain icepts that should be placed beyond argument. Any one with a knowledge of current history will know that if Africans were to decide on doing this, we would not be the first. The Chinese people, (most effectively when) under the leadership of the communist party, decided that they would become united and freed from foreign influence and interference. The effects of that decision is apparent today in China itself (and also in Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Chinese diaspora). We must not mis-overstand the noises about China's threat to Taiwan, the Chinese people in Taiwan see themselves as Chinese first and non-communists second. Any conflict between them will be on the basis of ruling ideology, it will not be based around arguments on the level of what it means to be Chinese or what it means to exist with dignity on the Earth.

It may be recommended that we stay flexible, but then again, the opposite (i.e. inflexibility) may be the consensus. However, either way would be a mistake. What is flexible has it's uses. There are circumstances during which the best tool is the flexible object. Then, there are other circumstances when the inflexible object is the most effective tool. The key word here is 'tool' as anything with predictable cycles, moods, or capabilities can be used as a tool. What is hard to use is the thing whose nature changes arbitrarily (according to the outside observer).

What is reasonable to me may look unreasonable to one who is not in my shoes. So, do I tailor my stride to the length of my legs or do I hurry up/slow down in order that I may march in step with one whose destination is different from mine? We must, I think, be flexible and inflexible. Which ever one suits OUR interest at a specific time.

I appreciate the responses recieved so far, these are questions that have challenged me.