gGarveyism Reconsidered:
Garvey-Du Bois Controversy and Black Identity Formation in the late 1910s and
early 1920sh
Yasumasa Fujinaga
This
paper is an examination of pan-African thought and movements in the late 1910s
and early 1920s. The organized
phase of pan-African movements began with the Pan-African Conference in London
which was proposed by H. Sylvester Williams, a barrister of Trinidad. It was at this conference that W. E. B.
Du Bois, who later became a principal organizer of the Pan-African Congress of
1919, 1921 1923, and 1927, had for the first time played major role in
pan-African movements. Due to
these and other intellectual activities, he is recognized as the gfather of
pan-Africanism.h But, immediately
after the First World War, it was Marcus Garvey, not Du Bois, who succeeded in
building the unprecedented mass movement of African Americans, African
Caribbeans and Africans.
Most studies of Garvey and Garveyism have
been influenced by African American urban history. One interpretation regards Garveyism as an expression of
desperation. Those historians who
offered this view characterize Garveyism as gescapismh or gfanaticism,h for
they think that Garveyism was supported by the guprootedh blacks.
[1] While their view is predicates on the scholarship on the
African American Great Migration that had regard that the urban experiences for
blacks were disruptive, the explosive growth of social history after the 1970s
makes us unable to support this interpretation. Quite opposite to the escapism interpretation, those new
interpretation which are influenced by recent social history that did not
describe black migrants as passive victims of racial opppression regards Garvey
as a kind of a pioneer anticolonial hero and Garveyism as a predecessor of
black nationalism of the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, this interpretation placed too much emphasis on
Garveyes historical uniqueness. [2] Theodore Vincent, for one, insists that
many of the black nationalist themes in the late 1960s was originated with
Marcus Garvey. However, it is
apparent that pan-Africanism was not originated with Garvey. If pan-Africanism means colonization of
Africa by the gNew World Negro,h this had been championed since the antebellum
period. For instance, as early as
1819, approximately a century before the founding of Garveyfs Black Star Line
(BSL), Paul Cuffe went to Africa and attempted to develop regular commercial
relations between the United States and West Africa.
[3]
It should be noted here that Garveyism
was not a coherent ideology, as Garvey was not an intellectual in the usual
sense of the term. That Garvey
frequently retracted his intemperate statements further complicated the matter,
and, as a result, Garvey and Garveyism came to represent the things that Garvey
was not actually responsible for.
For example, Garveysim is still perceived as a gBack-to-Africah
movement, but one scholar of pan-Africanism claims that Garvey had never advocated
mass migration to Africa.
Furthermore, although Garvey was notorious for saying gall the mulattos
in the world must be killed,h according to Robert Hilles exhaustive research,
no such a statement has been found in Garveyfs speeches, written statements, or
correspondence.[4]
But there still remains the fact that in
popular perception at least Garvey had advocated mass emigration and expressed
hostility against the person of gmixedh parentage, and this perception of
Garveyism results in the historianse presentist analyses. Most of the historianfs arguments revolves
around this popular perception of Garveyism, and, with the exception of Judith
Steines, they engage in ahistorical debate on the viability — that is,
viability in the historianfs own time —of Garveyes separatist strategy.
In order to understand historical
Garveyism and Garveyism, Judith Stein proposes to probe into the places where
everyday activities of Garveyites were found, claiming that it is impossible to
understand Garveyite discourse solely through its languages. Arguing that similar words and rhetoric
were also found in all nationalist movements and that Garveyes underlying
social philosophy and goals were shared by the leaders of the National Urban
League and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
she goes so far as to deny the originality of Garveyism.[5] Therefore, for her, the originality of
Garvey was not his words but his action, that is, his attempt to enlist popular
support.
Although I basically agree with her
argument, Garveyes philosophy, I argue, did differ from those of other black,
especially from that of Du Bois, if we closely examine the transformation of
Garvey. Also, Garveyism was quite
different from pan-Africanism of earlier period: While the earlier one was
characterized by the civilizationist missionary view, the post-war environment
became increasingly at odds with that view. Garvey was flexible and imaginative enough to respond to
this new environment.
The intellectual uniqueness of Garveyism
can be best explained by employing a comparative framework. This paper, by analyzing the competing
black ideologies of the late 1910s and early 1920s, especially what was often
called gGarvey-Du Bois controversy,h will try to illuminate the originality and
historical significance of Garvey and Garveyism.
In order to avoid the presentism that too
often plagues the scholarship on Garveyism and Du Bois - Garvey controversy,
the evaluations of this paper are based upon the close examination of black
intellectuals within their own times.
It is important to note here that the pro-segregationist aspect of
Garvey was not so pronounced before 1922.
Indeed, the Garveyes supporter included people who took an
anti-segregation stance: Delegates from New Jersey reported the problem of
segregation.[6] Thus, as there was so much
gstageh in Garveyfs career, we should set the specific time frame of the study.
According to Rayford Logan who worked
with Du Bois in the Pan-African Association, Du Bois lost enthusiasm for the
pan-African movement around 1921.[7] On the other hand, the decline of
the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) of which Garvey was the
president had been precipitated not by ideological reasons but by Garveyes
tactical errors such as a notorious alliance with the Ku Klux Klan. As the vicious attacks on Garvey could
not be reasonably regarded as those stemming from the ideological difference,
it is impossible to distinguish ideological difference from personal
animosity. Thus, the time frame
adopted for this study is the years between the outbreak of the First World War
and the First UNIA World Convention.
Although the Garvey-Du Bois debate was tinged with personal animosity,
this is the period in which we can reasonably regard their rivalry as rather
ideological in nature.
The prevalent portrayal of Du Bois-Garvey
controversy to the contrary, Du Bois and Garvey had much in common. The debate in the 1920s was revolving
around the concept of gself-determination.h This concept helped shake the hold of civilizationistic
uplift ideology, opening up the at least the possibility to envision more
pluralistic society. Garveyes
appeal was his militant advocacy of self-determination and the rise of
Garveyism signals the change from appeal
phase of black struggle to that of demand
/ command phase.
