Mental slavery: Garvey and psychoanalysis

“Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..” (Marcus Garvey).

This quote is perhaps best known from Bob Marley’s classic song Redemption Song, a song justly loved by many, poignantly yet soulfully “summarizing” in its lyrics the history of African enslavement. I think that in this case, mainly the lyrics make the song great.

Good messages with simple words were Bob’s strength – as Lee Perry once said of him -, but for Redemption Song, he quoted Marcus Garvey in the above line.

Marcus Garvey, the early Black Power leader and activist, surely focused on this “mental slavery” as self-evident part of his emancipation movement for African people at home and abroad.

Both psychologically and sociologically, there are intriguing ways to look at mental slavery.

OMNIPRESENT

The phenomenon “mental slavery” is in fact omnipresent in our world of unequal human relationships. Anything in the course of our lives when we do something we “have to” instead of “want to” –when we compromise – we become kind of a “mental slave”. Childs have to go to school and focus on school (subjects) since a quite tender age. Preparing for what? Citizenship, society, or just economy?

In time, many get caught in the system of “having to” work several days a week for a boss, simply for sustenance.

Of course, Garvey focused on the emancipation of Black people, and their “mental slavery” (self-deprecation due to the colonial past) relative to the White and other races. I argue, though, that Garvey often referred to deeper and more “universal” meanings, psychologically.

The “colonized mind” of Africans abroad, can even be seen as an aggrandized, extreme example of “mental slavery”, for all races to learn from.

PSYCHOLOGY

While I agree with people who consider this “Eurocentric”, I think that in this case it is at least “educational” to analyze in how far the “big names” in Western psychological studies, like Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, might relate to Garvey’s treatment of an essentially psychological phenomenon (mental slavery). Was Garvey more a Freudian or more a Jungian, for instance? Or, to please the anti-Eurocentrism people: “who of Freud or Jung was more Garvey-ite?”.

Or: showed perhaps Garvey’s life whether Freud, Jung or others were right about human behavior?

FREUD

Sigmund Freud was a Jewish Austrian neurologist and psychoanalyst who was of course quite influential. I have studied Freud before, and I personally remained intrigued by some of his known theories, testing whether they are realistic.

The whole line of Freud’s view, that sexual/biological energy is the primal urge behind everything, do I agree with that? I still don’t know, to be honest. Human history seems to reflect this as quite plausible. Substitutes for this primal sexual urge indeed seem to include “wars to conquer”, “destruction”, “subjugation”, addiction, greed, and enslavement.

In my own personal life - and even more of others I know of - , I do not always see a clear “sexual primal urge” underlying everything I do, everything I enjoy, or undertake. Substitutes for that sexual energy, in some way? I am not denying it, but it stretches the mind that e.g. “beating a drum” or “playing a guitar” are redirected sexual energy, while music offers a sensory sensation of its own, sensual, but not merely “sexual”.

Garvey’s large UNIA (Universal Negro Improvement Association) movement in the US (and Americas), the largest up to then among Black people, with millions of members (in the US and Americas).. redirected sexual energy?.. No.. I would say: redirected love energy.. Love toward his people and fellow humans: thus a much broader energy.

Freud also argued that humans are determined by their history (others, like Jung, deem the present more determining, including current life goals).

In Garvey’s case, both Freud and Jung seem right, but also in the case of most human beings, when I think about it. After all: if you don’t know your past, you don’t know your present.

JUNG

Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist/psychoanalyst, and I studied his theories too, and like with Freud: I see some things confirmed among humans, some things seem less plausible to me.

Like Freud, also Jung gave Western languages many terms describing simply existing phenomena, which only needed to get a good “name” for them: word power. Inferiority complex, repression, subconscious, “extrovert/introvert”, archetypes, alter-ego, libido, persona, defense mechanism, projection, etcetera.

Jung came with the term “collective unconscious”, as one of the theories in which he differed from Freud. It represents shared, “cultural”, even ancestral, mental concepts in people’s unconscious.

