ALKEBU-LAN REVIVALIST MOVEMENT
The Fake Debate
(Marxism and the Infiltration of Garveyism)
A challenge to: ‘The UNIA Built Alliances with Non-Afrikans’
Submitted To: Marcus Garvey Organizing Committee (MGOC). 14/01/6248 (2008)
By: The A.R.M. Leadership For the attention of: The Afrikan Community at Home & Abroad
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
BACKGROUND MISINFORMATION CORRECTED
A R M’S GARVEYITE CREDENTIALS
DEFINING THE TERMS
FLAWED METHODOLOGY
THE ‘FACTS’ IN CONTEXT – Repairing The Bottom Of The Barrel
QUINTESSENTIAL GARVEYISM – Dispelling The Myths
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Marxism and the Infiltration of Garveyism)
TENDAI MWARI
INTRODUCTION
This document is a response to the paper entitled, ‘The UNIA Built Alliances with non-Afrikans’. We note that the author of the said paper, forthwith designated, ‘The Author’, has publicly declared that he is not a Garveyite, which raises the question of the motive of a professed non-Garveyite, presuming to redefine Garvey and Garveyism, by way of pro-Marxist revisionism, even though Papa Garvey warned that Marxism aka Communism:
“is a white man’s creation to solve his own political and economic problems… it was founded principally on the theory of Karl Marx, who knew very little about (Afrikans) and who thought and wrote less about them. It is a dangerous theory…” (Martin, 1986, p. 134).
Activist Shawna Maglangbayan further explains the pernicious nature of Marxists/ism and its/their attack on Garvey and Garveyism and other “Black Nationalist Separatist” leaders like Patrice Lumumba and Omowale Malcolm X:
“AS SURELY AS MARCUS GARVEY, PATRICE Lumumba and Malcolm X were lynched yesterday, they are being lynched today for a second time… Yesterday the white man destroyed Garvey, Lumumba and Malcolm bodily. Taday he is trying to destroy them ideologically by deforming and commercializing their political thought.
“The most prominent members of the lynching mob…are cloaked in the sheets of Marxism. Advancing upon our heroes with cries of “International Fraternity!” soon none but their voice is heard. And when we ask: “What did our heroes say?” We are told that they said, “Long live International Fraternity!” From then on it is no longer the voice of Garvey, Lumumba and Malcolm…but that of the Marxist rabble…” (Maglangbayan, 1972, p. 7; see appendix).
Consequently, this response is entitled, ‘The Fake Debate (Marxism and the Infiltration of Garveyism)’, as we are not engaged in a genuine debate on perspectives of* Garveyism, but a defence against an attempted assault on the quintessential principles of Garveyism, by Marxists. It is as paradoxical as a staunch Muslim organizing bible classes or Christian conventions and radio broadcasts, in as much as The ‘Author’ has facilitated ‘Garvey’ community and radio workshops and writes extensively on ‘Garvey’ and ‘Garveyism’.
We affirm, however, that it is the ultimate preserve of Garveyites to define Garvey and Garveyism and determine appropriate guidance for Garveyites; not a professed non-Garveyite; and manifest Marxist. We certainly do not need the kind of unsolicited guidance offered by ‘The Author’s’ close associate, two years ago, in an ARM Mosiah community meeting:
“Garvey was defeated and you should accept it…”
At a MGOC workshop (2007) the same raised a question about Papa Garvey’s capacity as a father that left many feeling that it was a stealthy attack on Papa Garvey’s integrity. The reader is therefore advised to not only thoroughly examine the issues involved here, but to rigorously interrogate motives and agendas.
OBJECTIVES
We will demonstrate in this document that:
- The UNIA did not build alliances with non-Afrikans, nor had any such policy or programme.
- ‘The Author’ of this claim has failed in this and many prior attempts, to substantiate it – with evidence.
- The claim is designed to mask a personal obsession and a sustained, vicious pro-Marxist assault on Garvey and Garveyism, since the 1920s and 1930s.
- The UNIA’s philosophy of ‘Race First’ was/is synonymous with ‘race exclusivity’.
- The decision by Afrikans to exclude non-Afrikans from Afrikan Liberation events (Cultural Privacy) is unquestionably a Garveyite position; if deemed by Afrikans to be in the best interest of Afrikans, in service to Afrikan Liberation.
Notwithstanding our firm stance againstthis pernicious Marxist element, this should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of all professed Afrikan ‘socialists’. This Movement acknowledges that there are sincere, honourable socialist brothers and sisters, who work hard for our people’s liberation, respect the legacy of Garvey and Garveyism and genuinely strive for unity among our people across ideological lines.
BACKGROUND MISINFORMATION CORRECTED
Contrary to ‘The Author’s’ account under the heading ‘Background’ (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 1), this Movement recalls that the MGOC came into being in 2006, not 2002, to convene the then Marcus Garvey Rally (MGR). The first MGR was convened in 2002, by the ‘Afrikan United Action Front (AUAF), Reparations Committee (RC) around the birthday of Papa Marcus Garvey (17th August). The AUAF, a Pan-Afrikan coalition, which involved professed Garveyite Nationalist, pan-Afrikanists, became inactive in 2006 and some members decided to continue organizing the MGRs under the name ‘Marcus Garvey Organizing Committee (MGOC)’. The first MGOC-Marcus Garvey Afrikan Family Day rally (MGAFD) was therefore convened in 2006.
Barring non-Afrikans has never been an official policy of the AUAF or the MGOC, in respect of these rallies. The policy since 2002 has always been that we do not invite non-Afrikans, but we cannot bar them from a public place. However, there were isolated incidents of non-Afrikans being barred by individuals. They have also been excluded from the closing ‘unity circle’. Consequently, non-Afrikans have been present at every rally, since 2002. It should be noted that in spite of his expressed awareness of the MGOC’s policy on not inviting non-Afrikans, ‘The Author’ did extend invitations to non-Afrikans at the RMT (Trade Union), Reparation Conference (23/08/07), to attend MGOC community meetings.
Debates about non-Afrikans attending were sparked by the barring/expulsion of some from the 2006 rally (19/08/06). It was first debated the very next day, on a Galaxy radio programme, co-hosted by ‘The Author’ and subsequently at the MGOC review meeting (Sept. 06). ‘The Author’ convened further debates on his radio show (The Pan-Afrikan People’s Forum) and composed a paper entitled, ‘Conceptions and Mis-conceptions of Garvey and Garveyism’ (Nov. 06) and another entitled ‘Afrikans Only Events’, questioning the need for them. The matter was debated again at one of the MGOC community meetings in Mosiah 2007.
This Movement did not participate in the radio debates nor were we invited to. Whilst in the past, including pre-2002, we were often invited on to the radio station to share our perspectives on Garvey and Garveyism, this has not been the case in recent years; suggestions of an active veto seem plausible (the underlying issues are well documented). However, on reading the aforementioned papers in 2006, we were forced to respond to the gross distortions of The Prophet’s legacy. We therefore wrote to the MGOC, requesting a public debate on the issues, but had received no official response.
On 30/07/07 and 06/08/07, Bro Ldr Mbandaka debated some of the issues with ‘The Author’ on ‘Afrika Speaks with Alkebu-Lan, on Voice of Afrika Radio (VOAR)’; though it would be true to say that he seemed reluctant and evasive when invited and that it required several emails and phone calls to secure the arrangements.
The paper to which we are hereby responding is his latest effort to advance an, evidently, personal obsession and surreptitious pro-Marxist agenda. Somehow this has been manoeuvred into an alleged commissioned document of the MGOC through a process that remains a mystery to this Movement; even as a member organisation. This we have vigorously challenged (which is well documented).
A R M’S GARVEYITE CREDENTIALS
The ARM came into existence in January 1987, as a Liberation Movement based upon an authentic Afrikan-centred spirituo-cultural philosophy (‘Alkebu-lan Livity’) and the Nationalist pan-Afrikanist ideology of Marcus Mosiah Garvey and Omowale Malcolm X. Since our inception, we have celebrated the birthday of Papa Garvey, ‘The Prophet’, as a sacred day. In 1997, we designated it Mosiah-day and the month of ‘August’, ‘MOSIAH’, in his honour (rather than Greek Emperor Augustus Caesar’s).
In Mosiah 1998, we launched our first ‘Mosiah’: a 31-day celebration of the life and legacy of ‘The Most Eminent Prophet and King – His Excellency: Marcus Mosiah Garvey. This was in line with the UNIA’s 31-day ‘August’ conventions (1920s & 30s). The objective was to resurrect The Prophet’s name and promote mass awareness of *his colossal Legacy, engaging the Afrikan community in giving him due honour.
