He was an important civil rights leader. The assessments of him as a charlatan or an egomaniac are a lazy and transparent attempt to discredit his efforts. Perhaps he did get swept up in his desperation to free the African American people from white oppression and refused to admit or acknowledge that his plans were falling to pieces around him. However, I personally find that extraordinarily understandable given the historical context and the enormity of what he was trying to do. I find it very telling that history is full of white men that fall victim to the very same thing, but we don't accuse them of insanity or brush their ideas under the carpet as the musings of a lunatic.
Garvey chooses his language carefully, using phrases designed to empower black men and women; words that dispel the assumption of inferiority and instead instil pride and dignity in honouring their African heritage. Garvey writes FOR black men and women. He is not catering to a white gaze nor is he sugar-coating his ideas to placate the white masses who equate black empowerment with racial supremacy - - the lack of adhering to a standard of placation set by white men would be the ultimate insult to those opposed his writing. When Garvey writes in such a way that knocks white people off their historical pedestal, it is seen as demeaning or insulting ‘white culture’ - - rather, Garvey is levelling the playing field and acknowledging the “primitiveness” of all the histories of man; it is in this equality that the perceived ‘insult’ lies, for white ancestral history to be the same as black ancestral history belies the supremacist ideology that has come to characterise the white man. Garvey articulates a need to found a “racial empire whose only natural, spiritual and political limits shall be God and ‘Africa, at home and abroad’” - - there is an obvious parallel to the KKKs manual that would be silly to ignore; however, the contextual differences between the ideologies dispel any correlation one may initially perceive.
I also find the parallels between Garvey and Malcom X very interesting; Malcolm X was expelled from the nation of Islam and accused of trying to gain fame and prestige for himself - the mainstream discourse surrounding him towards the end of his life was extremely negative - however, in retrospect, we know that was the furthest thing from the truth and he is one of the greatest civil rights figures of all time. Perhaps Garvey did go off the deep end, maybe he didn't. It's kind of irrelevant... but very convenient as a tool to dismiss his radical ideas and replace his dialogue with ones that are more sympathetic the white agenda.
Testing my blog comment
ReplyDeleteIn a way, I believe he has credibilities as both.
ReplyDeletehe started has a leader but gradually got more self obsessed
ReplyDeleteHe was an important civil rights leader. The assessments of him as a charlatan or an egomaniac are a lazy and transparent attempt to discredit his efforts. Perhaps he did get swept up in his desperation to free the African American people from white oppression and refused to admit or acknowledge that his plans were falling to pieces around him. However, I personally find that extraordinarily understandable given the historical context and the enormity of what he was trying to do. I find it very telling that history is full of white men that fall victim to the very same thing, but we don't accuse them of insanity or brush their ideas under the carpet as the musings of a lunatic.
ReplyDeleteGarvey chooses his language carefully, using phrases designed to empower black men and women; words that dispel the assumption of inferiority and instead instil pride and dignity in honouring their African heritage. Garvey writes FOR black men and women. He is not catering to a white gaze nor is he sugar-coating his ideas to placate the white masses who equate black empowerment with racial supremacy - - the lack of adhering to a standard of placation set by white men would be the ultimate insult to those opposed his writing.
When Garvey writes in such a way that knocks white people off their historical pedestal, it is seen as demeaning or insulting ‘white culture’ - - rather, Garvey is levelling the playing field and acknowledging the “primitiveness” of all the histories of man; it is in this equality that the perceived ‘insult’ lies, for white ancestral history to be the same as black ancestral history belies the supremacist ideology that has come to characterise the white man.
Garvey articulates a need to found a “racial empire whose only natural, spiritual and political limits shall be God and ‘Africa, at home and abroad’” - - there is an obvious parallel to the KKKs manual that would be silly to ignore; however, the contextual differences between the ideologies dispel any correlation one may initially perceive.
I also find the parallels between Garvey and Malcom X very interesting; Malcolm X was expelled from the nation of Islam and accused of trying to gain fame and prestige for himself - the mainstream discourse surrounding him towards the end of his life was extremely negative - however, in retrospect, we know that was the furthest thing from the truth and he is one of the greatest civil rights figures of all time. Perhaps Garvey did go off the deep end, maybe he didn't. It's kind of irrelevant... but very convenient as a tool to dismiss his radical ideas and replace his dialogue with ones that are more sympathetic the white agenda.
I assess that gravy can be a chameleon of sorts, but should steer clear of all things concerning both cereal and rusks.
ReplyDeletetest
ReplyDelete