That can somehow be related to Garvey. Marcus Garvey referred a lot to the enslaved ancestors and those before and after, and connected himself to them symbolically, for action today, . In this regard, Jung might have had a point, and is there something like a “shared” subconscious among nations. On the other hand: Garvey had a strong (“Freudian”) individual personality, as I also read in his biography, a bit contradicting that.

Another difference with Freud, is that Jung considered human psyches as teleological: working toward a goal, not just following biological urges, as Freud emphasized. That also seems to fit Garvey’s life and goals (Africa for the Africans, repatriation, African upliftment).

NEO-FREUDIAN SCHOOL

Then there is the “neo-Freudian” school, following up and deviating from Freudian psychological theories. Born Hungarian Alfred Adler was a main representative of this. This school places more emphasis on social relations and less on biological urges, as Freud did. Also, it focuses more on personal creativity and “life style” of humans as social beings, and on the “ego” in relation to others.

Adler argued that humans feel inevitably inferior and aim at superiority, relative to others: Adler more or less coined the now known term “overcompensation”. Relatedly, according to Adler, humans have an inherent “urge for power”.

In Marcus Garvey’s biography titled ‘Negro With a Hat’ by Colin Grant – with much attention to the person Garvey as well -, one might be able to suspect an “urge for power”, “ego”, or overcompensation. In my opinion, though, this does not apply fully, as Garvey seemed more focused on plans and collective goals, than on individual ego plays or individual competition.

In that biography by Grant, much attention is paid to Garvey’s “competitive conflict” with the other influential Black leader in the US at the time (around 1917) W.E.B. Dubois.

Garvey sometimes criticized Dubois’s adaptive, moderate stances as pleasing the White establishment, and found Dubois elitist toward the mass of labourers (Dubois thought that a Talented Tenth among African Americans should lead the other 90%), while Garvey rather sought to speak for these masses. On the other hand: Garvey sought open contact with Dubois, and invited him to his speeches and gatherings. Yet Dubois largely ignored Garvey, and soon ridiculed his influence among the masses as untrustworthy. Garvey felt offended by this, and paid back with interest, lamenting Dubois as too dependent on Whites.

Here, some “ego” aspects become clear (on both sides), as well as a “will/urge for (social) power” .

GESTALT

The later “gestalt therapy” school emphasizes “present human relations” as defining human personalities, rather than past or future goals. The life of Garvey (and others) show a planning for the future, thus contradicting it, although his relations in the presence shaped his directions and own style.

While aiming at democracy and politeness, Garvey dominated strongly his movement with his ambition, powerful speeches, and leadership, hereby even trumping ambitions of others within his movement, “chasing” some former comrades away, so to speak. Unintended mostly, but representing the versatile present, as in the Gestalt theory.

FROMM

Another psychologist is Erich Fromm, a Jewish German, who belonged to the “humanist psychology” school. Fromm pointed at the difference between humanistic and authoritarian ethics. He also analyzed why people made themselves submissive to dictatorships, even as collaborators, relating this to sado-masochism (demeaning codependency).

Though Garvey was accused of a big ego, and personal dominance, his movement the U.N.I.A. , and related endeavors (newspapers, repatriation efforts, economic initiatives a.o.) were relatively accessible for common Black people, even for expressing themselves. Garvey’s dominance can be seen as ego-based, but also as overly enthusiastic, as he mostly wrote and spoke about how to improve the position of all Black people – Africans, within world affairs.

This reflects a bit some theories of Fromm: a human urge for “positive freedom” and “love” to search for sense. Fromm’s rejection of both Socialism (deeming it too rational to be human) or Capitalism (prioritizing external material “things” over own humanity) has some similarities with Garvey’s views. Garvey identified with labourers, yet strived overall more to “own businesses” and economic independence of Black people from other races.. thus expressing their own (internal) worth and “humanity”, instead of following external, cold rational plans (communism) or things (capitalism) as in the main Isms..