To facilitate this, we published a Booklet entitled: ‘Mosiah Daily Affirmations’ – edited, with commentaries, by Bro Ldr Mbandaka (1998) – consisting of 31 affirmations (Papa Garvey’s utterances) and commentaries for each day of Mosiah, with 31 children’s memory verses. We begin the month with an opening ceremony of thanksgiving and hold several community meetings exploring the life and legacy of The Prophet, from a Garveyite perspective and to mark the day of his birth we hold a special Libation ceremony, fast and have a late evening Karamu (feast). We also convene a ‘Mosiah’s Children’s Day and a youth evening, ‘Mosiah Storm’.
In Mosiah 1998 and 2000 we promoted an event called ‘Mosiah Grand Celebration’, intended to be a biannual cultural extravaganza, with international guest speakers and artistes. The invited guests for Mosiah 2000 were Marcus Garvey Jr, Son of The Prophet and premier reggae artiste Luciano. Due to illness, the Son of the Prophet was unable to attend. The event was rescheduled for Oct 2000 where we were blessed to have Baba Kweku-Dua (Dr. Leonard Jefferies) instead, along with Bro Luciano.
Mosiah 2007 marked the 120th anniversary of the birth of The Prophet and this movement is proud to have hosted the world’s leading ‘Garvey Scholar’, Prof. Tony Martin (Baba Martin), to celebrate this most important Landmark. We also seized the opportunity to pay due tribute to Baba Martin and award him an, ‘Order of Distinction’, on behalf of the Afrikan community-UK, for his monumental work in documenting and preserving knowledge of the life and legacy of our most revered Prophet and King – from a Nationalist, pan-Afrikan perspective.
In November 2005, we launched our newspaper, ‘The Whirlwind’, the name being symbolic of Papa Garvey’s ‘Divine and Indomitable Spirit’, as expressed in his prophetic utterance, “Look for me in the Whirlwind”. It is in this vein that Bro Ldr Mbandaka opens and ends all his messages in pronounced adoration of The Prophet, our Movement’s litany of worship includes The Prophet’s utterances, Alkebu-Lan children are raised learning and reciting: “Word Sounds of ‘The Most Eminent Prophet and King – His Excellency’…” and our Movement bestows’ such lofty titles upon him.
The Movement has been involved in organizing all the MGRs, supporting the AUAF-RC and the MGAFDs as a member organization of the MGOC. Despite the fact that our events are bound strictly by a code of ‘Cultural Privacy’, we have never challenged the policy re: non-Afrikan attendance, understanding the legal implications and practical realities. Furthermore, we have never been involved in barring or ejecting non-Afrikans, though we have drawn the line when asked to lead the closing ‘Unity Circle’.
DEFINING THE TERMS
It is obvious from the misuse of the term ‘built alliances’ that a clear definition of the term is required. To build is a systematic process of construction. An alliance is an ideological and operational coalition (of groups, or organisations). Thus, there are two essential criteria that constitute an alliance:
1) Ideological: sharing common objectives as well as ideas of methods for achieving those objectives, and;
2) Operational: forging a formal programme of agreed action to execute the first criterion.
Alliances would normally have clearly agreed operational objectives and outcomes (not just shared interests) – as in the Anglo-America alliance in the war on Iraq. One could therefore establish: When was the alliance forged? What was the ideological basis? What were its operational objectives? What was the outcome? And: Where is all this documented?
The reader will note, however, that ‘The Author’ has not cited one example that would meet these criteria. Instead, he has flagged up instances where the UNIA/Papa Garvey had limited, one-off, interactions with non-Afrikans – a meeting, an invitation to speak, a shared platforms, an expression of sympathy, a complement paid, etc. the ‘Author’ would know, however, that this is an over-simplification. In context, ‘The Author’ has failed to substantiate his claim, by way of documented evidence.
FLAWED METHODOLOGY:
Redefining the Parameters.
‘The Author’ seeks to define the parameters of the ‘debate’ by imposing a set of criteria that regards “facts”, as “substantiated by the historical record”, as indisputable. It is important however that we understand the limitations of ‘facts’, the difference between facts and truth, and the imperfections of, “historical records”.
A fact is only one dimension of reality or a single aspect of the truth. Truth, however, is the 360 degrees of reality (entailing a number of facts). It is therefore whole and complete. Truth is thus concerned, not only with the event or the phenomenon (fact), but the context in which the same occurred and its cause and effects. For example: whilst it is a fact that Black men ‘shot’ Omowale Malcolm X to death, the Truth is that the American government who orchestrated the intrigue – via FBI, CIA, NYPD, mass media and Black agent provocateurs – resulting in his murder, ‘killed’ Omowale Malcolm X.
This is why Mama Marimba Ani (Author of ‘Yurugu’) defines “a fact” as “dead time and space…” Like a carcass it is lifeless and can therefore be manipulated. Omowale Malcolm X often warned of the white media that “take one thing out of what you say and distort the rest…”
Consequently, if we take ‘facts’, out of their proper context, we will end up with dead facts, rather than living reality (truth) – or, at best, a limited dimension or a distortion of reality. It is akin to taking fish out of water. Thus, Baba Ayi Kwei Armah says: “Pieces cut off from their whole are nothing but dead fragments.” (Armah, 1979, p. 1). Truth, however, places the event/phenomenon within its proper context, providing substance, rather than surface information: thus, restoring life to reality.
One sympathises with attempts to adhere to the criteria of academia. However, it fails to fulfil the precepts of Ma’at, the foundation of which is truth. It is therefore a Eurocentric approach – which politicians and journalists exploit with great dexterity – rather than the Africentric approach; the prerequisite for our total liberation.
Mama Marimba puts us in touch with the wisdom of our Dogon Ancestors, for whom: ‘so,’ is the ‘The Word’; which facilitates ‘sight’ and ‘understanding’. Hence: giri so, is word at face value (on the surface) or sight; benne so, is word from the side or sight with perspective (angle, breath); bolo so, is word from behind or insight (depth) and so dayi is the clear word (360 degrees, whole, complete knowledge). (Ani, 1996)
In context, the reader will note that ‘The Author’s’ approach does not attain this Africentric standard. What he has done, as we shall demonstrate, is to: take Papa Garvey’s words and actions out of context with the time and circumstances in which he said and did them; trap him in a time-frame and ignore all revelations beyond this selected time-frame; use Marxist frames of reference to analyse a staunch Nationalist pan-Afrikanist; use purely secular tools of analysis vis-à-vis a highly spiritual man – indeed a Prophet. Some might say he’s ‘Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel’.
Mama Marimba guides us to the understanding of the European academic system, and its systematic denial of spirit as an irrational impediment to the acquisition of knowledge. Whilst ‘The Author’ might place no value on the capacity of true Garveyites to also perceive Garvey and Garveyism via intuition as well as intellect, he cites the “historical record”, as though a flawless source of corroboration, even though we, as a people and Papa Garvey himself, have been such victims of distorted “historical records”.
Omission of Prof.Tony Martin.
The reader should note that in ‘The Author’s’ 18 page paper he makes no reference to Prof. Tony Martin; not only the world’s leading scholar (author of some 11 books), but the official historian on Garvey and Garveyism as proclaimed by Baba Charles L. James (not C.L.R. James), as President general of the UNIA, in 1986, and the only then surviving graduate of Papa Garvey’s inaugural ‘Course (School) of Afrikan Philosophy (1937)’, preparing candidates for UNIA and race leadership.
“As the only surviving graduate of the first class, it is important for me to protect the interest of those who preceded me into eternity and knowing that there are forces who are trying to distort history, I hereby authorize Dr. Tony Martin, who has been recognized and appointed the authentic historian on the life and works of the Hon. Marcus Garvey, by the Universal Negro Improvements Association in convention, to publish the written document with the understanding that the right to be preserved* for future generations, which is the charge of the Hon. Marcus Garvey, founder.” (Martin, 1986, p. xii – emphasis added).
Baba Martin has also been endorsed by Baba Marcus Garvey Jr, Son of The Prophet.
This Movement is proud to say that its primary source on the life and legacy of The Prophet is indeed Baba Martin. We are blessed to have hosted Baba Martin on occasions, including Mosiah 2007, which have been prime opportunities for us to gain even deeper insight into The Prophet’s legacy. We note that ‘The Author’ neither sought an audience with Baba Martin, nor attended any of his messages, nor invited him to appear on his radio show. It is the humble position of this Movement that any ‘analysis’ of Garvey and Garveyism that omits Prof. Tony Martin’s monumental work, is not only flawed but suspect.
THE ‘FACTS’ IN CONTEXT – Repairing The Bottom Of The Barrel
The Rose Pastor Stokes Hoax
We note the following advice from the author:
“Great care must be taken in order to avoid building theories of history on a non-factual base. There is the danger that such practice can undermine historical truth and introduce potentially misleading distortions into the discourse… Historical distortions can do no better than hamper and hold back the process of Afrikan liberation.” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 7).
