Skip to main content

I'm sad to say that I've found out that Garvey was a colonist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Garvey

quote:
Convinced that blacks should have a permanent homeland in Africa, Garvey's movement sought to develop Liberia. In response to suggestions he wanted to take all Americans of African ancestry back to Africa he said, "I have no desire to take all black people back to Africa, there are blacks who are no good here and will likewise be no good there." He further reasoned, "our success educationally, industrially and politically is based upon the protection of a nation founded by ourselves. And the nation can be nowhere else but in Africa." The Liberia program, launched in 1920, was intended to build colleges, universities, industrial plants and railroads as part of an industrial base from which to operate, but was abandoned in the mid 1920s after much opposition from European powers with interests in Liberia.


He believed that African-Americans should move back to Africa as a New African Elite in a free state such as Liberia. His beliefs basically translated to African-Americans coming to Africa and ruling (even against the will of the Natives).

http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol24no3/liberia.html

quote:

The U.S. has had a quasi-colonial relationship with Liberia since the latter's birth in 1822 as a home for former slaves shipped to Africa by the American Colonization Society. The slaveholders who made up a large part of this society were motivated by fear that free Blacks in the U.S. could provide an inspiration to revolt.

Tension developed between the Americo-Liberians and the much more numerous indigenous Africans, who resisted the new immigrants in vain. The former slaves, who engaged in slave-trading themselves once in Liberia, came to dominate the country's political and economic life, while the latter (95 percent of the current population) were subsistence farmers or miners.

The new elite also provided forced labor at horrifically low wages for Firestone, which operated Liberia essentially as its own fiefdom from 1926, when the company established the world's largest rubber plantation there, to the early 1950s. Firestone demanded that Liberia accept an onerous loan to use for building railways and roads and improving Monrovia's harbor, setting the country on an ongoing course of steep indebtedness.

Power and wealth has remained disproportionately in the hands of the Americo-Liberians, although some democratization took place during the reign of President William Tubman from 1944 to 1971. Tubman oversaw increased foreign exploitation of resources, and also provided major help to the U.S. in waging the Cold War.

His successor, William Tolbert, promoted reforms, including universal suffrage and expanded educational opportunities, and permitted the partial rise of political activism and workers' organizations. Tolbert, however, was assassinated in the wake of riots protesting the rising price of rice, the basic staple, and suppression of dissidents.

Although indigenous Liberians initially embraced the new president Samuel Doe, his corruption and extreme brutality against ethnic groups other than his own came to alienate the public and profoundly divide the country. Thanks to increases in military and other aid from the U.S. under Ronald Reagan, however, Doe stayed in power.

With the waning of the Cold War, though, the U.S. cut back aid to Liberia. The economy deteriorated, civil strife escalated into civil war, and Doe was executed in 1990.



Some of his philosophy took pages almost directly from Western racial purism:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Garvey

quote:
Around 1921 Marcus Garvey's nationalism and life history led him to proclaim a belief in "racial purity." He admired the efforts toward independence of whites in Ireland, so it was not a racist idea in the traditional sense. Instead he feared encouragement of miscegenation would disadvantage those who did not or were not mixed. Still this led him to a controversial praise of Warren G. Harding's speech against miscegenation and discussion that races might be better off separate with largely separate destinies. For not entirely unrelated reasons he had an antagonism toward W. E. B. Du Bois. Previously Du Bois had expressed hostility to the Black Star Line idea and other ideas. Hence Garvey began to suspect Du Bois was prejudiced towards him as a Caribbean of darker skin tone. By the late 1920s this antagonism turned to antipathy. Du Bois called Garvey "a lunatic or a traitor." Garvey shot back saying Du Bois was "a little Dutch, a little French, a little Negro...a mulatto...a monstrosity." This led Garvey to an acrimonious relationship with the NAACP. Somewhat ironically Du Bois would nevertheless be a strong supporter of Pan-Africanism. SourcesPBS,UCLA




He also supported Imperial Japan.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I really don't see any of your information establishing or supporting your thesis.

quote:
In 1916 he moved the UNIA headquarters to Harlem in New York and set up branches in other countries with large black populations... Garvey's message was clear, 'Up you mighty race, you can accomplish what you will'.