While Du Bois, black radicals, and Garvey
had much in common, they had a different notion of power, and this difference
was most apparent between Du Bois and Garvey. While Du Bois, lacking in the clear understanding of the
significance of a power base, had to hold on the appeal strategy, it was Garvey who began to demand black peoplees right to represent, represent in the full
meaning of the term, themselves. Here lies the significance and originality of Garveyism.
1. Race
Politics of the First World War.
One of the characteristics of W. E. B. Du
Boises philosophy is that he had always understood the global problem through
the perspective of race. As early
as 1913, Du Bois observed that European expansion in Africa, Asia and the South
Sea is gthe greatest and almost the only cause of war between the so-called
civilized peoples,h and this perception continued to dominate his thinking.[8] But, the article entitled gAfrican
Roots of the War,h which Du Bois wrote in the wake of the Great War in Europe,
is especially significant in that it shows his deepening understanding of
international race relations under imperialism. While properly acknowledging that the immediate cause of
World War was the conflict in the Balkans, by this time he came to find a kind
of a complicity of metropolitan organized labor in the imperialist expansion
and exploitation, saying that gThe present world war is . . . . the result of
jealousies engendered by the recent rise of armed national associations of
labor and capital whose aim is the exploitation of the wealth of the world
mainly outside the European circle of nations.h
[9]
Facing this situation, his urgency was
exacerbated by the fact that the pacifist movement would not address the
problem of race. He appealed to a
peace society which would hold a meeting in St. Louis to discuss the gracial
prejudice as a prime cause of war,h but the secretary of the society did not
wish to introduce the gcontroversial matter.h Thus, surrounded by white apathy, he came to put his faith
in the leadership of ggrandchildren of European slave trade. . . . writhing
desperately for freedom and a place in the world.h In other words, Du Bois envisioned the pan-African movement
with African American and African Caribbean leadership.[10]
Then, how did Du Bois envision this
leadership of ggrandchildren of European slave tradeh might accomplish the objective? Du Bois often claimed that his program
was to pursue the economic progress and political rights at the same time. However, regarding the relationship between
the economic and the political, he explicitly said gPolitical power to-day is
but the weapon to force economic power.h[11] As a result, he placed emphasis on the
democratic ideal:
We must extend the democratic ideal to
the yellow, brown, and black peoples. . . . To say this, is to evoke on the
faces of modern men a look of black hopelessness. Impossible!. . . .
Impossible? Democracy is a method
of doing the impossible. It is the
only method yet discovered of making all men a matter of all menes desperate
desire. It is putting firearms in
the hands of a child with the object of compelling the childfs neighbors to
teach him, not only the real and legitimate uses of a dangerous tool but the
uses of himself in all things. . . . [T]here is but one adequate method of salvation
— the giving of democratic weapons of self-defense to the defenseless.[12]
However, given the fact that a majority
of African American was disfranchised in the South and that Africans were
denied of their political participation, his strategy was no better than moral
suasion, and what is conspicuously absent here is the issue of power.
Despite this understanding of the cause
of the war, however, after the United Stateses entry into World War I, Du Bois
made it known that he would support the war. Among the reasons that account for his abrupt action,
William Jordan points out 1) governmentfs promises to address racial concerns
with such measure as an antilyching bill, 2)censorship threats against the NAACPfs organ, Crisis, and 3) the offer of a commission to Du Bois. He also claims that under these severe
circumstances, Du Boises decision was gunderstandable.h[13] Yet, Du Boisfs contemporaries regarded
his article, gClose Ranks,h as traitorous to the African American cause. To the surprise of his colleagues of
Niagara Movement, what he called for was unconditional
support for the war, for he counseled that gwhile this war lasts, forget
our special grievances.h[14]
To make matters worse, Du Bois also had
to confronted younger radicals, who became increasingly vocal during the
war. As early as November 1917,
the Messenger, which was edited by
African American Socialists —A. Philip Randolph who would become the black leader in early 1940s and
Chandler Owen — had already launched criticisms of established black leadership. They said gLet Du Bois . . . .volunteer
to go to France, if they are so eager to fight to make the world safe for
democracy. We would rather make
Georgia safe for the Negro.h[15] Consequently, they came to regard Du
Bois as a symbol of gOld Negroh which stood against their progress.
While growing government hostility
against dissident activities might account for Du Boises action as Jordan
claims, the same situation hardened, not weakened, other younger radicalfs
oppositional stance. For that matter,
the stance of Cyril Briggs, a West Indian immigrant and communist party
activist, during the Palmeres raid on radical activists shows how far the
cleavage between Du Bois and those younger radicals would become in the
post-war period. Briggs avowed that
gTo have been listed as ewell behavedfh by the federal government gwould have
forced us to cease publication and commit suicide since such a misfortune would
have convinced us that there was something radically wrong with our radicalism
and attitude on the race question.h[16]
While Du Bois still believed in ggood
willh of the US government, for younger radicals on the other hand, the
war-time propaganda of glet the world safe for democracyh was nothing but a
hypocrisy, and the government was not an embodiment of freedom but, in Brigges
term, gCrakerdom.h[17] The gClose Ranksh article contributed
to the crystallization of this schism.
Marcus Garvey who arrived in New York in 1916 would soon join this
radical group.
2. Marcus Garvey in Jamaica.
Although Marcus Garvey would join the
radical leadership, his activity in Jamaica was strikingly different from that
of years later. As late as 1916,
when he tried to raise a fund with which to establish an industrial school
modeled on the Tuskegee Institute, he embraced the notion that defined blacks
as those who belonged to gbackwardh race and who must gemulateh the
whites. He said:
We have had seventy-seven years of
unfettered liberty to mold ourselves into appreciable beings. Through the clemency and brotherly kindness
of the white man the opportunity of fostering an educational system, based on
the higher civilized ideal, has been afforded us, and the seventy-seven years
of application has not brought us up to an efficient state of culture, that
culture which would stamp us different people to the crude and uncouth in race.[18]
Whereas Du Bois declared gclose ranksh to
his fellow African Americans, Jamaica UNIA voted that gthe UNIA, in the name of
the colored people of Jamaica. . . . prays for a speedy and victorious
termination of the war on the side of Britain and her Allies!h Furthermore, reminiscent of Booker T.
