gGarveyism Reconsidered: Garvey-Du Bois Controversy and Black Identity Formation in the late 1910s and early 1920sh

Yasumasa Fujinaga

Introduction

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.

APPENDICES

 

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.

 



[1] E. David Cronon, Black Moses: The Story of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1955), pp.221-222: Theodore Draper, The Rediscovery of Black Nationalism (New York: Viking, 1969), pp.50-56.

[2] Rupert Lewis, Marcus Garvey: Anti-Colonial Champion (Trenton, NJ.: Africa World Press, 1988); Theodore Vincent, Black Power and the Garvey Movement (Berkeley: Ramparts Press, 1971).

[3] For earlier Pan-Africanism, Wilson Jeremiah Moses, The Golden Age of Black Nationalism 1850-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978); Hollis R. Lynch, Edward Wilmot Blyden: Pan-Negro Patriot, 1832-1912 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967); George Shepperson, gNotes on Negro American Influences on the Emergence of African Nationalism,h Journal of African History 1 (1960): 299-312. For Cuffe, Lamont D. Thomas, Paul Cuffe: Black Entrepreneur and Pan-Africanist (Urbana: Indiana University Press, 1988).

[4] Robert A Hill, Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers, vol.2: 1916-August, 1919 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), p. 612 (hereafter cited as UNIAP); J. Ayondele Langley, Pan-Africanism and Nationalism in West Africa, 1900-1945: A Study in Ideology and Social Classes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), p.61.

[5] Judith Stein, gThe Ideology and Practice of Garveyism,h in Garvey: His Work and Impact, eds., Rupert Lewis and Patrick Bryan (Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 1991), p.201; Judith Stein, The World of Marcus Garvey: Race and Class in Modern Society (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), p.170.

[6] Negro World Convention Bulletin, August 7, 1920, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.2, p.522.

[7] Rayford W. Logan, gThe Historical Aspects of Pan-Africanism: A Personal Chronicle,h African Forum 1 (Summer, 1965), p.99.

[8] W. E. B. Du Bois, gPeace,h Crisis 6 (1913), in An ABC of Color (New York: International Publisher, 1969), p.59.

[9] W. E. B. Du Bois, gThe African Roots of War,h Atlantic Monthly 115 (May, 1915), p.711.

[10] W. E. B. Du Bois, gThe African Roots of War,h p.714.  He also described in his last autobiography that the Pan-African Congress as conceived by him was gorganized protection of the Negro world led by American Negroes.h  See, Du Bois, The Autobiography of W. E. B. Du Bois, p. 289.

[11] Ibid., p.714.

[12] Ibid., p.712.

[13] William Jordan, gThe Damnable Dilemmah: African-American Accommodation and Protest during Word War I,h Journal of American History 81 (March, 1995), pp.1580-1581.

[14] W. E. B. Du Bois, gClose Ranks,h Crisis 16 (July 1918).

[15] A. Philip Randolph, gMessages from the Messenger,h Messenger 1 (November 1917), p. 31.

[16] gWe eRilef the Crackerized Department of Justice,h Crusader 2 (May 1920), p.5

[17] Ibid, p.5

[18] Address by Marcus Garvey, Daily Chronicle, March 26, 1915, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.1, p. 114.

[19] Daily Chronicle, August 26, 1915, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.1, p.133.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Lynch, Edward Wilmot Blyden, p.71, p.197.

[22] Casely Hayford, Ethiopia Unbound: Studies in Race Emancipation (London: C. M. Phillips, 1911), p.171.

[23] Kevin K. Gaines, Uplifting the Race: Black Leadership, Politics, and Culture in the Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), p.21, p.246.

[24] Ibid, p.167.

[25] W. E. B. Du Bois, gA Second Journey to Pan-Africa,h New Republic 29 (December 7, 1921), p.42.

[26] Stein, The World of Marcus Garvey, pp.42-45; Lewis, Marcus Garvey, pp.58-59; Cronon, Black Moses, pp.41-44.

[27] On the Great Migration of Southern African American population, Allan H. Spear, Black Chicago: The Making of a Negro Ghetto (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967); Gilbert Osofsky, Harlem: The Making of A Negro Ghetto, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1971); James R. Grossman, Land of Hope: Chicago, Black Southerners, and the Great Migration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989); Kenneth L. Kusmer, gThe Black Urban Experience in American History,h in The State of Afro-American History: Past, Present, and Future, ed., Darlene Clark Hine (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), pp.91-122.