The reader will judge for themselves whether ‘The Author’ has adhered to his own guidance or whether he has introduced “potentially misleading…Historical distortions”. If it is the latter, then, by his own words, he should be charged with seeking to “hamper and hold back the progress of Afrikan liberation.”
Whilst he might claim as a fact that:
“Marcus Garvey is on record as having given a warm welcome to a European woman called Rose Pastor Stokes (RPS)… at the 1921 UNIA convention…” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 6).
It is patently untrue to say:
“…Garvey was personally supportive of Rose Pastor Stokes’ invitation and participation…” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 7).
Very selective reference is made to Rupert and Maureen Lewis’ book, ‘Garvey – Afrika, Europe, The Americas’, as in the following, oft repeated, excerpt from Papa Garvey’s introduction of RPS:
“Liberty Hall welcomes all friends of Liberty. We welcome the Irish, we welcome the Jews, the Egyptians, the Hindus, and all peoples struggling for liberty, because we are in sympathy with suffering humanity everywhere… We are in sympathy with the cause of freedom everywhere … we welcome this friend of Soviet Russia (RPS) to tell us a little of what her people are doing to get liberty, and if we can find any good in what she says we shall certainly be quick to seize upon it and adopt it for our own benefit…” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 6).
In context, this selective quotation was lifted from a section sub-headed “An Alliance is Attempted”. The sub-chapter commences with reference to a meeting between representatives of Papa Garvey and the leadership of a group called the Afrikan Blood Brotherhood (ABB). Lewis attests that the ABB’s objective was, “making the Garvey Movement more class conscious” i.e. Marxist:
“After the meeting…the ABB set out to infiltrate the coming 1921 International Convention of the UNIA and convince its delegates to vote for an alliance with the Communist International.” (emphasis added)… At the convention, ABB representatives passed out leaflets outlining a proposed alliance with the Communist International. The Brotherhood also arranged to have the white Anarchist-Communist Rose Pastor Stokes speak to the Convention on behalf of the Communist International.” (Lewis, 1994, p. 164 -emphasis added).
The reader will note that:
1) it was the ABB who vied for RPS to speak,
2) they were at odds with “the Garvey movement” and
3) they emerged from a failed meeting with representatives of Papa Garvey, intent on infiltrating the UNIA to commandeer an alliance with the Communist International (an auxiliary of Soviet Russia).
When one reads Lewis’ rendition of Papa Garvey’s, introduction of RPS without the selective omissions (highlighted below) it is impossible to miss the sense of apprehension in his careful choice of words.
“We have with us tonight,” said Garvey, “a lady visitor who has been widely made known… the world over as belonging to that class of agitators who are endeavoring to free struggling white humanity… It is for me to explain that Liberty Hall welcomes all friends of Liberty (applause). We welcome the Irish, we welcome the Jews, the Egyptians, the Hindus, and all peoples struggling for liberty, because we are in sympathy with suffering humanity everywhere. But that does not mean to say that we support every program, every method that is being used. We are in sympathy with the cause of freedom everywhere and this lady in her own way has linked up herself with the cause of bleeding Russia… So we welcome this friend of Soviet Russia to tell us a little of what her people are doing to get liberty, and if we can find any good in what she says we shall certainly be quick to seize upon it and adopt it for our own benefit…” (Lewis, 1994, p. 165).
Papa Garvey’s courteous introduction of RPS was evidently nothing more than a matter of diplomatic protocol from the President General of the UNIA and provisional President of the United States of Afrika; applying the rules of engagement of international diplomacy. Notably, although he spoke of being in sympathy with “suffering humanity”, he said nothing about building alliances. He also made it clear that he did not support their every programme and method.
Moreover, references to RPS as “endeavouring to free white humanity”, “linked up…with the cause of bleeding Russia”, “this friend of Soviet Russia” were clearly designed to distance himself, the UNIA and the cause of Afrikan people from RPS, the CI and Communist Russia. Hence, his attempt to limit her Brief to telling us “a little of what her people are doing to get liberty”.
If the author truly missed the essence of Papa Garvey’s Rhetoric, RPS certainly didn’t and was in fact defiant in her speech:
“Mrs. Stokes proceeded to discuss only briefly the issue of what the Communists were doing in the Soviet Union. She was primarily interested in pointing out that the Soviet Union “seeks not only to free herself… but it seeks to free also every people, every nation, every race…, they give unstinted help to the weaker peoples, to the darker races… Wherever men are oppressed we say there is neither color, nor creed, nor nation. We stand together against all oppressors… In the Soviet Union they have decided that Persia shall be free; that India shall be free (applause) that Africa shall be free (great applause)…” (Lewis, 1994, p. 165)
In response Papa Garvey commented rather tongue in cheek.
“Liberty Hall would give her a fair trial in judging her opinion as gathered from her speech ‘after we have heard the other fellow’.”(Lewis, 1994, p. 165).
Lewis informs us further.
“But African Blood Brotherhood had been quite serious in its intention of getting the UNIA to accept Mrs. Stokes’ offer of an alliance with the Soviet Union. A Convention struggle over this issue resulted in the Brotherhood being formally expelled from the Convention and the UNIA.[i] The ABB now went into open opposition to the Garvey movement.” (Lewis, 1994, p. 166).
Not only did the convention and the UNIA reject the proposed alliance, but the ABB was expelled from both the convention and the UNIA; yet, ‘The Author’ cites this as an example of building alliances. It should be stressed here that Lewis’ analysis concurs with Baba Martin’s (cf. below). On the question of Papa Garvey’s position on the RPS invitation, Baba Martin gives us further insight, where the ‘Workers Party’ had attempted to infiltrate the 1922 UNIA Convention, like its fellow Marxist the previous year.
“The Workers Party communication was duly debated by the convention and provided a good example of Garvey’s handling of the American communist challenge. Garvey opened the discussion by reminding the delegates that the UNIA is a very liberal organization. At a previous convention, he said, they had allowed Rose Pastor Stokes to try to indoctrinate the organization, and now they are going to give the workers party a hearing.” (Martin, 1976, p. 250-251).
We can logically deduce from this that:
1) Papa Garvey did not invite RPS to the 1921 convention,
2) Papa Garvey was not in favour of her being invited,
3) decision making within the UNIA did not always reflect Papa Garvey’s own personal views or political position.
4) the UNIA incorporated Afrikans different political perspective (and religious orientations); hence was a “liberal organization”.
Despite having been confronted with the above evidence, by Bro Ldr Mbandaka on Voice of Afrika Radio (06/08/47), ‘The Author’ asserts:
“A suggestion has been made that Garvey was personally opposed to the participation of RPS, but the author of this idea has not yet produced the historical evidence to confirm this notion. Instead this notion has been advanced as a ‘logical deduction’…” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 6).
Not only is this statement completely untrue, it is proof of a predisposition to disregard clear evidence, deny reality and distort truth. The truth is that the RPS example falls flat on its face, when viewed in its proper context. In fact, Baba Martin gives us more insight into the insidious nature of her invitation, involving the unscrupulous head of the ABB, Cyril Briggs:
“The next ploy in Briggs’ attempt to impose a communist united front on Garvey was to have his white communist friend Rose Pastor Stokes address the Convention. She expatiated on Russia’s desire to free Afrika and on the need for black-white working class unity. She then called on Garvey to take a stand in relation to her overtures. Garvey was polite but noncommittal.” (Martin, 1976, p. 239)
Baba Martin also puts us in touch with Papa Garvey’s views about Briggs and the communist (Marxist) who he described as:
“…a group of liars, plotters and artful deceivers who twist – a one third truth to a whole big lie, and give it out to the unthinking clientele for consumption. (What’s new?). Communism in among Negroes in 1920-21 was represented…by such Negroes as Cyril Briggs and W.A. Domingo and my contact with and experience with them, and their methods are enough to keep me shy of that kind of communism for the balance of my natural life.” (Martin, 1976, p. 164 – emphasis & Parenthesis added).
Lewis attests to this characterization of Briggs’:
“Cyril Briggs appears repeatedly to have been ingratiating himself into Garvey and the UNIA, and simultaneously knifing Garvey in the back.” (Lewis, 1994, p. 162,) – (Doesn’t history have a way of repeating itself?)
The reader should be aware that ‘The Author’ had repeatedly pronounced on radio that Papa Garvey had invited RPS, himself, until challenged on VOAR. Since then the emphasis seems to have shifted to the UNIA inviting her “under Garvey’s leadership”; a nebulous ‘fact’; amounting to a mere technicality, but amplified into the realm of fantasy. But Lewis brings us back down to earth:
“Briggs argued…that the ABB was thrown out of the convention because Garvey saw the Brotherhood program ‘gaining favor in the eyes of most of the delegates’ and Garvey feared to make an alliance with revolutionaries.” (Lewis, 1994, p. 166 – emphasis added).