Washington whom he admired, he went so far as to claim that under British rule
gthere is no racial friction in Jamaica.h[19] Thus denying racism, Garvey thought
that it was not racial oppression but black people themselves that were to
blame and that, in order to assimilate into the civilization, black people had
yet to submit themselves to the white gtutelage.h And it also came to be incumbent upon the black leadership,
of which Garvey was a self-proclaimed member, to facilitate the assimilation of
black masses into gcivilization.h
Go into the country parts of Jamaica and
you see there villainy and vice of the worst kind, immorality, obeah, and all
kinds of dirty things are a part of the avocation of a large percentage of our
people. And we, the few of
cultured tastes, can in no way save the race from injury in a balanced
comparison with other people, for the standard of races or of anything else is
not arrived at by the few who are always the exceptions, but by the majority.[20]
These are hardly the utterances of a
militant anticolonial hero. It is
worth noting here that this understanding of European civilization was not
quite unique to Garvey. For example,
Edward M. Blyden, one of the precursors of the pan-Africanist intellectuals,
was of the opinion that the British Empire was an instrument of gDivine
Providenceh to make possible the enlightenment of gbenightedh Africa, his
advocacy of salutary influence of Islam upon Africans notwithstanding.[21] For him and other figures such as
Alexander Crummell, a mentor of Du Bois, the assimilation into Western
civilization connoted the value by which blacks would in the future realize
their nationhood. We can still find
same kind of reasoning among the contemporary African intellectuals. For one, J. E. Casely Hayford, a
pan-Africanist of the Gold Coast (Ghana), put it:
In the order of Providence, some of our
brethren afore-time were suffered to be enslaved in America for wise
purpose. That event in the history
of the race has made it possible for the speedier dissemination and adoption of
the better part of Western culture; and to-day Africes [sic] sons in the East and in the West can do peculiar service unto one
another in the common cause of uplifting Ethiopia and placing her upon her feet
among the nations.[22]
Interestingly enough, Garveyes perception
at that time also closely resembles the uplift ideology of African
Americans. Kevin K. Gaines has
recently illuminated the process in which this ideology came to hold sway over
the African Americansf discourse of racial progress. Around the turn of the century, as the white supremacists
came to power in the South by shrewdly exploiting minstrel stereotype of black
idleness and immorality, African American elites opposed to their racism by
calling attention to class distinction among African Americans. For the African American elites, while
class stratification among blacks constituted their basis of a racialized elite
identity, it at the same time meant African American gprogressh along with the
evolutionistic ideal. More
important, these African American elites were not a traditional elites but a
newly emergent class. Gaines
argues that gthe idea of racial uplift had emerged out of the need of a rising
class of educated blacks, reformers, teachers, and professionals to constitute
themselves as an elite group within a racist society against the exclusiveness
of the Afro-American leisure class, the earistocracy of colorf and also against
the white supremacist fiction of subhuman blackness.h[23] And these African American elites, in
order to defend themselves against the further encroachment of their status by
the white supremacist, prescribed altruistic ideals of compassionate service to
the African American masses while at the same time relentlessly condemning
those who were indifferent to those elitese admonitions. Of course, one of the representatives
of these grace upliftersh is W. E. B. Du Bois, as well as Booker T. Washington.[24] It is not difficult to find in Garveyfs
passage the Du Boises famous formulation of black leadership, gTalented
Tenth.h Although Garvey lacked
formal education, the gTalented Tenthh is exactly what Garvey meant when he
said gwe, the few of cultured tastes.h
3. Urban
Migration During the War: Background of Post-war Pan-African Politics.
After returning from the Second
Pan-African Congress in 1921, Du Bois confessed that gOf the hundred and fifty
millions of African Negroes, few were conscious of our meeting.h[25] Although African Americans might be
indifferent to the Pan-African Congress, they did exhibit pan-African interest
in the form of Garveyism.
Regarding the initial rise of UNIA, all the existing literature imply
that as soon as Garvey was given the opportunity to present his opinion to
Harlemites, the UNIA began to mobilize gmassh support.[26] Although Garveyes charisma to galvanize
the people could not be overlooked, we cannot dismiss the structural change
known as the Great Migration, for the migration/immigration was an important
structural force that transformed the place where Garvey would launch his
activities.
The Great Migration of African American
population has been discussed elsewhere, and it is not worth repeating here.
[27] But, in terms of the present study, it is important to
delineate the contour of West Indian migration/immigration. According to Calvin B. Holder, in New
York City at the turn of the century, there were 3,552 foreign-born blacks, of
which West Indians comprised majority, while African American population
numbered 57,115. Between 1910 and
1920, foreign born black population in New York City increased more than
threefold (See, Table 1 in Appendices).
Although the data is not sufficient enough to judge the exact time of
the change, it nonetheless shows the overall trend. One of the salient features of this phase of immigration was
that the destination of the immigrant was changed. From 1918 to 1921, 57 percent of the total black immigrants
intended to go to New York, while Floridafs share decreased by 11 percent (See,
Table 2). Whereas those who migrated to Florida would engage in agricultural
labor such as in the tobacco fields, it is improbable that those who migrated
to the urban north expected to find a job in that category.
This feature — the movement from town to
the largest urban areas during the war —was exactly the same as that was
happened in the migration of southern African American populations. If the result of the
migration/immigration was the same, however, the process and the migrants/immigrantsf
class background had distinctive features. At that time, it would have cost $22.25 per person from New
Orleans to Chicago, $19 from St. Petersburg, Florida to New York, and $22 from
Mobile, Alabama to Detroit.[28] On the other hand, sea fare between
Jamaica and New York would cost $65 in 1916 and $95 in 1924.[29] In addition, the West Indian immigrants
had to have a gshow moneyh in order to enter the United States. Also, given the fact that, between 1900
and 1930s, male laborers in Jamaica earned between 30 and 50 cents per day, it
is apparent that the West Indian migrants were, compared with the native
migrants, coming from more economically advanced, albeit not affluent, group. West Indiansf immigration was more
selective in nature. Consequently,
in New York in 1925, 22 percent of Caribbean immigrants, as compared to 11
percent of native blacks, worked in skilled trades.[30]
Another important place which attracted
Caribbean migrants was the Panama Canal construction project. After the American taking over of the
project in 1914, Panama served as a way station to the United States. It was there that the Caribbean people
first experienced the racism of American style, that is, segregation.