He was now ready to pursue his most ambitious plans. The UNIA negotiated with the government of Liberia for land which would be made available to repatriate black people from the USA, Caribbean, South and Central America.

*** At first the Liberian government agreed but soon changed its mind before any settlers could arrive. ***

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/garvey_marcus.shtml
How that made Garvey a "colonist", I don't know. But maybe you can tell me... directly.
This seems like a pretty good source (you can provide yours)...

quote:
While Garvey's experiences in Liberia differed in practical terms from those of Du Bois, they too revealed the bankruptcy of early-twentieth-century Pan-Africanism as a platform for cooperation between diasporan and continental Africans. When Garvey dispatched Elie Garcia and a Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) delegation to Liberia in 1920, his intention was to acquaint President C. D. B. King with the aims of his organization and the various schemes he hoped to implement as soon as he got approval from the Liberian government. (74) Among Garvey's numerous goals were: to transfer the headquarters of his organization to Liberia, with the ultimate aim of using West Africa as a base for his crusade against European imperialism; to launch a $2 million campaign to help Liberia repay its debts; to help raise funds for the government of Liberia to build schools and hospitals; and to resettle New World blacks in Liberia, who in turn would help the republic develop its agriculture and other natural resources. In return, Garvey expected the Liberian government to grant the Association enough land for its schemes, especially land for the resettlement of blacks from the Americas. (75)

The Americo-Liberian leadership initially welcomed Garvey's ideas and promised to work closely with the UNIA to fulfill its ambitions, while hoping that Garvey's promise of financial support would sustain its strapped government. In December 1923, another delegation led by UNIA secretary general Robert Poston was sent to Liberia to finalize arrangements for the resettlement of about twenty thousand black families from the United States and the Caribbean who, as part of the resettlement program, were expected to emigrate during the next two years. (76) In May 1924, after receiving approval from the Liberian government, Garvey decided to send a team of engineers to assess the situation in Liberia, especially the site earmarked by the Liberian government for the UNIA resettlement project. However, in an unexpected turn of events, the engineers were detained upon arrival in Monrovia and summarily deported by the Liberian authorities on 31 July 1924. The Liberian News, a progovernment newspaper, quoted President King as saying that his decision to proscribe Garvey's movement in Liberia showed his administration's reluctance to tolerate any movement "which tends to intensify racial feelings of hatred and ill-will." (77) Assessing President King's rationale for proscribing UNIA, historian Monday Akpan perceptively remarks: "Behind this policy, and behind the failure of Garvey's colonization scheme, was the determination of the ruling oligarchy of earlier settlers to defend their privileged position against any 'intruders.' They were therefore prepared to suppress ruthlessly any person or organization which threatened to end this exploitation." (78) As we have seen, relations between Americo-Liberians and their indigenous compatriots were far from cordial, punctuated by recurring hostilities and hinging on an unfair distribution of wealth and power that allowed about five thousand Americo-Liberians to dominate nearly five hundred thousand indigenous people. Adopting a similar line of reasoning, historian Frank Chalk argues that the Americo-Liberian leaders believed that Garvey hoped to improve the conditions of indigenous Liberians and therefore saw the UNIA as a potential threat to their political dominance. According to Chalk, "Once the Liberian elite understood Garvey's aims [vis-a-vis indigenous Liberians], even if there had been no threat from Britain and France, it was inevitable that Garvey's movement would be banned in Liberia." (79) It seems likely that the Americo-Liberian leadership was enthusiastic about the Garvey project only because it promised financial support. In the end, however, even the prospect of monetary aid was outweighed by the suspicion that Garvey's presence in Liberia might not only inflame indigenous Liberians, but also give Britain or France an excuse to interfere in Liberian affairs...

...by the time Garvey began negotiations with the Liberian government, he had not only aroused the suspicions of the U.S. government, but news about his movement as a source of revolution was spreading in European colonial circles and many parts of Africa. The ruling elite in Liberia indeed was perturbed by UNIA claims to represent blacks worldwide. The last thing the leadership wanted from a movement like Garvey's was the chance that its actions might undermine the status quo in Liberia.

...In all probability, Garvey never gave the peculiar circumstances of Americo-and indigenous Liberian relations any serious consideration... Liberia, which he had hoped to use as a launching pad for his plans, proved to be unsuitable for the vociferous Pan-Africanist, and, as a result, Garvey was forced to focus his efforts elsewhere. Indeed Garvey's "enthusiasm for Liberia lasted only so long as that country seemed willing to promote his plans." Consequently, he would accuse Du Bois of complicity with the Liberian government to thwart his scheme--an accusation Du Bois repeatedly denied.