GARVEY

Interesting is now whether Marcus Garvey had a perspective that the mentioned known Western psychologists lacked or disregarded, though he was not a psychoanalyst.

I think rather that some aspects of Garvey’s thought are a crucial addition to – or correction of – psychological studies (Freudian, Jungian, or otherwise).

The emphasis of race as physical appearance is one of those aspects, and how it results from colonialism, and the history of slavery. Another one is his more pronounced critique of elites.

Though some of the psychoanalysts I mentioned belonged to a persecuted Jewish minority (Freud, Adler, Fromm), and had to escape Nazism, the hierarchical race-class interjunctions in former slave plantation colonies like Jamaica, Suriname, Haiti, Martinique, Barbados, partly the US and Brazil etcetera, offers new psychological insights.

Whereas Jews like Freud, Adler, or Fromm indeed might have had some experiences with “othering”, discrimination, or dehumanization, in Germany, Austria, or elsewhere, the structural dehumanization through poverty and discrimination of black majorities in a country like Jamaica – ruled by a wealthy minority lighter-skinned elites – and the attempts of deculturalization of Africans, offers added insights into psychological responses, hitherto less explored. Garvey (and other Black power thinkers) explored this.

As part of this, Garvey paid much attention to resulting psychopathological effects among people of African descent. Garvey criticized Black newspapers in the US for having advertisements for skin bleaching, or the lengths other African American organizations, such as W.E.B. Dubois’s NAACP, went through to please White authorities, despite a somewhat comparable activist focus (racial pride, African connection).

So he noted among many Black people a (Neo-)Freudian defined “inferiority complex”. Likewise, the “overcompensation” from the Neo-Freudian school, Garvey noted too, as he lamented some of his race (some even darker than him) in Jamaica, trying to be, for instance, more British than the British themselves, thus denying their own race and cultural heritage..

Also the “Uncle Tom” notion – or as related term “Boasy slave” in Jamaican English/Patois – for an adaptive, overly obedient slave to White masters, stems from the slavery history, and has become common parlance, also of common Black folk, including related terms like “house slaves”.

This “uncle tom” phenomenon has self-evident psychoanalytical connotations and implications that can be found in the theories I discussed (self-deprecation, overcompensation, inferiority complex, repression, ego, split personalities). I argue that it has relevance beyond Black history, namely everywhere where masses are oppressed (ethnicity, politics, poor people, labourers, women, minorities) by powerful elites.

It is here where “mental slavery” gets his historical and sociological meaning, somewhat summarizing this all. It represents a crucial expansion of Western psychoanalytical thought, derived from the African diaspora, but relevant for all mankind. Garvey contributed to that.

SPLIT CONSCIOUSNESS

Psychoanalytical concepts like “inferiority complex”, “repression” apply, but certainly also Fromm’s notion of “authoritarian ethics”, in this case during colonialism and slavery. Though enslaved and forced, there were degrees of collaboration among a part of the enslaved Africans, betraying other (rebellion- or escape-planning) slaves, for some gain. Also, the internalization of European superiority, and therefore one’s own origins’ inferiority, was unfortunately successful among many Afro-Americans, leading to a disdain of much of preserved African culture. This results in another psychological phenomenon: schizophrenia, or “split personalities”, also a theme Freud treated.

Interestingly, Freud saw a split personality or consciousness as a way of avoiding a rupture of the ego, by effecting a division of itself.. It is also seen as a defense mechanism. Surely, also the term “cognitive dissonance” – combining opposing values mentally – is relevant.

Alongside these Western, scholarly psychological explanations, a main “psychotherapy” is found in the beautiful variety of Afro-American cultures that developed over time. Carnivals as parodies by Africans of European culture. Combining song types from colonizing countries, quadrille, English sea chants, Spanish folk styles, with own African influences, gave birth to several music genres, some more “African” sounding than others, but also with various instruments, including European ones, such as the predominant originally Spanish (with Moorish and Persian antecedents) guitar, or e.g. pianos, saxophones, or synths. All resignified with African musical patterns.