[31] According to John Charles Zampty, who would become an
accountant of the UNIA, the wage scale of construction laborer was divided into
two: Silver employees that were made up of blacks; gold employees of
whites. The silver employeese
minimum wage was between sixteen and thirty-five cents an hour, but
corresponding wage of gold employees was seventy-five cents. More important, the African Caribbeans
found themselves to be categorized as black, no matter how light-skinned one
might be, which was rather unusual experience for a people who were not
accustomed to the binary world of black and white.[32] Regarding this brand of racism, Zampty
recalled:
Only in America did not mouth
hypocritical ideas, saying gYou are just good as I am.h America always said, gYou are a Negro
and you must stay that way.h In
America, you were told that you were Black and you stayed Black. But in other parts of the world— in
England, in South America, and elsewhere — you were patted on the shoulder to
make believe that they would treat you as you wanted to be treated, and at the
same time, they had an unwritten social ethic, deeply impressed from generation
to generation, that a Black man is not as good as a White man and should not be
given the same consideration under his system.[33]
In other words, Caribbean peoplees
racial/ethnic identity was redefined in Panama and/or in America, and through
this process they acquired the new identity of being black as well as a
resentment toward racism. Panama
is the place where Zampty encountered Garvey who was then trying to organize
the construction workers.[34]
It is important to note that Zampty, who
had accounting credentials, was forced to work as a laborer. It seems that the cadre of the UNIA was
made up of those who had education but could not find a job which corresponded
to their educational training.
Another good example of this situation was a Barbadian vice-president of
the BSL, Orland M. Thompson. As
for Thompson, Garvey said, gif he were a white man and honest, he could have
made his fortune. . . .in Wall Street.
I felt that because this man was colored, he was handicapped.h Therefore, according to Garvey,
Thompson was recruited into the office of the BSL.[35]
The contemporary African American
intellectuals invariably claimed that the UNIAes supporters were mostly made up
of the recent West Indian migrants — some called the gignorant West Indiansh —
and that African Americans did not support Garveyfs gBack-to-Africah scheme.[36]
Considering the fact that Garvey himself was a recent Jamaican immigrant, it is
probable that the UNIAes earliest supporters were recruited from the immigrant
population, for it is the usual behavior of immigrants/migrants to count on the
social/kinship network transplanted from their home land.[37] Nonetheless, if African Americans had
been indifferent to the UNIA as anti-Garveyites claimed, we could not find the
UNIA divisions in the areas which did not experience the West Indian influx. [38] Indeed, the UNIAfs activities were not
limited to the eastern seaboard states: The Milwaukee division was one of the
most active division of the UNIA.[39] Thus, it can be argued that while immigrants
from West Indies, who had better educational and/or economic background,
provided the necessary skill to set the UNIAes program in its way, Garveyfs appeal,
especially around 1920, did not limit itself to the Caribbean immigrants.
Recounting the immigration experience to
the United States, Eric Walrond, who was at a time a literary editor of the Negro World (official organ of the
UNIA), said:
We
took on as much of English civilization as lay in our power. In one island,
Barbados — a British colony since 1605 — the native drifted so far away from
the African ideal as to be considered even more English than the English themselves! Our love of England and our
wholehearted acceptance of English life and customs, at the expense of
everything African, blinded us to many things. It has even made us seem a trifle absurd and ridiculous in
the eyes of our neighbors. But the
absurdity of our position — an ostrich-like one — was not revealed to us until
we began to travel.[40]
It was his destination of their gtravel,h
Harlem, that international headquarters of the UNIA located at. Together with the experience of Zampty,
this brilliantly illuminates what had happened to the Caribbean immigrantsf
identity during their itinerary.
This immigration coincided with the UNIAfs membership drive in New York,
and Garveyism at its earlier stage was supported in part by these gexpatriate
nationalists.h And the rise of
Garvey, on the other hand, coincided with the transformation of Garveyfs
thought itself.
4. Transformation
of Garvey and Radical Politics in Harlem
Garvey in Jamaica was apparently
conservative in his thought, but this changed for the militant shortly after he
came to the United States.
Interestingly, this transformation was not related directly to his
economic program (i.e., BSL) which was in reality not militant nor radical but
capitalistic. It is the East St.
Louis Riot of 1917 that is especially significant to his process of
transformation. East St. Louis,
like other northern cities, experienced unprecedented mass in-migration of
African American population. What
made the race relations there especially tense was that the local manufacturer
overtly played off the African American workers as strike-breakers in order to
crush organized labor, and organized labor, the American Federation of Labor
(AFL) among them, disseminated the anti-black pamphlets and literature, with
the consequence that a rumor about a new black ginvasionh from the South
finally triggered one of the most vicious anti-black violence of that era.[41] In the wake of the riot — or more
properly, the massacre— Garvey took the position that the riot had not been
caused by the labor problem. At a
protest meeting held in Harlem he told that gIt was not through over-population
or through scarc[i]ty of work why East St. Louis did not want Negroes. It was simply because they were black
men.h In addition, for him, black
and white animosity was not a local but world-wide phenomenon, for he noted in
the same speech the incident of London in which the white mob attacked a black
residential area, and he perceived that g[w]hite people are taking advantage of
blackmen [sic] to-day because
blackmen all over the world are disunited.h Thus, for blacks to defend themselves, what was deemed
important for Garvey was the unity of black people all over the world.
[42]
Literature on Garvey and Garveyism
invariably points out that his radicalization had occurred around the time when
he stayed at London and established the relationship with Sudanese-Egyptian
scholar Dusé Mohamed Ali.[43] However, it seems that Garvey did not
take the position of pan-African advocate when he returned in Jamaica. Given the fact that he regarded the
British Government as benevolent civilizing forces in Jamaica and whites as
gour truest friend,h it can be argued that his change to militant/radical
happened later, perhaps in the USA or Panama.