Whilst Briggs’ was clearly in denial as to the role “the delegates” played in rejecting the alliance and ousting the ABB, he was evidently spot-on, as regard Papa Garvey’s total refusal of the alliance. Perhaps ‘The Author’ knows something that Briggs, Stokes and their other Marxist contemporaries didn’t.
Lewis informs us further that Briggs boasted about how his investigations into the Black Star Line triggered government inquiries that led to Papa Garvey’s trial (frame-up) and imprisonment for mail-fraud. Why ‘The Author’ chose to twist the story should be a concern for the reader. (Lewis, 1994, p. 166).
The Ho Chi Minh Spin
Up until the said VOAR radio programme, ‘The Author’ was propagating the notion that Ho Chi Minh (the Vietnamese revolutionary) was a Garveyite. He has even presumed to pour ‘libation’ to him, on his radio show; a most sacred ritual in our Afrikan tradition which is the exclusive domain of Mudzimu-Mukuru (The Great Ancestors).
This desecration of an Afrikan ‘sacred property’ has never been witnessed by this Movement anywhere else in twenty years of studying and practicing Afrikan Spirituality; or by our leading members in their many years on Liberation Road: e.g. Bro. Ldr. Mbandaka – 25yrs; Eld. Bro. Gamba Kokayi – 32yrs.
The basis upon which he has so anointed Ho Chi Minh, appears to be that he attended some UNIA meetings. But many people, Afrikans even, attended UNIA meetings who were not Garveyites, including some of Papa Garvey’s bitterest enemies, e.g. Cyril Briggs and his cronies. Certainly, Baba Martin’s position on this is congruent with ours.
“That doesn’t make him a Garveyite in the sense that one had to be of Afrikan Ancestry to join the Garvey movement so he clearly wasn’t a Garveyite…” (Whirlwind-5, 2007, p. 8)
This Movement is not aware, nor was Baba Martin, that Ho Chi Minh had ever referred to or even considered himself a Garveyite; or that he had ever proclaimed Papa Garvey to his people, in that sense. Furthermore, when considering Papa Garvey’s fundamentalist ‘Race First’ principle, the question begs, which race did Minh put first?
To Papa Garvey himself this was “hero worship of other races” against which he admonished:
“The time has come for the (Afrikan) to forget and cast behind him his hero worship and adoration of other races and…create and possess heroes of his own. We must canonize our own saints, create our own martyrs and elevate to positions of fame and honor black men and women who have made a distinct contribution to our own racial history.” (Clarke, 1974, p.156).
Friend, Frauds or Foreigners?
The author contends:
“From the very beginning non-Afrikans played an important role in relation to the UNIA. Marcus Garvey explains how he had the assistance of European ‘friends’… In fact, not only does Garvey appear to be grateful to some Europeans…but Garvey argued that the people that posed the greatest obstacle to the development and progress of the UNIA were among his own Afrikan people.” (Ru Pert, 1994, p. 4,).
Notably, this has a ring of the British Bicentenary abolition narrative:
“Blacks sold Blacks into slavery. Good white people abolished slavery.”
And who were these ‘alliances’ with: a Catholic Bishop, the Jamaican Governor, a Colonial Secretary, a Brigadier General, the Mayor of Kingston, Sir Something-or-other, etc., i.e. prominent members of the colonial establishment. We are not clear as to how he reconciles Papa Garvey being an “anti-imperialist” whilst “building alliances”, with arch “colonial imperialist” to defeat “imperialism”.
Once again, he fails to apply appropriate contextual analyses – time-frame, socio-political milieu, Papa Garvey’s age and stage of political development, the incipient characteristics of the UNIA, the motives of the colonialists, etc. However, Prof. Tony Martin provides some assistance:
“In the beginning the UNIA did not seem very different than most other West Indian charitable organizations. It entertained and fed hundreds of poor and sick people, especially on emancipation day (August 1st) and Christmas…” (Martin, 1983, p. 33).
“At first some influential white persons such as the governor and a Scottish clergyman helped the UNIA. They could find nothing wrong with just another charitable organization, or so the UNIA seemed. Later they would change their minds… The most severe opposition at the beginning came from the colored group and some of the better off Blacks.” (Martin, 1983, p. 34 – emphasis added).
Papa Garvey’s own reflections add further revelation:
“I never really knew there was so much colour prejudice in Jamaica…until I started the work of the UNIA… No body wanted to be a Negro… Men and women as black as I, and even more so, had believed themselves white under the West Indian order of society…everyone beneath his breath was calling the Black man a nigger… I had to decide whether to please my friends and become one of the black-whites of Jamaica or come out openly and defend and help improve the integrity of the black millions and suffer. I decided to do the latter…” (Martin, 1983, p. 35 – emphasis added).
Evidently, Papa Garvey’s ‘friendship’ with these white ‘philanthropists’ was contingent on their perception of him as a “Black-white” – a coconut, token Negro, an uncle-tom – like the minority Black well-to-does, who were “obstacles to the progress of the UNIA”. Papa Garvey’s decision to “come out openly”, suggests that he had hitherto proceeded cautiously and covertly (undercover); hence his use of rhetoric designed to stroke white-egos and milk the breasts of white-charity. Indeed, his memorandum to Robert Moton, from the Tuskegee Institute, made clear his apprehensions about his ‘white friends’:
“…up to now my one true friend as far as you can rely on his friendship is the white man.” (Clarke, 1974, p. 62 – emphasis added).
Thus, what seems to have excited ‘The Author’ as evidence of an alliance was in fact old fashioned white supremacist paternalism vis-à-vis the non-threatening façade of the UNIA, in its infancy, in 1914-1916 colonial Jamaica; when Papa Garvey was aged 27-29yrs and still politically green (though not naïve). But his career was not static. It evolved through stages and phases of experience, growth and development – mentally, spiritually and politically – over the twenty six years of service to his people as the leader of the UNIA.
The evidence in fact shows that Papa Garvey became increasingly radical with age and experience. When he returned to Jamaica in April 1927, aged 40, the same ‘white friends’ conspired relentlessly to destroy him, proving that they were always frauds. His thunderous message at the Ward Theatre the day after his arrival – ‘Afrikan Fundamentalism’ – stoked a rapturous reception from the downtrodden Afrikan masses, sending out a fierce warning to their vicious colonial oppressors.
“When I look upon the people of this country, their naked condition – their dirty and diseased condition – do you think that I…could keep my mouth closed and my soul steady as a Black man, and let the foreigner sap the wealth of this country while our people die in poverty?” (Martin, 1983, p. 122)
With 13 years of the American experience behind him, having built a Movement of 13 million members, having witnessed white supremacist chicanery in the sabotage of his Movement – his imprisonment, the Black Star Line Steam Ship corporation and the Liberia agricultural, industrialization and $2m infrastructural development plan – his speech bore no overtures to ‘white friends’, but laid bear their savagery.
“…when we were embracing the arts and sciences on the banks of the Nile their ancestors were still drinking human blood and eating the flesh of their conquered dead; when our civilization had reached a noonday of progress they were still running naked and sleeping in holes and in caves with bat, rats and other insects and animals. After we had already fathomed the mystery of the stars and reduced the heavenly constellation to minute and regular calculus they were still backwoodsmen, living in ignorance and in blatant darkness.” (Clarke, 1974, p. 157).
According to Baba Martin the governor of Jamaica tried to persuade the US government not to deport Papa Garvey as he did not want him on Jamaican soil. (Martin, 1983, p.124). The colonial press attacked him daily, the UNIA was illegally forced by the courts to sell one of its properties and although they were subsequently compensated they were kept tied up in litigations designed to distract the organization and neutralize its effectiveness.
He was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. Another 6-month sentencing was averted by a successful appeal, but was effective in serving the aforementioned purpose, especially in light of the Peoples Political Party (PPP), which he started and which demanded in its manifesto, inter alia: representation in the British parliament, self-Governance in Jamaica, and laws to impeach and imprison unjust and corrupt judges.
Erroneous Miscellaneous.
The Author presents a further range of erroneous ‘miscellaneous’ examples (highlighted below), replete with the illogical assumption that the UNIA/Papa Garvey’s every interaction with non-Afrikans constitutes an ‘alliance’. No evidence is presented that any of these ‘allies’ were agitating for Afrikan liberation or even returned the compliments extended by the UNIA/Papa Garvey. Alliances are reciprocal!
Garvey wrote on anti-colonial movements in China, India and Egypt.
The Whirlwind has featured articles criticizing the war on Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinians. But this does not mean that we are in alliance with the Arab world which remains oppressors and exploiters of our people.
Non-Afrikans delegates represented China, Ireland, India, Persia, and Soviet Russia at UNIA conventions.