Most clear, the lost languages, replaced by Africanized variants of European languages (Creoles), and the lost family names of enslaved Africans, to be replaced by European ‘slave owners’ names, bear in themselves this “split personality” or symbolic schizophrenia.

This can be seen as a main theme throughout Marcus Garvey’s ideas and actions. This shows both from his writing, as from a biography on him. Divisions within himself, and among Black people generally.

DOUBLE CONSCIOUSNESS

This “mental slavery” relates mostly to this “double consciousness” and it is quite ironic that the term ‘double consciousness” among Black people in the US came from a nemesis – or competitor – of Garvey among Black leaders, namely W.E.B. Dubois, coining this term in 1897.

After all, despite their conflict, Garvey and Dubois seemed to agree (in different wordings) on some themes, but also Caribbean thinkers like Paul Gilroy and Frantz Fanon, had theories very similar to Dubois’s “double consciousness”, and so did Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Turé), as part of the Black power movement. And Garvey. They owe this to Garvey at least as much as to Dubois and other thinkers.

Mental slavery refers to “double consciousness”, but so do other of Garvey views and statements. His emphasis on self-knowledge and self-confidence, own organizations and businesses, and to not look up to the White man, were all efforts to make Black people’s consciousness less “double”, or at least more focussed on own pride, you might say.

The “duplicity” in it is however there regarding the framework of European-centered – or modern Western - values: modern industries and technologies, money, and power politics, to which this pride inevitably relates and is bound. There psychoanalytical ideas on the “ego”, “overcompensation”, and an “urge for social power” – all from the Neo-Freudian school (Adler a.o.) – certainly apply.

Marcus Garvey added to this “positive freedom” – present in many cultures, but theorized in the Western world by humanist psychologist Erich Fromm, who opposed it to self-deprecation and sado-masochism under authoritarian (and slavery/colonial?) rule.

RASTAFARI

Rastafari now, take this even further, as the Rastas as a Jamaican scholar said; “used Garvey to go beyond Garvey”. Garvey was by necessity influenced by European culture, growing up in a British colony.

From what is said in Grant’s biography on Garvey, his cultural tastes were partly little known, but included global art (pottery, including European), biographies (including of Europeans like Napoleon Bonaparte), and were discussed by him according to British academic norms. Rastafari partly abandon these colonially inherited norms, seeking African spirituality and natural connection, and cultural expressions (life style, music, festivities). The cultural stage following on an actual freed and independent African people, free from subjugation by other races.

The importance of the Bible within much of Rastafari seems again “split”, especially as some Rastas dismiss African magic- and “spirit of the dead” folk beliefs like in Vodou or Kumina, like also Protestant Churches in Jamaica dismiss these as evil. Ethiopia in Africa being an early Christian country, before much of Europe, however kind of compensates for the colonizers perceived misuse of the Christian religion, and indoctrination.

This in fact exemplifies the past- determined (Freud), present-determined (Gestalt), as future-aimed (Jung, Fromm) psychological explanations. Especially Erich Fromm’s idea that humans psychologically inherently “search for sense”, explaining behaviours, can be related to part of the Rastafari ethos and goals. The sense in this case an African identity of people after all of African descent.

Also it responds to Jung’s idea that humans seek “wholeness” and the “social power and relationships” of the later Neo-Freudian and Gestalt schools. The urge to return to one’s biological/genetic roots/origins, has moreover some Freudian aspects.

Thus, Marcus Garvey’s very life proved them all wrong and right at the same time.

