I'm hoping you describe why you believe his views were flawed (I'm commenting as I read through your posts BTW).
How does the liberation of Africa not attempt to solve the global epidemic of white supremacy? At the time of Garvey, there were approximately 8-900 million Africans under imperial on the continent of Africa. Garvey's philosophy was that we can't expect to be respected as a people, when we don't even have control of our own home land. For every African under the bondage of White Supremacy in the US, there were 20 under that same system in Africa
Yes, but that's what Chrisman talks about is wrong with that type of ideology. The black American experience is wholly distinctive to other forms of oppression across the oceans; True, they are all forms of oppression, but black America has historically experienced a different monster. Liberating Africa would not address the crisis of black America because its not the same colonialism as in Africa.
Garvey was directly confronting the lynching problems in the US. Garvey and the UNIA had shoot outs with the KKK over lynchings of black Africans. As I stated in my original post, Garvey was so serious about the problems of lynching, that he said to the US government for every black person that's lynched in the South, we'll lynch 2 in South Africa.
Again, I'm not debating this. You keep going back to the man and what he did here in America. I told you the only problem I have with Garvey is his Back to Africa plan. Lynching whites in Africa WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY SOLVE THE CRISIS OF LYNCHING in America and I would love to hear how it would. Would Going to a foreign country and lynching non-American whites stop white racist dixiecrats from lynching us here? No. Explain how that would work.
That's exactly what Garvey DID teach blacks to do in the US. It's why while he was here, he started black business. He started the Black Star Line so we could economically compete globally from it's home base in the US. Garvey said in many interviews and speeches that black people needed to have their own military in order to fight white supremacy. It's why he said he wanted us to have our OWN government and military, since we weren't going to have one in the US because of the climate of the time.
Again, you are back to what he did HERE. I ONLY CRITICIZED HIS FINAL GOAL PLANS AND THE LONGTERM EFFECTS OF SUCH A PLAN. THAT'S IT. You are really taking this to the wrong argument.
Of course Garvey accounted for that. It's why he himself never went back to Africa. Garvey didn't say, the best of the best should go to Africa, and have a complete brain drain on the US. He said those among you who are WILLING to get and be the pioneers of "the new world" should go. The example he used was of the European explorers who left Europe to settle in the new world (America).
Every faction of the UNIA was about the complete liberation of African people globally. It's also why his movement gained such global recognition because his mission was the liberation of all Africans, regardless of where they stayed.
But I am arguing that attempting to liberate Africa would not damage white hegemony/white supremacy. That's where we differ.
Breh, everything you are saying is NOT what Garvey said or even did. Please provide some examples to prove your point. Based on everything you wrote, you have an inaccurate opinion of Garvey, the UNIA, and its purpose.
See above because again I'm arguing that the back to Africa movement does not accuately attack white supremacy. America racism and Western racial oppression in general was distinctive and different from African colonialism, which is what Robert Chrisman argues in Revolutionary Black Culture. The attempted liberation of Africa would not destroy white supremacy; let's speculate and say Garvey was able to take over Africa. Explain to me how he would then be able to liberate blacks across the globe. I've read the UNIA's plans and there's no feasible way that black liberation, especially in America, would come from Garvey's plans because racial oppression in America is so distinctively politically, socially, economically, and culturally different than in Africa and that's what Garvey faile dto realize in his plans.
Damn near every person you named used Garvey as the blueprint for their movements. Malcolm X's parents were members of the UNIA. Farad Muhammad was a member of the UNIA. Again, you have an inaccurate view of Garvey and his movement. Please posts some quotes, examples, and excerpts that shows that Garvey's idea was to run to Africa and leave African Americans high and drive. Post examples showing that Garvey's movement was not about the liberation of ALL Africans, regardless of where they resided.
hold on now breh. It may seem that way from the surface, but the main adversary of Garvey was white supremacy. His organization was infiltrated probably more than any other organization at the time. The 1st black FBI agent in history was hired to spy on Garvey and sabotage his works (one of the main accomplishments being they sabotaged the black star line).