[28] Florette Henri, Black Migration: Movement North, 1900-1920 (Garden City, NY.: Anchor Press, 1975), pp.66-67.

[29] 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.14.

[30] Herbert G. Gutman, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925 (New York; Vintage, 1976), p.528.

[31] Irma Watkins-Owens, Blood Relations: Caribbean Immigrants and the Harlem Community, 1900-1930 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), p.13, p.23.

[32] John Charles Zampty Interview, 1975, Detroit, Michigan in Footsoldiers of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, ed., Jeannette Smith-Irvin (Trenton, NJ.: Africa World Press, 1989), p.37.

[33] Ibid., p.39.

[34] Ibid., p.38.

[35] Marcus Garvey Autobiography, Articles from the Pittsburgh Courier, February 22, March 1, March 15, March 22, March 29, April 5, April 12, April 19, April 26, May 3, May 10, May 17, and May 21,1930, reprinted  in Marcus Garvey: Life and Lessons, ed. Robert Hill (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p.74; Kelly Miller, gAfter Marcus Garvey: What of the Negro?,h Contemporary Review 131 (April, 1927), p.495.

[36] See, for example, Chicago Defender, September 6, 1919; Interview with Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph by Charles Mowbray White, National Civic Federation Papers, New York Public Library, box 152, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.2, p. 611; W. E. B. Du Bois, gBack to Africa,h Century Magazine 105 (February 1923), reprinted in The Oxford W. E. B. Du Bois Reader, ed., Eric J. Sundquist (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), p.268.

[37] For other immigrants, see, John Bodnar, The Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985).

[38] That the UNIAfs member was in reality less than Garveyfs statements does not necessarily mean that Garveyfs appeals was less significant than that was supposed to be.  The UNIA as a social movement, Garveyfs followers must have included those who did not join the UNIA but at least sympathized with him.  Moreover, until 1924, it was possible for the UNIA members to join the other organizations such as the NAACP, and the NAACP, on its part, did not exhibit overt hostility to competing organizations at that time, as the Association would do in the subsequent era under Walter Whitefs and Roy Wilkinsfs leadership.

[39] Joe William Trotter, Jr., Black Milwaukee: The Making of an Industrial Proletariat, 1915-1945 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), p.64.

[40] Quoted in Irma Watkins-Owens, Blood Relations: Caribbean Immigrants and the Harlem Community, 1900-1930 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), p. 150

[41] For the detailed description of this riot, see, Elliot Rudwick, Race Riot at East St. Louis July 2, 1917 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964).

[42] Marcus Garvey, Conspiracy of the East St. Louis Riots Speech by Marcus Garvey Delivered at Lafayette Hall, New York, Sunday, July 8th, 1917, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.1, p.218.

[43] Stein, The World of Marcus Garvey, pp.29-30; Lewis, Marcus Garvey, pp.45-46.

[44] Chicago Operative to Mr. Kenny, October 15, 1919, in Federal Surveillance of Afro-Americans (1917-1925): The First World War, the Red Scare, and the Garvey Movement (microfilm), ed. Theodore Kornweibel, Jr. (Frederick, MD.: University Publication of America, 1986), Reel 20.

[45] New York Tribune, July 11, 1917.

[46] gNegro Workers: The A.F. of L. or the I.W.W.,h Messenger 2 (July, 1919), p.8; gWhy Negroes Should Join the I.W.W.,h Messenger 2 (December, 1919), p.8.

[47] Marcus Garvey, gThe Need of Race, Black or White, the World Over,h New York Tribune, July 11, 1917.

[48] W. E. B. Du Bois, gThe Black Man and the Unions,h Crisis 15 (1917), in An ABC of Color (New York: International Publisher, 1969), p.98.

[49] Captain John B. Trevor to Brigadier General Marlborough Churchill, Director of Military Intelligence, April 5th 1919, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.1, p.404.

[50] Ibid., p.401.

[51] Ibid., p.403.

[52] W. E. B. Du Bois, gPan-Africa,h Crisis 17 (December, 1918- January, 1919), pp.119-120.

[53] Padmore, Pan-Africanism or Communism, p.103.

[54] Hayford, Ethiopia Unbound, p.173.

[55] Negro World, May 17, 1920.

[56] Niagara Address of 1906, reprinted in A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States, ed. Herbert Aptheker (New York: Citadel Press, 1951), p.908.

[57] gTo the Nations of the World,h (1900) in W. E. B. Du Bois, An ABC of Color (New York: International Publisher, 1969), p.22.

[58] New York Age, October 14, 1933.

