It seems like in the height of the movement, there was a strong sense that black Americans were a part of the African diaspora and there were sentiments that they shared a struggle. Figures like Marcus Garvey were influential and many African-Americans seemed to emphasize kinship with Africans and their descendants globally.
I noticed nowadays there is not as much of a focus on pan-Africanism -- now the African diasporas seem to focus more on home country issues (eg. including black Americans in the US) rather than seeking out global solidarity. Is this perception accurate? If so, why did pan-Africanism lose traction?
Very interesting question, friend. There's a good article on JSTOR I found recently which may shed some light on this.
Paul Tiyambe Zeleza, "Pan-Africanism and the Age of Obama: Challenges and Prospects" in The Black Scholar, Vol. 41, No. 2 (SUMMER 2011), pp. 34-44.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5816/blackscholar.41.2.0034.pdf?acceptTC=true
In case you don't have access to it, some pertinent quotes:
As pan-Africanism became more regionalized and nationalized and acquired state power or influence in the 1960s, it lost its transatlantic and global reach and revolutionary ambitions. Its primary thrust also shifted from struggles for cultural and political citizenship to struggles for social and economic empowerment, from humanistic to developmentalist discourses, from a preoccupation with the civilizational presence of Africa and its diasporas in the world concert of cultures to their geopolitical standing in the polarized world of the Cold War…Following the attainment of independence in Africa and civil rights in the diaspora, pan-Africanism faced serious challenges in terms of its material and moral anchoring as the new leaders turned inward to reap the fruits of their political victories at least for the political class. The rise of Obama to the American presidency might of course represent little more than African America’s equivalent of African decolonization, which will be followed by disappointment; the not yet uhuru syndrome that postcolonial and postapartheid Africa is so familiar with. Already, the honeymoon has ended for President Obama among some African and African American radicals and progressives.”
pp. 35, 40.
So as you can see, the success of Pan-Africanism ironically enough led to a shift in its focus. As Africans on both sides of the Atlantic won more rights and government representation, they found themselves encountering not only issues of citizenship but now social and economic problems, which were often very different from country to country. Thus, it's not surprising they turned inwards to an extent. Similarly, while peoples of African descent all over the world cheered the election of Obama, many also realized that he would serve American interests, which were not necessarily those of Africa, even if he was of African descent himself. Thus, the many differences between the people who make up the African Diaspora depending on their countries, in geopolitical terms, has posed a challenge for Pan-African ideology. Not necessarily an insurmountable one; the author notes that Pan-Africanism is still a vibrant intellectual force among many. It can explain why you see nowadays that the sort of Pan-Africanism we saw during, say, the Garvey era doesn't seem to be as prominent.