From: W. E. B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, and Pan-Africanism in Liberia,
Marcus Garvey supported a Back-To-Africa movement which supported African-Americans moving to Africa and using Liberia as a home state. Of course, knowing the history of Liberia, this translated to establishing African-American settlements even against the will of the Native West Africans. African-American settlers into Liberia behaved very similarly to European colonialists. They displaced the natives against their will, and used Western backing to establish Western social order.


http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/archives/content/issue13/features/liberia.php

quote:
The Atavistic sagas on The Slave-Freedom-Refugee Coast were flagged off by hostilities between the indigenous African tribes and the new Americo-Liberian settlers. Black did not see Black in Black. The hostilities were a bathos considering the fact that the freed slaves had actually fled a society that discriminated against them on the basis of their ethnic origins. Aside, it is risible that soppy and corruptible Afrocentrists demanding slave trade repatriation aren't at all vociferous about All Black fiascos like the early Liberian war of attrition. Such namby-pamby their chicanery. However, the wheels of nationhood started to move slowly in 1847 when largely due to the cold and ambivalent attitude of America towards her quasi colony, the nation of Liberia became an independent state. But the consolidation of nationhood was the molding of simulacrum of the race biased American society. Those freed from the shackles of marginalization proceeded to swaddle their African brothers with social fetters. The meteoric flowering of an African-American elite marked off the first phase of Liberia's polymorphous rot. The scales of blood were calibrated in racial-ethnic measures. A populous African 'minority' were up for the battle of their lives against a miniscule Americo-Liberian elite. And though it was left unscathed by the debasing isms of colonialism, Liberia, seething with unequal blood scales, came to resemble a microcosm of the post colonial African continent, rank and fetid with ethnic tendencies and their incommoding consequences. Liberia it has to be said threw away the golden chance of building a closely knit society. Many social aspirations were tamped back into potentially volatile minds by the Americo-Liberian Heath Robinson social machine.



http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:1...%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=

quote:
PAN-AFRICANISM--the perceived need to mobilize all peoples of African descent against racism and colonialism--was perhaps one of the most enduring responses to the legacy of European slavery and imperialism. Although a project centered around the notion of Africa, however, Pan-Africanism was in fact heavily influenced by Western discourses on Africa and Africans. It was this Western understanding that profoundly affected the thinking of Africans in diaspora, and that in turn sometimes engendered conflicting thoughts and attitudes toward issues of race, identity, and nationality. (1) Pan-Africanism sought to unite all people of African descent and thereby demonstrate the mutual bond believed to exist among blacks regardless of geographic location. In reality, African American and Afro-Caribbean Pan-Africanists often adopted contradictory positions that belied their universalist Pan-Africanist aspirations. Indeed, despite its rhetoric and noble ideals, inconsistencies between Pan-African theory and practice have been integral parts of the movement's long and checkered history. This study analyzes these inconsistencies and indeed the larger paradoxes and problems of Pan-Africanism. It does so by analyzing the separate encounters of U.S.-born William E. Burghardt Du Bois and the Jamaican-born Marcus Garvey with the West African republic of Liberia between 1919 and 1924, as each black leader attempted to launch his own particular strand of Pan-Africanism in Africa. (2)

Du Bois and Garvey were two of the most significant Pan-Africanist figures in the early twentieth century. As a result, their separate engagements with Liberia represent a litmus test for the practicality of Pan-Africanism. By showing how both Du Bois and Garvey adopted ambivalent and contradictory positions in their different dealings with Liberia, this article illustrates the difficulty of putting Pan-Africanism into practice. Their experiences prove that in spite of some common understanding about its essence, Pan-Africanism has over the course of its existence signified a variety of ideas with different political and social connotations for different groups of blacks. More harshly, Pan-Africanism, as manifested in Liberia by both Du Bois and Garvey, was a flawed and impractical project laden with Western cultural hierarchies. Consequently, the task of implementing it proved to be a botched project mainly because, as an ideological construct, Pan-Africanism underestimated the complexity of human situations when the politics of race, identity, and nationality all blended on a single stage.
http://www.solidarity-us.org/atc/84Lang.html

quote:
This included, most fundamentally, the legacy of nineteenth-century pan-Africanism established by Martin Delany, Edward Blyden and Alexander Crummell. Against this backdrop, scholar W.E.B. DuBois played a powerful role in convening a series of Pan-African Congresses in 1900, 1919, 1921 and 1927.

