{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02897473997028232, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007429420505200594, 'mean_word_length': 5.207373271889401, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The limitations of language and nationality as prime markers of African Diaspora identities in the State of Victoria1

This paper suggests that African migrants in Australia are often seen as a homogenous group of people with very little if any difference among them. The popular line of thinking about who Africans are appears to go like this: because they all look alike (by virtue of the colour of their skin), originate from the same continent (Africa) and are presumed to be speakers of perceived ‘standard’ African languages, then their behaviours, their needs, their attitudes and the things they are capable of doing (or not capable of doing) are the same. Language and country of origin are the two major taxonomies often used to classify different groups of African communities in Australia. The premise of this paper is that defining African identities in terms language and country of origin is defective in the sense that it is mimicry of identity categories invented by colonial and postcolonial regimes in Africa. Such generic terms as ‘African migrants’, ‘Sudanese refugees’, ‘Ethiopian community’, ‘Amharic community’, ‘Swahili speakers’, ‘Dinka community’, etc., are not exhaustive and precise enough because they overshadow more salient micro‐level forms of diversity within what are presumed to be homogenous groups of people.