UNIA conventions were not exclusively UNIA events and therefore did not solely reflect the policies of the UNIA or Papa Garvey. Accordingly, Baba Martin informs us:
“Garvey was a Race First person. He didn’t normally have too many white folks addressing him…” (Whirlwind, 2007 p.8).
Garvey shared platform with the leader of the Irish Republican Movement (IRM) and met with Irish sympathizers at Liberty hall.
Papa Garvey spent the last five years of his life in England and had re-established his headquarters and a UNIA branch there, yet one does not here of significant interactions with the IRM or of them offering him support in times of difficulties, or even inviting him to speak.
Garvey/the UNIA: passed resolutions, sent cables and displayed banners to Mahatma Ghandi, Eamon De Valery (Ireland), in sympathy.
Mahatma Ghandi is on record as having made racist comments about Afrikans and supporting the Apartheid system, as applied to Afrikan people, whilst he lived in South Afrika. This was not widely known in the 1920s. Moreover, he is of the Hindu tradition with its vicious vana (caste) system that regards Afrikan people to be Harijan (untouchable) ie outside the body of Brahman (their God).
A Persian representative spoke at the 1922 convention. Persia (Iran & Iraq) in return used its national status to present a UNIA petition to the League of Nations.
This is merely quid pro quo politics (you scratch my back, I scratch yours). Persia is part of the Arab world which has enslaved Afrikan people for the past 14 hundred years and regards our people as Zanj (sub-human). In fact, the name Iran comes from the word Aryan (Indo-European) who established the Hindu vana system (1600BC) and from which the ideas of fascism originated.
The UNIA supported/voted for white candidate over black ones in US and Jamaican elections.
Such Black candidates were representing white political entities (not independent Black entities) doing the white-man’s bidding. Clearly, the UNIA voted tactically, for one white entity over another, in the best interest of our people, despite the token Black faces.
Garvey spoke in Hyde Park to audiences of non-Afrikans.
Thousands of Afrikans were living in or passed through London in the 1930s – students, sailors, soldiers, ‘servants’ etc. Many visited Hyde Park Corner, where Papa Garvey sought to recruit for his new UNIA-UK Branch. Renowned Marxists George Padmore and C.L.R. James visited Hyde Park to heckle Papa Garvey and even threw stones to disrupt his speeches. This suggests that he was not advocating the Marxist ideal of ‘building alliances’.
Bro Ldr Mbandaka has spoken and delivered workshops to mixed audiences over the years at various local authorities, churches, schools, the Institute Of Education, etc. This does not mean that we were/are in alliances with them.
Garvey spoke at the Royal Albert Hall to majority Europeans.
But what did he say? Mama Amy Jaques Garvey and E. U. Essien-Udom give us the following summation:
“Garvey employed all his oratorical skills to enlighten his audience on the disabilities of black folks in their relations to the white world, their enslavement, colonization, exploitation, and brutalization. He scorns the hypocrisy of statesmen of the twentieth century for their failure to realize that there could be no peace in a world half free and half slave… Garvey passionately pleads with the whites for the emancipation of his race and a homeland in Afrika…” (Garvey & Udom, 1977, p. 43)
They give no inclination nor do documentations of the speech bear any evidence to support ‘The Author’s’ fantasy of alliance building (Clarke, 1974, p. 284-299; Garvey & Udom, 1977, p. 44-58).
Garvey Built Alliances with anti-Afrikan fascists.
There is something politically naïve if not sinister about the suggestion that Papa Garvey simultaneously aligned himself with colonialist-imperialist, fascist and communist-anti-imperialist. It even smacks of an insidious attack on the integrity of The Prophet. In The Prophet’s letter to the UNIA, to which The Author refers, introducing John Powell of the Anglo Saxon Club of America, Papa Garvey states:
“They represent the clean-cut and honest section of the white race that uncompromisingly stands for the purity of their race, even as we unhesitatingly and determinedly stand for the purity of the (Afrikan) race.” (Garvey, 1967, p. 338).
Papa Garvey was exposing the hypocrisy of the American Government whose true character and agenda was manifested in the countenance and rhetoric of the Anglo-Saxon Club and the KKK. In fact, they were often referred to as the true government of America. There is a ring of irony about the notion that a Black and a white separatist group were in alliance.
Garvey/the UNIA nurtured anti-imperialist alliances.
‘The Author’ asserts:
“The colonialist understood that if imperialism was sufficiently weakened by the co-ordinated efforts of anti-imperialist forces then Afrikan and other colonized people would rise in revolt. If revolts in the colonies were successful, the colonial agents would obviously be the first to die.” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 9).
This contradicts the Garvey alleged alliances with white colonialist-imperialist ‘friends’. It is established war strategy to play enemy factions off against each other (as Haiti did with France, Britain and Spain), but playing ‘friends’ and ‘allies’ off against each other defies logic, morals and sanity. Unless of course neither were friends or allies in the first place. Papa Garvey’s words are instructive here:”
“Keep the other races divided and fighting each other as much as you can as to take advantage for your self… If they have no other problem to occupy their time, they will turn to you and turn on you… the more confused they are worrying about their troubles, the more time you will have to get out of your trouble.” (Martin, 1986, p. 133)
QUINTESSENTIAL GARVEYISM – Dispelling The Myths.
Race First – (Race Exclusive/Race Only)
The fundamental principles of Garveyism are Race First, Self-Reliance and Nationhood (nation building); ‘Race First’ being the primary principle. In the words of the Prophet himself:
“In a world of wolves one should go armed and the most powerful defensive weapon within reach of (Afrikans) is the practice of ‘Race First’ in all parts of the world.” (Martin, 1976, p. 22 – emphasis added).
Baba Martin explains:
“Central to the ideological basis underpinning Garvey’s program was the question of race. For Garvey the Black man was universally oppressed on racial grounds, and any program of emancipation would have to be built around the question of race first. The race became a “political entity” to be redeemed.” (Martin, 1976, p.23)
The author seeks to eliminate ‘Race First’ from the ‘debate’, by introducing a false dichotomy between ‘Race First’ and “race exclusive” or “race only”:
“…we can corrupt the research process and waste time by attempting to interpret irrelevant facts. This is precisely what happens with the interjection of ‘race first’ into the debate.” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 3)
“Any attempt to interpret ‘race first’ in a manner that justifies the exclusion of non-Afrikans from all UNIA meetings, or to dismiss the fact that the UNIA had alliances with non-Afrikans, is to attempt the falsification of history. We can make these categorical statements because it is provable that the UNIA practiced ‘race first’ at the same time as it invited non-Afrikans to participate in their public meetings…” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 15).
“The UNIA experience confirms that ‘race first’ does not mean race exclusive or Afrikan race only.” (Ru Pert, 2007, p.15).
Marxists will always seek to undermine any race analysis of Afrikan oppression, as their ideological masters require them to. They are conditioned to believe that racial oppression is predicated on class oppression and is therefore subject to the primacy of class analysis:
“…Randolph (an anti-Garvey Marxist) and his associates attributed race prejudice to capitalism. They held that in an individualistic economic system, competition for jobs and the profitableness of race prejudice to the capitalist class were incentives to race conflict… Therefore removal of the motive for creating racial strife was conditioned upon…the elimination of economic individualism and competition through revolution… In this orthodox class analysis, race…becomes only a tool used by the capitalist to beat down the workers of all colors. The Black have no alternative but to struggle for an ‘alliance’ with white workers.” (Lewis, 1994, p. 159 – parenthesis & emphasis added).
The emphasis therefore is placed on redeeming “humanity” rather than liberating Afrikan people. But, “Against the rival suggestion that “humanity” and not the Black race should be his zeal” Baba Martin informs us that Papa Garvey argued:
“…it was not humanity that was lynched, burned, jim-crowed and segregated, but black people…” (Martin, 1976, p. 23 – parenthesis added).”
Baba Martin explains:
“This analysis led Garvey inevitably in the direction of ‘racial separation’…and there was nothing that displeased him more than the Black man who did not think in racial terms.” (Martin, 1976, p. 24- emphasis added).
Papa Garvey understood well that the perpetuation of racial oppression relied upon its capacity to eradicate the racial consciousness of its victims, thereby rendering them mentally defenseless and dependent. Any semblance of racial consciousness, therefore, must only be within the context of shame and degradation. Thus, he said:
“The world has made being black a crime, and I have felt in common with men who suffered like me and instead of making it a crime, I intend to make it a virtue.” (Martin, 1976, p. 23)
Note, “the world”, which suggests that he understood that although the white-world was our primary oppressors, the Afrikan race was under attack from other races i.e. Arabs, Asians, Jews, Chinese, etc.