What is remarkable in his thought after
the riot was that his understanding was racialized as well as globalized. Importantly, Garvey reached the United
Stated via exactly the same root as John Charles Zampty. Therefore, we could expect that, as in
Zamptyes case, Garvey also went through the same experience, with the
consequence that he came to redefine himself as black once again, and this
newly acquired or confirmed identity in turn had him reconsider his
position. In short, both
immigration process and a series of urban riots were crucial in his identity formation.
Importantly, this East St. Louis riot
protest meeting was presided by Chandler Owen. Although he would become a principal figure of the gGarvey
Must Goh campaign, in the aftermath of the riot, they were in fact on friendly
terms, which immediately attracted attention of the British and US
governments. Military intelligent
agents of War Department also linked Marcus Garvey, Republican Congressman
Oscar DePriest, the NAACPes Morris Lewis, and a famous anti-lynching crusader
Ida Wells-Barnett all together as engaging in a Bolshevist conspiracy to bomb
government institutions.[44] This fact cannot be easily dismissed as
a manifestation of the governmentfs racist attitude which could not
sufficiently differentiate various black opinions, for it was not only whites
but also blacks that echoed this kind of observation. For one, Fred Moore, the publisher of New York Age, counseled blacks against the
gradical socialistic outbursts, such as calling Negroes to defend themselves
against whites.h[45]
What is important here is that their
stance was recognized as different from that of more traditional black
leadership . We can perceive here
that the black leadership was clearly divided into two factions.
However, that Garvey had an understanding
which was totally different from that of the Messenger radical can not be denied: Garveyfs perception was
racialized. While the Messenger radical encouraged the fellow
reader to join the radical wing of organized labor such as the International
Workers of the World,[46]
Garvey was of opinion that class problem was not so important as that of race,
for the labor dispute could be solved through negotiation but the race problem
would not. Not only was his
statement racialized, but also it became increasingly tinged with martial
tone. Perhaps influenced by the
war-time atmosphere, he apocalyptically predicted that for the race problem to
be solved there needed to be another war in which the white race and gdarkerh
races pitted against each other.
Importantly, he saw in the First World War the decline of European
power.[47] Thus, even facing the massacre of
African Americans, he optimistically perceived the possibility to gwinh the
future war of races.
That the Messenger radicals — such as Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph —
could cooperate with Garvey also reveals one important aspect of radical
blacks: Radical blacks, although advocating the interracial class solidarity,
could not look at the problem solely from a class perspective. Their class understanding was to a
large extent circumscribed by racist organized labor, and their identity was
still defined by race.
Du Boises understanding of the riot was
different both from the Messenger
radicalsf and from Garveyfs. While acknowledging the fact that blacks lend hand
to play off the black workers against white, he aimed his denunciation at the
AFL, concluding that gin the present Union movement, as represented by the
American Federation of Labor, there is absolutely no hope of justice for an
American of Negro descent.h For
him, East St. Louis riot was a kind of a revelation of this danger of the labor
movement.[48] In a sense, the riot was a
manifestation of the capitalist-organized labor collision that he had regarded
as a world-wide phenomenon, which led him to keep some distance not only from
the AFL but also from the labor movement as a whole. In the post-war period, as we will see, this perception was
increasingly at odds with some black intellectuals who would come to regard
themselves as radicals, or what was then called the gNew Negro.h
To sum up for later discussion, during
the war, Garveyfs thought experienced significant transformation, and this was
related to the immigration experience and the outbreak of urban riot. In the wake of the riot, he allied himself
with the gNew Negroh who prided themselves for their militant attitude to race
problems. But, while the Messenger radicalfs class perspective
led them to seek alliance with radical labor movement, Garveyes perception,
taking a martial tone at the same time, became highly racialized, and for him
white graceh emerged anew as an oppressor. The ideological line between the Garveyite and
radical-leftists were not so obvious as it would later become, and this
alliance was forged regardless of their economic/class view. In other words, their racial identities
transcended other identities when they faced white violence.
5. Garveyes
Rise and Du Bois - Garvey Controversy
The gNew Negroh alliance was not just an
ephemeral product of emotional reaction to the riot, for they continued to work
together at least until 1920. In
early April 1919, the UNIA held a mass meeting with the Messenger radicals and elected Randolph and Wells-Barnett to represent
the black cause at the Paris Peace Conference.[49] A US military intelligence agent who
covered radical activities reported that the Garveyes movement was gnoteworthy
from the fact that it marks a transfer of leadership from the more conservative
leaders to others of a radical type,h and by the more conservative type this
agent meant to include Du Bois.[50] If Du Boisfs action during the
war was predicated on his hope of the post-war concession, a series of race
riots which culminated in the Chicago riot in July 1919, surely shattered his
hope to pieces, with the consequence of a further undermining of his
leadership. Also, given the fact
that Du Bois, too, had held the Pan-African Congress for the exactly the same
purpose as that of UNIA, this action of the UNIA was quite significant. In other words, around 1919, Du Bois
was put on the defensive side.
What especially disturbed the military
intelligence agent is the fact that gthe negro [sic] agitators are. . . .very indignant at the idea that the late
German colonies should be placed under white tutelage.h
[51] However, it is improbable that the participants of the
meeting demanded the independence of the colonies, for, a month later, a
conference held in the Abyssinain Baptist Church in Harlem, at which Garvey and
Randolph were also present, resolved that these colonies should be governed by
a ruling group gcomposed of the educated classes of Negroes from America, the
West Indies, Liberia, Hayti [sic],
Abyssinia, and the people of Japan and China and other enlightened sections of
the African and European worlds.h
Interestingly, this position was similar to that of Du Bois, except that
his version did not mention the participation of Asians. In December 1918, Du Bois suggested in
the Crisis that the former German
colonies gshould, under the guidance of organized civilization, be brought to a
point of development which shall finally result in autonomous states,h and by
gorganized civilization,h he envisioned the participation of geducated
Afro-Americans.h [52] This seems to be the position that Du Bois took in the First
Pan-African Congress which was convened only a month later. But, as for the status of former German
colonies, the Congress resolved that:
The natives of Africa must have the right
to participate in the Government as fast as their development permits, in
conformity with the principle that the Government exists for the natives, and
not the natives for the Government.