[59] W. E. B. Du Bois, gReturning Soldiersh Crisis, 18 (1919), in W. E. B. Du Bois, An ABC of Color (New York: International Publisher, 1969), p.109.  For the 369th Infantry Regiment, see, David Levering Lewis, When Harlem Was in Vogue (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), pp.3-24.

[60] Grossman, Land of Hope, p.249.

[61] Du Bois, gReturning Soldiers,h p.109.

[62] Negro World Convention Bulletin, August 2, 1920, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.2, p.480.

[63] Claude McKay, A Long Way from Home (New York: Lee Furman, 1937), p.32.

[64] Thomas Harvey (President of the Philadelphia UNIA) Interview, 1975, 1976, in Footsoldiers of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, p.24.

[65] New York Age, gAn Investigation of Business Enterprises Being Made by Age,h July 11, 1920.p.1.

[66] gFollow Your Money with Your Interest,h Crusader 2 (May, 1920), p.9.

[67] gThe African Blood Brotherhood,h Crusader 2 (June, 1920), p.22.

[68] It is important to note that the Crusader actually had the relationship with communist such as Max Eastman  We have already discussed the case of black Socialists.  The case of the Crusader is another example that reveals that some black communistsf identity was not defined by the class perspective.

[69] Negro World, August 14, 1920.

[70] Daily Telegraph [London], August 4,1920, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.2, p.549.

[71] L. Lanier Winslow to W. L. Hurley, Under Secretary of Department of State, August, 7,1920, in Federal Surveillance of Afro-Americans, Reel 20.

[72] Negro World Convention Bulletin, August 3, 1920, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.2, p.499.

[73] Interview with Marcus Garvey by Charles Mawbray White, August 18, 1920, National Civic Federation Papers, New York Public Library, box 152, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.2, p.603; Marcus Garvey Autobiography, p.54.

[74] W. E. B. Du Bois, The Negro (New York: Henry Holt, 1915), p.241.

[75] W. E. B. Du Bois, gThe Rise of the West Indian,h Crisis 20 (August, 1920), p.215.

[76] Negro World, August 14, 1920. Indeed, accompanied by Ferris, he did attend the World Convention   In addition, Randolph was one of the signers of UNIAfs gBill of Rights.h  See, UNIA Declaration of Rights, August 13, 1920, reprinted in UNIAP, vol.2, p.578.

[77] W. E. B. Du Bois, Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of A Race Concept (1940) in W. E. B. Du Bois Writings (New York: Library of America, 1986), p.757.

[78] Among the studies which also employ a comparative framework, George Padmore and Tony Martin characterize the views of Garvey and Du Bois as a polar opposite. See, George Padmore, Pan-Africanism or Communism (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), p.84; Tony Martin, Race First: The ideological and Organizational Struggles of Marcus Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association (Dover, Mass.: Majority Press, 1976), pp.273-344.  However, their analyses, it should be pointed out, err in presentist analysis.

[79] W. E. B. Du Bois, gThe Pan-African Movement,h in History of the Pan-African Congress, ed. George Padmore (London, Hammersmith Bookshop, 1963), pp.21-22; Rayford W. Logan, gThe Historical Aspects of Pan-Africanism,h p.97: Langley, Pan-Africanism and Nationalism in West Africa, pp.81-87.

[80] W. E. B. Du Bois to Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State, June 23, 1921, in The Correspondence of W. E. B. Du Bois, vol.2: Selections 1934-1944, ed., Herbert Aptheker (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1976), p.251.

[81] Langley, Pan-Africanism and Nationalism in West Africa, p.81.

[82] Kobina Sekyi, The Parting of the Ways (n.d.), Sekyi Papers at Cape Coast, Ghana, p.37-38, quoted in Langley, Pan-Africanism and Nationalism in West Africa, p.103.

[83] Stein, The World of Marcus Garvey, pp.124-125.

[84] W. E. B. Du Bois, Dusk of Dawn, p.755.

[85] John Owen (no relation with Chandler Owen) to W. E. B. Du Bois, July 31, 1921, reprinted in The Correspondence of W. E. B. Du Bois, vol.1, p.253.

[86] Through the rivalry with Garvey on the one hand and with radicals on the other, Du Bois might have come to recognize it.  Ironically, when Du Bois proposed an alternative economic base, which was almost same as that of Garveyite strategies, in 1934, he was forced to resign the NAACP that had been his sole power base.

[87] Negro World, August 23, 1924; W. E. B. Du Bois, Dusk of Dawn, p.756.