In the speech Afrikan fundamentalism he charged:
“The world today is indebted to us for the benefits of civilization. They stole our arts and sciences from Afrika. Then why should we be ashamed of ourselves…” (Clarke, 1974, p. 157).
And in this vein of race indignation, he commanded:
“Let no voice but your own speak to you from the depths. Let no influence but your own rouse you in times of peace and in times of war. Hear all, but attend only to that which concerns you. Your allegiance shall be to your God, your family, race and your country.” (Clarke, 1974, p. 158).
Clearly here, ‘Race First’ meant “race exclusive/race only”.
Membership of the UNIA – (Race Exclusive/Race Only).
It is not in dispute that membership of the UNIA was reserved for Afrikans exclusively or that Afrikans who were in relationships with non-Afrikans could not hold high office in the UNIA (even ‘The Author’ accepts this). In other words only Afrikans could join the ‘race exclusive’, Afrikan ‘race only’ UNIA and only Afrikans who were not in relationships with non-Afrikans could be an officer of the ‘race exclusive’, Afrikan ‘race only’ UNIA. These are integral elements of the ‘Race First’ principle.
UNIA Aims and Objectives – (Race Exclusive/Race Only).
The aims and objectives of the UNIA are concerned exclusively with Afrikans and the liberation of Afrika and Afrikan people worldwide. It makes no reference to the plights of non-Afrikans and certainly does not advocate alliances with non-Afrikans. In The Author’s view:
“…if the UNIA were in principle against building alliances with non-Afrkians, we would expect documents like the ‘declaration of rights’ to highlight that.” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 3)
Here ‘The Author’ descends into reductio ad absurdum with his reasoning that if the UNIA did not explicitly say they were against ‘alliances’ then theymust have been for them. It might more sensibly be argued that ‘alliances’ were not a central concern to the UNIA’s aims, objectives and general organizing principles and therefore not worthy of being documented.
In any case, the ‘Declaration of Rights’, is not the philosophy or the aims and objectives of the UNIA; nor is it an exclusive UNIA document. It is the resolution of the 25,000 delegates from around the world (members and non-members), who attended the International Convention of the Afrikan People of the World in 1920 (like the Bridgetown Protocol – agreed at the Afrikan and Afrikan Descendants – World conference Against Racism, 2002); and who did not advocate ‘building alliances’ but:
“We believe in the freedom of Afrika for the (Afrikan) people of the world, and by the principle of Europe for the Europeans and Asia for the Asiatics; we also demand Afrika for the Afrikans at home and abroad -Declaration 13.” (Garvey, 1967, p. 138).
The race exclusivity of the UNIA’s aims and objectives is indisputable (cf: p. 25), notwithstanding ‘The Author’s’ talent for disregarding evidence.
The Course of Afrikan Philosophy – (Race Exclusive/Race Only).
No one can truly understand Garvey and Garveyism – how it evolved and its direction, under The Prophet – unless they are cognizant of his ‘Course(School) of African Philosophy (1937)’, in context with his ‘Philosophy and Opinions, Vols. 1 & 2’ (1923 & 1925). Contained in the Book,‘Message to the people’, Edited by Tony Martin, it provides the most definitive evidence of the UNIA/Papa Garvey’s evolution, including its/his position on non-Afrikans, aka “other races” – deemed Papa Garvey’s “last political will and testament” (Martin, 1986, p. xiv):
“It was in 1937 (aged 50), 10 years after his deportation from the United States, two years after relocating to England and three years before his death that Garvey introduced his Course of Afrikan Philosophy. This was nothing less than a distillation of a lifetime of organizational experience. It contained a mixture of the techniques he himself had utilized to achieve success and an attempt to incorporate the hard lessons he had learned with the benefit of an unfortunate hindsight.” (Martin, 1986, p. xv – Parenthesis added)
Blessed with the insight from having interviewed Baba C.L. James as a living, direct student of Papa Garvey, Baba Martin gives us an emphatic account of Papa Garvey’s mindset in designing the Course for the 10 Afrikan candidates (only and exclusively) whom he sought to prepare for UNIA and Afrikan (only and exclusively) race leadership.
“Garvey’s overriding concern was to develop within his organizers a fierce Afro-centric view of the world. He accepted as given, the fact that the white race had imposed their viewpoint on the world and he thought that Afrikan people would have to adopt similar strategies in their own behalf. The race first position would tolerate no permanent allies from among other groups. Whites were to be manipulated where possible, but their propaganda was to be avoided and counteracted. Under no circumstance were they to obtain positions of influence or control over Black organizations.” (Martin, 1986, p. xvi – emphasis added)
In lesson one, ‘Intelligence, Education, Universal Knowledge and How to Get It’, Papa Garvey urges:
“Your entire obsession must be to see things from the (Afrikan) point of view; remembering always that you are (an Afrikan) striving for ‘(Afrikan) supremacy’ in every department of life.” (Martin, 1986, p.12 – emphasis added).
In lesson 2, ‘Leadership’ he teaches:
“Insist on a campaign of race purity; that is doing everything moral and social within the race. Close ranks against all other races… never allow any other race to preside over your affairs… (Martin, 1986, p. 25 – emphasis added).
“If they (non-Afrikans) come as visitors, they must conduct themselves as visitors. They must never have executive control over your affairs, because they will always say and do things to suit themselves and that are against your interest; even though they profess the greatest amount of ‘friendship’.” (Martin, 1986, p. 25-26 – emphasis added).
The conjunction, ‘If’, means that non-Afrikans had no automatic right to attend UNIA meetings and that this was conditional on the stipulations or dictates of Afrikans. Therefore, Afrikans reserved the right to deny them admission to Afrikan events, if considered to be in our best interest. The lesson continues:
“If they swear on the bible don’t believe them. If they swear in God don’t believe them. Accept their ‘friendship’ for all its worth to you and nothing more. Their interest as a race can never be yours, whether they be Europeans, Asiatics, Jews or whatever.” (Martin, 1986, p. 26 – emphasis added).
The reader will note Papa Garvey’s use of the word ‘friendship’ i.e. a commodity that is as good as its utility (not its sentimental or social) value. ‘The Author’ may continue to ignore this evidence, as he does.
Lesson 3, ‘Aims and Objectives’, commences:
“1. To establish a universal confraternity among the race (not ‘races’).
“…there must be a linking up of fraternal relationship with all the members of the Negro race to the exclusion of none.
“Every (Afrikan) in the world must be a part of the confraternity. Every (Afrikan’s) interest must come first in all things of humanity. Not until you have served every (Afrikan) in the world should you seek to be kind to others. Charity begins at home.” (Martin, 1986, p. 27).
With life expectancy across Mama-Afrika being 45 years; where a child dies every 3 seconds from poverty related issues, we are a mighty long way away from meeting this criterion for extending charity outside the Afrikan race.
Under the subheading ‘Black Nationalism’, Papa instructs:
“Never confuse your ideas of Negro Nationality with that of other peoples, so as to think that their nationality is good enough for you… never think that if the Japanese gain control of the world, they will treat you any better than the Anglo Saxon or Latin. Don’t think that if the Chinese or the Indian get control of the world your position will be any better. All other races and nations will use you just the same; as slaves and underdogs. (Martin, 1986, p. 34 – emphasis added).
“Don’t encourage (Afrikans) to join Japanese, Chinese, Indian or any other movement; with the hope of getting greater freedom. They will never get it, because all peoples want all things for themselves.” (Martin, 1986, p. 35 – emphasis added).
Lesson 21, ‘History of the UNIA’.
Here, the work and accomplishments of the UNIA is outlined (1914-1937). Notably, this focuses ‘exclusively’ on the benefits of the movement to Afrikans and makes no pretensions toward alliances with non-Afrikans. In fact, its ‘only’ reference to non-Afrikans is to discourage any trust in their good intentions toward us (Martin, 1986, p. 163-189). It also clearly defines the role of non-Afrikans vis-à-vis the UNIA. Where they are willing to make financial contributions to the movement, this was to be accepted, but:
“Without any strings attached or promises made that would in any way compromise the clear-cut intelligence of the policy of the UNIA. Such contributions do not entitle the donor to any privileges of membership or any right to attend the meetings of the UNIA… should never entitle them to attend or take part in any of the business meetings of the organization…in the same way (Afrikans) give to white organizations; without having any claim on those organizations.” (Martin, 1986, p. 184).
Special care was taken not to reveal the inner business of the UNIA to non-Afrikans:
“Whenever donations are accepted from other races, the names of such persons…must be marked…an explanation must be given…so that no communication of a private nature will be sent to that person which reveals the business of the UNIA.” (Martin, 1986, p. 184).