They shall at once be allowed to participate in local and tribal
government, according to their ancient usage, and this participation shall
gradually extend, as education and experience proceed, to the higher offices of
state; to the end that, in time, Africa is ruled by consent of the Africans. .
. . whenever it is proved that African natives are not receiving just treatment
at the hands of any State or that any State deliberately excludes its civilized
citizens or subjects of Negro descent from its body politic and culture, it
shall be the duty of the League of Nations to bring the matter to the notice of
the civilized world.[53]
It is apparent that the First Pan-African
Congress resolved not to include in its demands the African-American and
African Caribbean participation in African affairs. It is not clear whether or not this decision was urged by
the African delegates, but it appears that Africans were not enamored of the
idea of the African American, African Caribbean political leadership. Casely Hayford was also uncomfortable
with the idea of African Americanse and African Caribbeansf leadership.
Influenced by Edward Blyden, he
took the position that Africans had distinctive gnationality,h which was lost
in gNew World Africans,h gEthiopiansh in his term. And this gnationalh difference would pose the problem for
the native Africans, and at the present state, Africans in the New World could
contribute little to the development of Africa. With biblical flair, he put it:
How extraordinary would be the spectacle
of this huge Ethiopian race. . . . having imbibed all that is best in Western
culture in the land of their oppressors, yet remaining true to racial instincts
and inspiration, customs and institutions. . . .When this more pleasant picture
will have become possible of realisation, then,
only then, will it be possible for our people in bondage gmetaphorically to
walk out of Egypt in the near future with a great and a real spoil.h[italics
added][54]
Importantly, the resolution of the
Pan-African Congress still held on to civilizationism, and for that matter the
plan of the Garvey/Randolph group was not so much different, which shows the tenacious
hold of uplift ideology. However,
by the summer of 1920 when the UNIA held first World Convention in Harlem to
establish gprovisional government,h the differing perspectives of Du Bois and
Garvey would become very pronounced.
Whereas Du Bois perceived political power
preceded economic power, Marcus Garvey thought just the opposite. Preceding the UNIA World Convention,
the UNIAes activities were centered around the sales promotion of BSL stock. Evidently encouraged by the sensation
that the BSL caused among Caribbeans and African Americans, Garvey came to
believe in an economic pan-Africanism.
He said, gAfter a people have established successfully a firm industrial
foundation. . . . they naturally turn to politics and society, but not first to
society and politics, because the latter cannot exist without the former.h[55]
Regarding this difference, it seems that
their background — Du Boises New England education, Garveyfs Jamaican
upbringing — wielded a considerable influence: While in the United States
South, African Americans had been deprived
of their voting rights under the white supremacist regime, people of Jamaica,
white, gmulattoh and black alike, had never had universal suffrage. Indeed, Du Bois is notable for his
consistent advocacy of voting — that is, political— rights: The Niagara
Movement, of which he was a leading symbol, declared, in the second annual
meeting, first and foremost, that gWe want full manhood suffrage, and we want
it now, henceforce and forever.h[56] It is worth noting here that Du Bois,
drafting the resolution of Pan-African Conference in 1900, had brought to it
the American tradition of radical abolitionists. The resolution, gTo the Nation of the World,h said, gLet not
the spirit of Garrison, Phillips, and Douglass wholly die out in America; may
the conscience of a great nation rise and rebuke all dishonesty and unrighteous
oppression toward the American Negro, and grant to him the right of franchise,
security of person and property, and generous recognition of the great work he
has accomplished in a generation toward raising nine millions of human beings
from slavery to manhood.h[57] Apparently, the strategy that Du Bois
had contemplated was moral suasion.
Marcus Garvey, in contrast, did not have
voting rights in the United Sates, for his status there was non-citizen, and it
was rather natural of him to disregard the power of vote. For that matter, the other West Indian
migrants were placed under the same political situation, and, according to New
York Age, it was not until 1933 that
West Indian migrants launched first voter registration drive.[58] In any case, it was rather
inconceivable for Garvey that the existing power structure voluntarily conceded
political rights.
However, except this critical difference,
Garvey and other African American, African Caribbean intellectuals had had much
in common. On account of this
similarity, Du Bois himself unwittingly contributed to the rise of
Garveyism. We have already noted
that the Garveyfs statements had increasingly taken a martial tone. Writing around the time when the
celebrated black troop, the 367th Infantry Regiment, made a triumphant return
to Harlem, Du Bois extolled:
We return..
We return
from fighting.
We
return for fighting.
Make way for Democracy![59]
[italics in original]
Importantly, the black community which
these soldiers returned was not the same community but that experienced the
Great Migration. According to
James Grossman, the Chicago riot of 1919 had a gliberatingh aspect.
While southern racial violence usually resulted
from a symbolic transgression of racial etiquette, Chicagoes riot grew out of
competitive situation. . . . Moreover, the riot revealed a black militancy that
would have provoked either repression or expulsion in the South: when whites
attacked, blacks fought back.[60]
Harlem was fortunately spared the riot of
the gRed Summer,h but this altered atmosphere of Chicago black community can be
applied there. Of course gfighth
in Du Boises article was a metaphor of the struggle for civil rights. Still, the line between the
metaphorical and the literal became increasingly obfuscated when he called for
gevery ounce of our brain and brawn to fight a sterner, longer, more unbending
battle against forces of hell in our own land.h[61] Compare this with the Garveyfs speech
at the Liberty Hall, the headquarter of the UINA:
We are men. We were sent to France, and Flanders and Mesopotamia by the
white man to fight for democracy.
That democracy we have not yet won, and we will continue to fight for it
until we have completely won it for ourselves.[62]
Admittedly, the BSL venture was
capitalistic, and in that sense it was far from radical. However, Garveyfs martial language
added the semblance of militancy to his economic strategy, which was predicated
on what was then called grace patriotism.h And this was coincided with radicalizing, as well as
racializing, effect of the Great Migration both of Caribbeans and of southern
blacks. In other words, Garvey
found in the black community that emerged from the World War and the Great
Migration a locus of militancy.
Evidently, contemporaries identified
Garveyfs movement with such a militancy.