It was the Marcus Garvey movement, however, that expanded pan-Africanism beyond a small elite and brought it within reach of a mass, working-class audience, though as Von Eschen convincingly argues, Garveyism itself embraced many of the ideals of Western imperialism. In contrast, the left internationalism of the 1920s and '30s (represented by individuals like C.L.R. James, then a Trotskyist, and George Padmore, a former Communist) helped infuse pan-Africanism with a militant anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism that later proved significant.
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
SO you trying to make MARCUS GARVEY, A BLACK ELITIST? REDICULOUS, WHO WROTE THIS CRAP?


I'm saying that the outcome of Garvey's political beliefs in reality was bad news for native Africans. When African-Americans moved over to Africa, they did so at the expense of the natives. Some saw themselves as superior to the natives and divdided up territory without regard to the natives.


In all honesty, what do you think a Back-To-Africa movement would yield? What if the Africans DON'T WANT US BACK? Do we have the right to force ourselves in anyway? What would we do once there? Would we assimilate into the native culture or keep our own? What if our own culture is not compatible with that of the natives? Would we leave or try to enforce it?

Liberia was a good example of this. If you read further, Garvey believed that not every African-American should be allowed back to Africa, he believed that only an elite group of African-Americans should journey to the Motherland. That reeks of colonial/imperialistic thought. What would this New African "Elite" do?


Marcus Garvey also called W.E.B. DuBois a "monstrosity" because of his racially mixed background. He adapted the European racialist view of race and tried to apply it to African-American geneology.
To mix Marcus Garvey's Pan African Approach to Afircan with the Ex African slaves who resettled Liberia as Colonialist is mixing apples and oranges. Marcus Garvey was in no way connected to the Liberia movement and he spoke of Liberia simpy because of the Diasporan connection but he was talking about the whole continent of Africa uniting as well as the Diaspora reconnecting to the motherland spiritually and in cases where people choose to repatriate physical. Whomever tried to tie Marcus Garvey to the Liberia Movement is perpetrating a FRAUD!
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
To mix Marcus Garvey's Pan African Approach to Afircan with the Ex African slaves who resettled Liberia as Colonialist is mixing apples and oranges. Marcus Garvey was in no way connected to the Liberia movement and he spoke of Liberia simpy because of the Diasporan connection but he was talking about the whole continent of Africa uniting as well as the Diaspora reconnecting to the motherland spiritually and in cases where people choose to repatriate physical. Whomever tried to tie Marcus Garvey to the Liberia Movement is perpetrating a FRAUD!


Did you know that he also supported Imperial Japan? Japan was conducting a massive imperial campaign to conquer the rest of Asia and he supported them in what they were doing. It's even admitted by historians (even ones sympathetic) that he borrowed some views from European colonialism and racialism.

What about his whole "new African elite" thing? What do you think that meant?
Empty...

This thread is empty..

Why did you waist my time (I am suppose to be doing homework)reading this load?

You need to do a little more research.

Trying to somehow combine Garvey and the attempts by the US Gov. to repatraite AA's back to Africa is a stretch...

By almost 100 years...


If you don't like Garvey, I would appreciate you just saying it, instead of waisting erre'bodies time w/ your historical re-editorializing
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
SO you trying to make MARCUS GARVEY, A BLACK ELITIST? REDICULOUS, WHO WROTE THIS CRAP?


I'm saying that the outcome of Garvey's political beliefs in reality was bad news for native Africans. When African-Americans moved over to Africa, they did so at the expense of the natives. Some saw themselves as superior to the natives and divdided up territory without regard to the natives.


That is largely because the folks who went bakc went back with a European/Western worldview. Precicely why Garvey said not EVERYONE should go back.


quote:
In all honesty, what do you think a Back-To-Africa movement would yield? What if the Africans DON'T WANT US BACK? Do we have the right to force ourselves in anyway? What would we do once there? Would we assimilate into the native culture or keep our own? What if our own culture is not compatible with that of the natives? Would we leave or try to enforce it?