Here again ‘Race First’ emphatically means ‘race exclusive/race only’. Thisprinciple was reinforced in lesson 22 ‘The Five Year plan’; established, in fact, at the UNIA Convention in 1934 (Jamaica):
“As far as white people are concerned we do not specialize in seeking contributions from them, but where you think it is wise to arrange lectures among them, revealing only the humanitarian part of the work, you may conduct those lectures and raise a collection… Do not commit yourself in any statement that would lead them to think that they could become members of your Association or be affiliated…or have any part in it. To do so would be a direct violation of the constitution… This applies to individuals of the other races…” (Martin, 1986, p. 202 – emphasis added).
‘Race First’ meant ‘race exclusive’ and ‘race only’ also in the realm of cultural expressions, and self perception, as instructed in lesson 3:
“Make songs about your nation and sing them. Write poetry about your nation and recite it… Don’t sing the song of other races. Don’t recite the inspirational poems of other races. Sing and recite your own… See only yourself in everything.” ((Martin, 1986, p. 37 – emphasis added).
Moreover, Papa Garvey would often affirm unequivocally that the Properties, Businesses, profits, assets, etc. of the UNIA were the possession of the Afrikan people of the world. He had never invited any other race nor indicated that they had a share or interest in the same. Thus, here again ‘Race First’ meant ‘race exclusive’ and ‘race only’.
Spiritual Ideals and Concrete Realities
To really understand Garvey and Garveyism it is also vital to comprehend Papa Garvey’s ‘spiritual ideals’ as separate from his ‘concrete realities’. This is evident in the UNIA’s statement of belief, which affirms, inter alia:
“It believes in the spiritual fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.” (Garvey, 1967, p. 81).
This is an ideal that Papa Garvey conceded “God intended we (humanity) should live by.” But he also realized that this ideal was only attainable where it was shared and practiced by all peoples. He understood, however, that this was by far not the case and was therefore not possible where one people oppressed, exploited and degraded another, as was the experience of Afrikan people (for millennia) at the hands of others whom, history bore witness, had repaid the best of Afrikan humanity with bloody conquest and degradation. Hence:
“It (the UNIA) believes in the social and political physical separation of all peoples to the extent that they promote their own ideals and civilization, with the privilege of trading and doing business with each other. It believes in the promotion of a strong and powerful nation in Afrika.” (Garvey, 1967, p. 81).
As the renowned and eminent scholar Baba John Henrik Clarke would say:
“Our humanity has been the reason for our down fall, but, by a strange paradox, our humanity has been the thing to sustain us.”
Self Reliance and Nationhood
The ultimate goal of quintessential Garveyism is ‘nation building’ by way of ‘self-reliance’ for the protection and prosperity of the race. Papa Garvey believed:
“No race is free until it has a nation of its own; its own system of government and its own order of society.” (Martin, 1986, p. 34).
Thus building institutions toward this higher ideal was the main thrust of the UNIA, not seeking friendship and alliances. In fact, The Prophet was rather irked by suggestions of the latter:
“If (Afrikans) will stop making all this noise about social equality giving white people the idea that we are hankering after their company and get business and build up a strong race industrially, commercially, educationally and politically, everything social will come afterward.” (Lewis, 1994, p. 163).
CONCLUSION
‘The Author’ commences his conclusion:
“It is absolutely undeniable that the UNIA under the leadership of Marcus Garvey openly practiced a policy of inviting non-Afrikans to participate in some UNIA meetings. It is also absolutely undeniable that the UNIA again under the leadership of Marcus Garvey built a broad range of alliances with non-Afrikans to further the aims of the organization. Anybody who attempts to counter either of these two blatantly obvious facts is simply attempting to falsify history.” (Ru Pert, 2007, p. 15).
We have herby demonstrated emphatically and extensively, with clear evidence, that the UNIA did not ‘build alliances’ with non-Afrikans and had no such policy in place; and that the context within which the UNIA/Papa Garvey interacted with non-Afrikans was not alliance building, but merely political maneuvering in the interest of the UNIA, and Afrikan people worldwide.
We have demonstrated further, with clear evidence, that it was Marxist forces who sought to impose alliance building on the UNIA, by surreptitious means, when attempts to negotiate this with representatives of Papa Garvey failed. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Papa Garvey himself came under severe attack and criticism, by the said forces, for his refusal to forge alliances with these self-ordained revolutionaries.
Moreover, we have placed in their proper historical context the words and actions of Papa Garvey and the complex internal dynamics of a UNIA that did not always reflect his views or positions (if it did the UNIA would still exist today, as an international force, and Afrika and all Afrkans would be free). We have articulated, in context, how Papa Garvey and the UNIA evolved under Papa Garvey’s leadership and inspiration (1914-1937), into an ever more radicalized and uncompromising ‘Race First’ Nationalist pan-Afrikan force, from what might have appeared initially (to some) as a non-threatening social charity.
Additionally, we have illustrated, with properly contextualized facts, that the concept ‘Race First’ was emphatically synonymous with ‘race exclusive’ and ‘race only’, which, in fact, is what made Papa Garvey so abhorrent to the Belligerent Marxist element, who expended great resources in trying to neutralize him and the UNIA. We contend that this element still exits today. In fact, it seems obvious that inasmuch as Briggs was, “ingratiating himself into Garvey and the UNIA”, while, “knifing Garvey in the back”, there are Marxists today who are ingratiating themselves into Garvey and Garveyism, while knifing Garveyites in the back.
We have shown that the UNIA exercised ‘Cultural Privacy’; that non-Afrikan attendance at its meetings was not a “right”; that it was minimal and marginal and at the discretion of its exclusive Afrikan membership. We therefore conclude that it is entirely consistent with Garveyism for Afrikans to exercise those powers of discretion to exclude non-Afrikans from our meetings (if deemed to be in our best interest) and enjoy ‘Cultural Privacy’, like they (all other peoples) do. This Movement would be more impressed if these Marxists would seek alliances with their Garveyite brothers and sisters, despite ideological differences.
The Author’s inexplicable omission of Prof. Tony Martin, as the worlds leading and most authentic authority on Garvey and Garveyism, has also been highlighted, as a betrayal of his motive and agenda, rendering his work, flawed and suspect.
We have exposed the folly, indeed the dangers, of a manifest Marxist, especially a self-professed non-Garveyite presuming to define and propagate Garvey and Garveyism, giving the impression, rather perversely, that the extent to which one may be called a Garveyite or deemed to be practicing Garveyism is the extent to which one is engaged in alliances, or, at least, interacting with non-Afrikans: an insult to Papa Garvey and gross distortion of his legacy; as well as symptomatic of an unfortunate complex that prompted Baba Ayi Kweyi Armah to lament:
“Spring water flowing to the desert, where you flow there is no regeneration. The desert takes the desert knows no giving. To the giving water of your flowing it is not in the nature of the desert to return anything but destruction. Spring water flowing to the desert, your future is extinction.” (Armah, 1979, P. xi).
Alas, we have also established that The Author presented no real evidence to substantiate his claim that “The UNIA ‘built alliances’ with non-Afrikans” and that his thesis was based upon assumptions, hypotheses and inventions prompted by whatever limited interactions Papa Garvey/the UNIA may have had with non-Afrikans, with little or no regard to context or outcomes.
It is clear from the contents of this response that ‘The Author’ even ignored blatant facts and evidence, in an attempt to prove his thesis, as if trying to make the evidence fit the thesis, rather the than the thesis fitting the evidence. For such an evidently experienced and skilled researcher, this is very disappointing and worrying, indeed. The ‘Rose Pastor Stokes Hoax’ is particularly baffling, when one considers that all the evidence of the UNIA/Papa Garvey’s rejection of the proposed/imposed alliance, are contained in the very source he cited as evidence; and that there was nothing in the said source to justify even a misunderstanding of the facts.
The reader will have to decide for him/herself who indeed is “attempting to falsify history” and who indeed has presented the “blatantly obvious facts”.
It is noted that the MGOC under the leadership/influence of Marxists (who, expressly, don’t believe in leadership/leaders), has adopted the slogan “One People, One Aim, One Destiny!” A revision of Papa Garvey/the UNIA’s: “One GOD! One Aim! One Destiny!”
It is understood that Marxists, like their protagonist, believe, “Religion is the opiate of the people”; but the core of quintessential Garveyism, which permeates its fundamental principles, was Afrikan Spiritual Orthodoxy – the worship of ‘God’ in our own image and likeness. Thus, ‘God’ and spiritually were central to Papa Garvey’s teachings and vision of unity for Afrikan people; i.e. under one (Afrikan) ‘God’, with one single purpose and direction. Thus, he said: “Never forget your God.”