When Claude McKay, a black poet, composed the celebrated poem, gIf We
Must Die,h in the midst of the Red Summer of 1919, he read it aloud to his
fellow railroad workers. A friend,
who was moved by the scathing protest sentiment of the poem, suggested that he
go to the Liberty Hall and read the poem.[63] Besides, a Philadelphian thought that
gMarcus Garvey is going to declare war on the British Empire.h Although she was very critical about
Garvey because she predicted that the British government were ggoing to put
that nigger in jail and he ainft going to never come out,h what this
Philadelphian expressed was an amazement that was mixed with fear.
[64] These episodes attest to the image that Garvey identified
with. Only in retrospect can we
argue that Garvey did not have originality, but in the tense atmosphere of the
post-war urban black community, Garvey did have a originality that was
militant.
If Du Bois partly helped nurture the
responsive mood to Garveyes martial language, other black intellectuals
unwittingly lent hands to the promotion of the BSL. For example, at the same time the UNIA held the month-long
First World Convention, anti-Garveyite New York Age reported in the front page that gNegro business is expanding in
Harlem. It is expanding because it
is being built on sound business principles, because reliable goods and
efficient service are inspiring confidence in thousands of Harlem buyers.h[65] Just next to this report was the
picture of the UNIAfs parade with Marcus Garvey in its center!
One could claim that the business
promotion of New York Age was not
unusual, for the chief editor was the president of New York Negro Business
League, Charles A. Anderson.
However, it was not only conservative newspapers but, interestingly
enough, radical magazines that tried to gboosth black business. Cyril Briggses Crusader, which historians often describe as a communist magazine,
was one of them. In May 1920,
while observing that gIt is characteristic of the average colored person to
leave all the responsibility up to the other fellow,h the Crusader warned that gthe Negro should emulate the white man in
following his money with his active interest.h Given the fact that the BSL had already been surrounded by
numerous troubles, of some of which the Crusader
had disclosed, it is no doubt that this article was a disguised warning against
investment in the BSL.[66] However, the next issue of the Crusader advised the readers, among the
other things, 1) to encourage the Universal Negro Improvement Association
movement, 2) to adopt the policy of race first, 3) to invest in race
enterprises, but to follow your money with your active, personal interest.[67] Both Age and Crusader did not
present the criteria with which to judge the business prospect, which is
actually highly difficult thing to do even in our times. Consequently, what the black media
unwittingly did was to indiscriminately encourage the gBuy Blackh feeling. The BSL was nothing but a beneficiary
of this kind of advocacy.[68]
Marcus Garvey, perhaps emboldened by the
fact that other black leaders could not offer an alternative to Garveyes
economic strategy and also by enthusiasm and the sensation that the pageant of
the World Convention caused, decisively proceeded to break away from his past
philosophy. He proclaimed at the
convention that gAfrica belongs to every black men wheresoever he is
found. There is no logic, there is
no court of law in the world to prove otherwise.h[69] Importantly, by this time, perhaps
influenced by Woodrow Wilsonfs Fourteen Points, some white opinions concurred
with his contention. For one,
London Daily Telegraph, while
questioning appropriateness of giving immediate independence to British
colonies in Africa, editorialized that the Garveyes demand, gAfrica for
Africans,h was based on logic and rested on the principle of national and
racial determination.h[70] The colonial powers, including US
government, were immediately alarmed by this glogic,h for the Colonial Office
and US Military Intelligence Department were very quick to pay attention to
this kind of editorial.[71] Based upon this logic, Garvey
explicitly proclaimed that the era of white gtutelageh was ended:
It was claimed that the black man came
from a backward people, not knowing and not awake to the bigger calling of
civilization. That might have been
true eighty-five years ago or eighty-three years ago. But when we remember that eighty-two years ago in British
West Indies — eighty-tow years up to yesterday — millions of Negroes were set
free from the bondage of slavery; when we remember that fifty odd years ago, in
America, Negroes were set free from a bondage of slavery, and when we realize
now that the Negroes of America and the West Indies claim a civilization
co-equal with that of the white man, we declare, therefore, that what is good
for the white man in this age is also good for the Negro.[72]
Thus blacks came one step before to proclaim
their independence, and what was lost in Garveyes racialized thought was the
class distinction within the
race. If the uplift ideology based
their claims on class distinction within the race and depended on appeal to the white conscious, Garvey began
to demand the equality with the white
as a graceh Even if the other
black intellectuals shared the same thought, it was Garvey who shook the hold
of uplift ideology, for the former could not state the gequalityh as explicitly
as Garvey did. It should be noted,
however, that Garvey still seemed to have embraced the notion that Africa
needed some kind of guidance: He did not go so far as to claim that Africans
were equal with whites. In that
sense, Garveyfs break from the uplift ideology was, albeit significant, still
conditional. To put it another
way, for Garvey, the African American and African Caribbeans had already been
guplifted.h His confidence in
African American and African Caribbean stemmed from his diagnosis of the effect
of the First World War: He said gThe war has made the negro [sic] better economically, but worse
politically.h[73] Thus, what appeared to be important for
him was the economic power that would command
respect and eventually demand
political rights. Accordingly, if
blacks could glaunch ships and have our own black captain and officers of our
race,h blacks would gbe respected in the mercantile and commercial world,
thereby adding appreciative dignity to our down-trodden people.h
To this development, the most irritated
black intellectual was perhaps W. E. B. Du Bois, for he himself began to embrace
the same thought, perhaps earlier than Garvey. As noted before, Du Bois began to contemplate anticolonial
leadership of African American and African Caribbean after the outbreak of the
war. Also, in 1915, Du Bois wrote
in a part of the preliminary project which would later become Encyclopedia Africana.
The most significant centers of this new
thinking [among Negroes] are, perhaps naturally, outside Africa and in America:
in the United States and in the West Indies; this is followed by South Africa
and West Africa — and then, more vaguely, by South America, with faith
beginnings in East Central Africa, Nigeria and the Sudan.[74]
Although he thought that the Garveyes
scheme was very dubious, as if to attest to the fact that they had too much in
common, he for the time being took the ambivalent stand to Garvey. Interestingly enough, in the first
article that he had written about the UNIA, he expressed the pan-African hope
that Garveyfs movement would succeed.