Are you serious?...Do "they" want us back? WTF are you talking about? There are over 3000 Africans from the West who have moved back to Ghana alone. I know and visited a few while I was there. Yes, I went to Africa... All the 'Natives'(lol) I met asked why don't more of 'us' from the West come HOME. "our" culture is but a branch on the tree of Africa. We should not go back to Africa if we see ourselves a not African. African 'culture'(which one you are referring to I do not know) is not that different from 'ours'...They are not seperate. We are not seperate. We are 'of' it. In fact, continental Africans have been so freakin' colonized for so long that many of the folks at home were more 'westernized' than I.

quote:
Liberia was a good example of this. If you read further, Garvey believed that not every African-American should be allowed back to Africa, he believed that only an elite group of African-Americans should journey to the Motherland. That reeks of colonial/imperialistic thought. What would this New African "Elite" do?


I wouldn't want the average us/them ignorant ass African in the waste...I mean 'West' to go back home(and embarrass the rest of us) and screw things up even more like they did in Liberia would you?


quote:
Marcus Garvey also called W.E.B. DuBois a "monstrosity" because of his racially mixed background. He adapted the European racialist view of race and tried to apply it to African-American geneology.


EP,

Marcus Garvey had his contradictions, but the only one that you have mentioned that is in any way valid was that he succumbed to infighting with W.E.B. DuBois...who at the time was an integratinalist and called him plenty of names too, BTW, DuBois later became a Pan-Africanist socialist and basically adopted most of what Garvey professed, and repatriated to Ghana...

You really need to do a serious read and study on Marcus Garvey, the UNIA, and Pan-Africanism(The UNIA was an INTERNATIONAL AFRICAN ORGANIZATION THE LARGEST IN HISTORY, it was not just in the US) I can tell from this thread you haven't. Garvey didn't even go to Africa while he was alive so how could he be a colonialist. Get books, don't just read off the internet.

This thread was highly dissapointing.
--------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
Empty...

This thread is empty..

Why did you waist my time (I am suppose to be doing homework)reading this load?

You need to do a little more research.

Trying to somehow combine Garvey and the attempts by the US Gov. to repatraite AA's back to Africa is a stretch...

By almost 100 years...


If you don't like Garvey, I would appreciate you just saying it, instead of waisting erre'bodies time w/ your historical re-editorializing


lol, "re-editorializing"

I wasn't saying that he was part of some US gov't conspiracy (if anything, the government and CIA conspired AGAINST him). I was saying that some of his ideas were garnered from European imperialist and racialist ideas from the 19th century.

His idea of a "New African Elite" always sounded very questionable to me. I still have to find the source, but I do remember reading a while back that he supported imperial Japan's actions in Asia.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
That is largely because the folks who went bakc went back with a European/Western worldview. Precicely why Garvey said not EVERYONE should go back.


So the African-Americans that he wanted to go back to Africa, what kind of Africans would they be? What would they do once they were over there? The idea of a "Provisional African President" always sounded strange to me because it sounded like he was planning on "us" setting up some sort of government in Africa.


quote:
Are you serious?...Do "they" want us back? WTF are you talking about? There are over 3000 Africans from the West who have moved back to Ghana alone. I know and visited a few while I was there. Yes, I went to Africa... All the 'Natives'(lol) I met asked why don't more of 'us' from the West come HOME. "our" culture is but a branch on the tree of Africa. We should not go back to Africa if we see ourselves a not African. African 'culture'(which one you are referring to I do not know) is not that different from 'ours'...They are not seperate. We are not seperate. We are 'of' it. In fact, continental Africans have been so freakin' colonized for so long that many of the folks at home were more 'westernized' than I.


I just said "natives" as a term for the aboriginal people that live on the continent, lol.

Anyway, I don't view "us" (African-Americans) as being somehow "racially" different than Africans, I view us as being culturally different than Africans (I mean ANY group of Africans). Even though many parts of our culture derive from various African cultures, all of us were born here and indoctrinated with Western culture all our lives. How would we adapt to cultures that are virtually alien to us now? All African-Americans would need extensive cultural immersion before trying to repatriate in Africa.