The omission of ‘God’/spirituality is therefore a desecration of Garveyism, in the name of Garvey, which is extremely offensive to Garveyites. It is also superfluous in the sense that the utterance was designed to unite our people in the first place, appealing not only to the minds but to the souls of our people. Papa Garvey would turn in his grave to see the emaciation of his legacy, by omission of his fundamental and core principles, in his name. Papa C.L. James’ words are thus instructive, where he calls for protection of The Legacy from “forces that are trying to distort history”, which is the reason why he appointed Prof. Tony Martin as the “Authentic Historian”, with the expressed hope that:
“…into whosoever hands these lessons fall, that they may use them wisely. For in these lessons there is eternal life for Afrikans at home and abroad, in that they testify to God’s greatest gift to our Race, in the person of the Hon. Marcus Mosiah Garvey. Proclaim it to the world: “Africa for the Africans at home and abroad.” (Martin, 1986, p. xii-xiii)
UP YOU MIGHTY RACE!!!
TENDAI MWARI
©The Alkebu-Lan Revivalist Movement
Appendix
GARVEY, LUMUMBA MALCOLM: Black Nationalist Separatists (1)
Shawna Maglangbayan
INTRODUCTION
AS SURELY AS MARCUS GARVEY, PATRICE Lumumba and Malcolm X were lynched yesterday, they are being lynched today for a second time.
Yesterday the white man destroyed Garvey, Lumumba and Malcolm bodily. Today he is trying to destroy them ideologically by deforming and commercializing their political thought. While alive, any and all means were used to slander their names, hinder their movements, isolate them from their people, sabotage their work, ridicule their accomplishments and ultimately execute them. Once dead, they are delivered into the hands of a second lynching party: the adroit, cunning, Aryan supremacist gang which poses as the “best friend” of Black mankind. (2)
The most prominent members of the lynching mob who have set upon Garvey, Lumumba and Malcolm are cloaked in the sheets of marxism. Advancing upon our heroes with cries of “International Fraternity!”” soon none but their voice is heard. And when we ask: “What did our heroes say?,” we are told that they said, “Long Live International Fraternity!” From then on, it is no longer the voice of Garvey, Lumumba and Malcolm which falls on our ears, but that marxist rabble whose company these three men are have joined or to have “considered” joining.
The facts speak for themselves. There is hardly a book written about Patrice Lumumba that isn’t the work one or another Aryan of the “friendly” type. His speeches have been compiled as well – with inevitable “explanatory” prefaces – by “friendly” Aryans. His only book, Congo My Country, written in 1956 during the earlier period political development, and which appeared only death, was prefaced by another “friendly” Aryan.
The greater part of what has been written about Malcolm X has come from the enemy’s pen. The works of Malcolm have been literally taken over by the “friendly” group. It is they who compile his speeches, splice his words, “correct” his thinking and put it out on the market preceded by lengthy “explanatory” prefaces and introductions. One American Trotskyist has been so busy “explaining,” “correcting” and prefacing Malcolm X’s political thinking, that he is currently referred to as the “expert” on the matter. Another Trotskyist “”expert” on Malcolm X, who has cropped up in Europe, poisoned the French edition of The Autobiography o f Malcolm X with his “explanatory” preface.
Concerning Garvey, it wasn’t until recently (1967) that his Philosophy and Opinions became available again being consigned to oblivion for almost forty years. With exception of Garvey and Garveyism, written and published by his widow, Amy Jacques Garvey – and practically impossible to find anywhere – Blacks have had to rely on the deformed account provided by another “friendly” Aryan in a book entitled Black Moses. Everything has been done to keep the real Garvey out of the reach of his people. (3)
Whether they go under the pseudonyms of trotskyism, castroism or marxism-leninism, marxists have consistently sought to sap the life-blood from Black political thinking and sidetrack the struggle of Black mankind by undermining and sabotaging every Black national-separatist effort. How do they go about this? Simply by posing as revolutionaries who are equipped with the one and only philosophy, that can “save” Black mankind. He who doesn’t adhere to this philosophy isn’t revolutionary, but “counter-revolutionary.” That’s the type of whitemail that the Marxists put down; that’s their chief form of ideological terrorism against those who refuse to fall into their bankrupt ranks. (4)
By attempting to appropriate the legacy of Garvey, Lumumba and Malcolm, and by deforming their thinking that it appears to be pro-Marxist, if not actually Marxist, Aryan Leftists are showing how white supremacist they are. What they’re actually saying is that a Black man couldn’t stand up for the freedom and independence of his Black brethren unless he is Marxist-inclined.
When left-wing white supremacy proclaims that Garvey, Malcolm X, or Lumumba were, at one point or another “turning” to Marxism, what they’re actually telling us that the political relevancy of these Black men can only attributed to their being “under the influence” of one or other Aryan dogma.
The chief and only aim of this brief analysis of political significance of the three single Black men whose actions have decidedly marked the universal history of Black men and women in the 20th century – Marcus Garvey, Patrice Lumumba and Malcolm X – is that of presenting in the only light which seems to us to be the correct one. Our goal is that Black men and women the world may have a better grasp of what these men stood for, why they did what they did and in which direction they headed. To understand these issues, we feel, will better enable each one of us to assume our historical responsibilities’ and instill us with that sense of mission which animated these three Black men.
(1) Shawna Maglangbayan, (1972) GARVEY, LUMUMBA MALCOLM: Black Nationalist Separatists. Chicago, Third World Press, pp. 7-10.
(2) ARYAN: Throughout this essay, the term Aryan shall be used interchangeably with white to designate all members of this race. We shall depart from the usual usage of the term “Caucasian” – a highly incorrect and unscientific term-in designating members of the Aryan (or white) race. As far as we are concerned, an Aryan is either a Semite (Jew or Arab), a Latin (from Europe or South America), a Nordic (from Germany or the U.S .A.), or a Slav (whether in Russia or in Canada).
(3) A great deal of credit must be given to the widow of Marcus Garvey, Amy Jacques Garvey. It is she who is responsible for the compiling of Philosophy and Opinions and for its subsequent publication. In her own book, Garvey and Garveyism, she recounts how Aryan publishers had flatly refused to publish the two volumes of The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey. It was with tremendous difficulty that she finally managed to get the first edition of Philosophy and Opinions published in 1927. As she further details, its circulation was mainly dependent on a word-of-mouth and hand-to-hand diffusion. If it hadn’t been for her constant efforts to keep the real Marcus Garvey alive and his printed word intact, there is no telling what would have become of Garvey’s political thought.
(4) The Black American scholar, Harold Cruse, has produced what is, up to date, the most thorough and lucid analysis of the nefarious role of left-wing trends vis-a-vis the struggle of Blacks in the United States (and by extension, everywhere else). His, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual (William Morrow & Co., New York, 1967), a real masterpiece of independent Black scholarship, is an indispensable work in the study of the crippling influence that the marxist dogma has exercised over Blacks a general. On the other hand, it is an important key to the understanding of the development (or lack of it) of political thought among Blacks in the United States. Many of the conclusions expressed in this essay bear the direct influence of this important contribution of Harold Cruse
Bibliography
Books
Ani, Marimba. (1994) Yurugu: An African-Centred Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior, Trenton: Africa World Press
Armah, Ayi Kweh (1979) Two Thousand Seasons, London: Heinemann
Clarke, John Henrik (Ed.) (1974) Marcus Garvey and the Vision of Africa, New York: Vintage Books
Garvey, Amy Jacques (Ed.) (1967) The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey, London: Frank Cass Co.
Garvey, Amy Jacques (1970), Garvey and Garveyism, London: Collier Books
Garvey, Amy Jacques & E.U. Essien-Udom (Eds.) (1977) More Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey Vol.3, London: Frank Cass Co.
Lewis, Rupert & Maureen Warner-Lewis, (1994), Garvey: Africa, Europe, The Americas, Trenton: Africa World Press,
Maglangbayan, Shawna (1972) Garvey, Lumumba, Malcolm: Black Nationalist Separatists. Chicago: Third World Press
Martin, Tony (1976) Race First, Dover, The Majority Press
Martin, Tony (1983) Marcus Garvey – Hero, Dover, The Majority Press
Martin, Tony (1986) Message To The People, The Course Of African Philosophy, Dover: The Majority Press
Mbandaka, Bro. Ldr. (Ed.) (1998) Mosiah Daily Affirmation, London: Soul Force Promotions
Ru Pert, Omowale (2007) The UNIA built alliances with non-Afrikans
Newspapers
Kwaw, Omowale & Olatunji Heru (2007) Striking Back: Righteousness, Radicalism Reparations, The Whirlwind, Issue 5, p. 8
Mbandaka, Bro. Ldr. (2006) Who Is Winning The War On Terror 5 Years After 9/11?, The Whirlwind, Issue 3, p. 5
Videos
Ani, Marimba (1996) Yurugu Unmasked – An Introduction To White Studies, ‘Education of the Black Child’ National Conference
Internet references
Gandhi & Racism, http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm
Gandhi & the black Untouchables, http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi5.htm