Although he did not mention the name of Garvey or the UNIA, invoking the
biblical theme of Ethiopiaism, he noted:
It is this mass of peasants, uplifted by
war and migration, that is today beginning to assert itself at home and abroad,
and their new cry of gAfrica for Africansh strikes with a startling surprise
upon Americaes darker millions. . . . It
is not beyond possibilities that his new Ethiopia of the Isles may yet stretch
out hands of helpfulness to the 12 million black men of America. [italics
mine][75]
To his chagrin, it was not only the
gmasses of peasanth but also the gTalented Tenthh such as a Yale Graduate
William Ferris and a pan-African bibliophile John E. Bruce that joined the
UNIA.[76]
In retrospect, he confessed that gMy first
effort was to explain away the Garvey movement and ignore it.h
[77] But, the sensation of the First World Convention and the
expansion of the UNIAes activities made the silence increasingly difficult, and
mismanagement of the BSL and the delirious remarks by Garvey eventually led him
to launch a series of attacks on Garvey.
These developments reveal the extent to which the meteoric rise of
Garvey put Du Bois awkward position and that, at the earlier stage at least,
the philosophies of Garvey and of Du Bois were not diametrically opposed but had more in common. Nor can the rivalry between them be
characterized by gintegrationist v. separatisth dichotomy.[78]
6. Epilogue
Garveysim became one of major obstacles
that stood against the Pan-African Congress. After the UNIA World Convention of 1920, the Pan-African
Congress was frequently misunderstood as a Garveyite scheme, and, in Europe,
Garveyism was perceived as a militant anticolonial, not an economic self-help,
movement. As a result, Blaise
Diagne, Commissioner General of Senegal, became increasingly suspicious of the
intentions of American and Caribbean delegates, which in part contributed to
the French delegatees defection in the Second Congress in 1921.[79] Du Bois also had to make a considerable
effort to persuade not only his fellow delegates but also the State Department
that the Congress had nothing to do with Garvey. Partly due to this confusion, the Pan-African Congress
became defunct by 1923. Although
the Congress continued to meet in the late 1920s, Du Bois himself lost interest
in it. [80]
As noted, Du Bois believed that political
rights brought about the meaningful economic change, and, as for pan-African
politics, this perception seems not to have been accepted in Africa. In that connection, it is important to
note that, during the Second Pan-African Congress, what Diagne thought
problematic was the UNIAes right to
represent Africa.[81] Although Hayford continued to support
the UNIA as late as 1923, he was astute enough to limit his support to economic
cooperation. Furthermore, a
William Essuman Gwira Sekyi, a Gold Coast lawyer, was quoted as saying:
The salvation of the Africans in the
world cannot but be most materially assisted by Africans in America but must be
controlled and directed from African Africa and thoroughly African Africans.
For him, gThe most we can allow is to
open a way for the influx of the money of capitalists of our own race in
America and the West Indies.h[82] Thus, the Pan-African movement as it
was envisaged by Du Bois could not be realized in political sphere, and it came as no surprise that the UNIAfs
failure of Liberia colonization project was precipitated by the misunderstanding
that the UNIA would take part in the politics of Liberia.[83]
Du Boises program at that time had to depend
upon the favorable white opinion, which was at the same time a manifestation of
his realistic assessment of political power. In retrospect, explaining the aim of the Pan-African
Congress, he put it:
[I]n practical reality, I knew the power
and guns of Europe and America, and what I wanted to do was in the face of this
power to sit down hand in hand with colored groups, and across the council
table to learn of each other, our condition, our aspirations, our chances for
concerted thought and action. Our
of this there might come, not race war and opposition, but broader co-operation
with the white rulers of the world, and a chance for peaceful and accelerated
development of black folk.[84]
Therefore, it is apparent that Du Boises
strategy still held on to the appeal
strategy. But, in the post-war
period, increasing number of black intellectuals begun to seek an alternative
power base that could demand the
concession. While Garvey
envisioned capitalistic economic programs to build such a power base, other radicals
sought this in the international proletarian solidarity, and both of them
criticized Du Boisfs attitude.
When Du Bois wrote the negative opinion regarding socialism, a reader
wrote to him, pointing to the limitation of his strategy.
Is one to infer that it is your hope to
being about a set of altruistic relationship between dominant and subjugated
races; a set of dealings based upon mutual respect and tolerance, in place of
cold, calculating exploitation of the weak by the strong? To what extent do you hope to bring
about a recognition of the darker races?
Those darker races which have the power to enforce the worldes respect,
already enjoy it. . . . Even universal political enfranchisement would offer no
positive relief. . . . . Is it not unreasonable to suppose that the
universality of the ballot would emancipate the Negro when it has failed to
emancipate the white proletariat. . . . It is an extreme Utopian fantasy. . . .
to hope that such a condition will come about through a change of heart on the
part of the possessing classes which will cause them to voluntarily share with
the non-possessing masses, black or white.[85]
To recognize the differences between the
appeal and the demand, as well as between the political and the economic, is
important, for they are closely related to the issue of power base. And it was this issue that would plague
Du Bois all through his life.[86]
In
retrospect, Garvey said that years between 1914 and 1922 were the gone glorious
time and opportunity for the blacks,h but that gthe world had practically
returned to its normal attitude.h
Also Du Bois noted that after 1922 settings that made the Pan-African
Congress possible had virtually disappeared.[87] In a sense, the pan-African movements
of the late 1910s and the early 1920s were a product of the post-war
upheaval. But what the war did was
to open up an unpredictable possibility.
Although the same advocacy was found in various black activist, it
was Garvey with his unique perception
of black politics that did not miss this opportunity, and by presenting the
working space of pan-Africanism in the form of the BSL, shook the myth of
gbackwardh race.
TABLE 1: Foreign Born Population Increase
in New York City, 1900-1930.
Source:
Calvin B. Holder, gThe Causes and Composition of West Indian Immigration to New
York City, 1900-1952,h Afro-Americans in
New York Life and History 11 (January, 1987), p.26.
TABLE 2: States of Intended Residence of
Black Immigrants, 1900-1932.
Source: Holder, ibid., p.27.