As much as I admire the story you told me, I've also heard many stories of Africans not wanting African-Americans to return to Africa because they see us as being "seperate" from them (culturally).

quote:
I wouldn't want the average us/them ignorant ass African in the waste...I mean 'West' to go back home(and embarrass the rest of us) and screw things up even more like they did in Liberia would you?


Heavens no! Which is why I'm concerned about the viability of mass African-American repatriation into Africa. I'm afraid that many of us would just end up repeating the devastation in Liberia elsewhere in Africa.

My question is, what type of African-Americans would you want to repatriate in Africa? What would they do once over there? Would they re-assimilate into local tribal cultures and ethnicities?


quote:
EP,

Marcus Garvey had his contradictions, but the only one that you have mentioned that is in any way valid was that he succumbed to infighting with W.E.B. DuBois...who at the time was an integratinalist and called him plenty of names too, BTW, DuBois later became a Pan-Africanist socialist and basically adopted most of what Garvey professed, and repatriated to Ghana...

You really need to do a serious read and study on Marcus Garvey, the UNIA, and Pan-Africanism(The UNIA was an INTERNATIONAL AFRICAN ORGANIZATION THE LARGEST IN HISTORY, it was not just in the US) I can tell from this thread you haven't. Garvey didn't even go to Africa while he was alive so how could he be a colonialist. Get books, don't just read off the internet.


Yes, I know that Garvey and W.E.B. DuBois traded insults back and forth, and I found it very disheartening. However, what concerns me about Garvey is his whole idea of a "New African Elite". I'm sorry, but the whole idea sounds imperialistic (or imperialism-inspired). The idea of some sort of "elite" group in Africa. What would Garvey's "elite" do once over in Africa? How would his "provisional government" be established?
I think you are over speculating. You are asking to have something answered that can not be answered because the man isn't here. How are we today supposed to know how his provisional government would be enacted or what this theoretical elite would do.

What we can speculate based upon the numerous writings and statements by Garvey, and his primary idea of Africa for Africans is that he would seek to elevate Africa to power to relate equally or superiorly to the Asian & Caucasian. That much I think is pretty self-evident in his works.
Garvey was an amazing man, one of the most fascinating people in our history. His oratory skills, his determination, and committment to our struggle is a model for leaders in the making. Its really amazing what Garvey was able to do in a short amount of time.

After studying Garvey and writing a huge report on the Back to Africa movement I do believe that had Garvey Liberian plan been successful he wouldn't have oppressed the natives, but instead aligned with the natives to overthrow the Americo-Liberian government.

The only thing the natives of Liberia were asking for from the Americo-Liberian government was equality. Equality in education, equality in commerce, equality in development. Theirs no question that had the UNIA been in power in Liberia the natives would've received a fair deal in the making of Liberia.

Unfortunately the natives never received a fair deal in anything going on in Liberia and as a result of that they waged series of revolts. The first revolt being in 1838 and the last one ending in 1917. With the natives having a sour taste in there mouth from a vicious defeat by the Americo-Liberian/American army they would've welcomed a man like Garvey who believed that they're all equal.

If you think Marcus Garvey's was an elitist you must be mistaken. I don't think he was any different from any other leaders in the past, he had a plan, believed in it, and wanted to execute it.

On page 71 in the first volume Garvey shed a little light on having an elitist view,

"It is hoped that when the time comes for American and West Indian Negroes to settle in Africa, they will realize their responsibility and their duty. It will not be to go to Africa for the purpose of exercising an overlodrship over the natives, but it shall be the purpose of the Universal Negro Improvement Association to have established in Africa that brotherly co-operation which will make the interests of the African native and the AMerican and West Indian Negro one and the same, that is to say, we shall enter into a common partnership to build up Africa in the interests in our race."

Garvey then goes on to say on pg 72

"Everybody knows that there is aboslutely no difference between the native African and the American and West Indian Negroes, in that we are descendant from one common family stock. It is only a matter of accident that we have been divdied and kept apart for over three hundred years, but it is felt ath wwhen tim has come for us to get back together, we shall do so in the spirit of brotherly love, and any Negro who expects that he will be assistted here, there or anywhere by the Universal Negro Improvement Association to exercise a haughty superiority over fellows of his own race, makes a tremendous mistake. Such men had beetter remain where they are and not attempt to be come any way interested in the higher development of Africa."
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×