Marcus Garvey and the Pan-African movement

Marcus Garvey was the central figure in, perhaps, the largest African-American movement in United States history. He stood as the most outspoken proponent of the notion that Africans should return to Africa and start their own nation; this has come to be known as the "back to Africa" movement. "His phenomenal success came at a time when African-American confidence was low and unemployment was considered a way of life. Garvey harnessed these conditions to build momentum for his cause." (Carter, 2002). This state of affairs for African-Americans in the early twentieth century, coupled with Garvey's personal deliberations and philosophy brought him to the ultimate conclusion that abandoning the Americas was not only justified, but required for Africans to reach their potential in the eyes of God and the world. Following his death Amy Jacques-Garvey -- his wife -- compiled The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey, which details the motivations behind his controversial crusade. The writings were speeches and meditations recorded by Garvey during his time as a leader of black culture. His opinions and arguments remain contentious, powerful, and somewhat compelling to this day. However, more importantly, they capture the economic, mental, emotional, and spiritual plight of many post World War I African-Americans, and the logical explanations and avenues of escape as they were seen.

Most striking in Garvey's initial handling of philosophy is his straightforward approach to the definitions of fundamental terms. A word or phrase is stated, and then his unique perspective regarding it is explained. At first glance, these definitions appear exceedingly general and do not clearly point to an obvious aim. Yet, as Garvey's meditations progress it becomes evident that this broad introduction into his personal philosophy is undeniably directed at backing his most famous claim -- that Africans should migrate to Africa.

Although left formally uninvestigated, his core beliefs appear to lie with, first, the Christian faith, and second, democratic notions of equality and liberty. He fails to broach the topic of faith, but he does address religion in general in an interesting way. He writes, "Religion is one's opinion can belief in some ethical truth. . . . No two persons think alike, even if they outwardly profess the same faith, so we have as many religions in Christianity as we have believers." (Garvey, 3). This is an important definition because although Garvey later endorses separation between the races of the world, at no point does he investigate the social frictions that occur between and within religions. Undeniably, this is not because of an inability to recognize the contrasts between faiths, but apparently, he sees racial friction as far more irrevocable.

Garvey's assessment of government and democracy is also mentioned when he endeavors to define "government." He writes, "Government is not infallible. Government is only an executive control, a centralized authority for the purpose of expressing the will of the people. Before you have a government you must have a people." (Garvey, 19). Accordingly, Garvey seems to offhandedly dismiss many of the forms of government evident in world history who's expressed policies and ideals reflected nothing but the will of the ruling classes, nobles, or emperors. This is plainly a vision of government from the perspective of a liberal democrat -- like those that founded the United States -- and reveals another implicit core principle to which Garvey clings: democratic equality.

Upon these foundations Garvey's most recognized opinions are put forward. To Garvey, there is a clear problem: racial oppression and conflict. He summarizes the assertions made by many of his contemporary black leaders: "Some Negro leaders have advanced the belief that in another few years the white people will make up their minds to assimilate their black populations; thereby sinking all the racial prejudice in the welcoming of the black race in to the social companionship of the white." (Garvey, 26). He goes on to say, "This belief is preposterous. . . . The white man of America will not, to any organized extent, assimilate the Negro, because in so doing, he feels that he will be committing racial suicide." (Garvey, 26). His argument hinges on the idea that as long as the blacks of the world occupy an inferior position economically and socially, they will continue to be looked down upon by other races as being inherently inferior. Consequently, other racial groups will have no desire to assimilate and will only look to segregate or eradicate the lesser groups. This is a reasonably convincing argument, and it is essential for Garvey to assert that Africans need to rise up and organize.

Yet, before he can officially reach his conclusion, Garvey needs to reconcile the notion that blacks should rise-up with the vision of the pious and peaceful Christian. He does this by quoting Napoleon Bonaparte. "When someone asked him, 'On what side is God?' he replied, 'God is on the side of the strongest battalion.' Napoleon was right." (Garvey, 44). Accordingly, Garvey rests on the opinion that since God created all men equal -- democratic philosophy -- then those who have achieved more power in history were simply those people who adhered to a unifying ideal of God. This, whites and Asians have done, but Africans have not. It is explained, "The difference between the strong and the weak races is that the strong races seem to know themselves; seem to realize and know fully that there is but a link between them and the Creator." (Garvey, 91). Garvey believed that he had identified the new ideal of God, the God of Ethiopia, and that this would carry all Africans to prominence.

Certainly, there are many obstacles inhibiting Garvey's vision of a massive migration to Africa and the establishment of a stable state. One of these stumbling blocks is the oppression of Africans in Africa, and the civil unrest that results. Another is what he sees as the current intellectual movement in America. Garvey sees the solution to the first problem as being analogous to the Europeans' colonization of the Americas; they were able to overrun the natives by sheer numbers. But, he contends that Africans must migrate to Africa with a deliberate and moral state of mind which will enable them to establish a "Negro Empire." (Garvey, 70).

The second problem, as Garvey saw it came from within the African-American community. Yet, the only solution that Garvey saw to this issue was if the other black leaders were converted to his position. "Garvey frequently maligned Du Bois's racially mixed heritage and quipped that NAACP stood for 'National Association for the Advancement of Certain People.' Critics have suggested that Garvey thus needlessly alienated black leaders who might have helped him." (Gale, 2005). Garvey saw many other black leaders as being the mouthpieces of white propaganda, and therefore, more powerful than opinions voiced directly from whites.