Yup, I see agreement ...
though, of course, you come with a Nigerian slant; I come with an American slant; and our rhetoric may sometimes clash (or at least grate) for that reason.
IMO (to the end of post): African-American "engagement" with the African continent is very much the same as American "engagement" with the African continent. Whether a politician's desire for engagement is or was genuine requires knowing the politician. In the case of, say, John Conyers, George Crockett and Dennis Archer, I'd bet on genuineness; though each of them is or was admittedly far more knowledgeable and involved with American domestic issues. As to others I don't really know, I can only go on the record they've made - which often is conflicting.
In any event, in my perception, both American and African-American "engagements with Africa" are usually more rhetorical than anything else. If "a call to action" results in action, the resultant proxy action reminds everyone of the Cold War, neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism; and, to my perception, those proxy actions haven't gained much for the US. Most often, the rhetoric "speaks loudly" without a "big stick" (often without any stick). Better to speak not at all, than to speak against genocide and then do nothing about it; or, more frankly, better to directly state that we are going to do nothing about it, and take the heat for that honest statement.
End rant.
Regards
Mike
Bookmarks