MENTAL SLAVERY TODAY

The analyzed “mental slavery” or “double consciousness” is still a wide phenomenon among people in today’s world, not just Black people, colonially indoctrinated. All people having to work for a boss, part of this surrounding material economic system, are somehow mentally enslaved, ignorantly or cowardly adapting/inconveniencing themselves for survival, as still are women in a largely male-dictated world.

We knew this already, about all this inequality in power structures worldwide, but I argue – finally – that this was not realized enough, questioned enough. We could e.g. have followed Garvey’s example (or Dubois, Fanon a.o.) of mental emancipation and self-determination vis-s-a-vis the wealthy capitalist minority in this world (a few % of billionaires), seeking to exploit the world at the cost of the poorer masses: starting wars, dominating economics, politics and governments.

COVID

The mass submission – or economic war against poor people - was tested over time with upcoming Neoliberalism (“hard profit-driven capitalism” aided by government policy), eventually to result in what even to more and more first gullible and government-friendly citizens, appears to be a covid “plandemic”. Seemingly less to do with actual health problems – the mortality rate and severity of the new strain Covid 19 soon in 2020 dropped to flu levels – than with an elitist aim of economic restructuring at the cost of democracy and human freedoms.

The fact that a prison/penitentiary term like “lockdown” became normal in democratic countries (before this only in dictatorships and authoritarian regimes) for a policy tool, and even accepted sado-masochistically (dixit Erich Fromm) by many common citizens, is worrisome to me, and, well, limits democracy. The psychological Uncle Tom-effect of easily bribable people – from the African Diaspora – is certainly noticeable in these obedient responses to such drastic (and medically unproven!) measures as lockdowns, quarantines, curfews, etcetera.

It moreover showed how the masses became indoctrinated with fear for this new Sars virus, making them collaborate with their own imprisonment end oppression, even long after the truth could be found out. Some obedient or “enslaved” mind-set or confinement keeps them from searching the truth. Garvey has some lessons to teach here.

This coronacrisis was and is maintained largely with instilling fear, effective even if largely irrational. So was slavery, of course: fear of punishment and violence made many slaves obedient, or even cooperative. Equally irrational racist theories of skin color or superior or inferior races, not making any objective sense, aided this then. Now a hyped up flu virus, related to Sars.

Now the same elitist – Rastafari people would say “Babylon” – forces, use fear and violence psychologically for such control and confine functions of annoying or dangerous masses. We must free our own minds first from this.

ATTACK ON CULTURE

Another shocking similarity – making Garvey’s and African Diasporan ideas equally relevant – is the attack/effect on culture of the coronacrisis. Banning gatherings, closing public places and cultural events cannot but limit and halt cultural development. The online replacement is only a meager alternative, leading only to a repetitive stagnation, not “living culture”.

Keeping Africans away from their cultures and own communities was purposefully done to mentally displant and use slaves economically, unhindered. Mental slavery, alright, and the power of the people tamed. Probably also for some economic reset, benefitting a few. Can’t say Garvey never warned us.

Also other psychoanalytical ideas seem confirmed in this crisis, with quite a lot of Freudian, male “phallic” and penetration symbolism (vaccine/injection, intra-nostral/anal testing, possessiveness (no parties with others, but state-sanctioned penetration), punishment, and stimulating primary fears.

The Freudian term "projection" (accusing others what oneself is) is likewise very evidently present in these p(l)andemic policies, largely consisting of powerful people stimulating fear for a virus - and infection through other people - whereas they themselves and their oppressive plans should really be feared.

As Garvey wrote in his 1927 long poem The Tragedy of White Injustice: "Capitalists and money sharks, make life unsafe, like ocean barks.." (quoted in a Wailing Souls song).

Jung’s collective consciousness (culture) and emphasis on relations, and Fromm’s “positive freedom” are sensed more than ever (in absence). Fromm’s idea on “sense seeking” obtained a deviation, though, as what is at conflict now is those that “invent” sense (fearing a disease more than required) as a part of psychosis or cognitive dissonance, and those that search actual sense in a world that confuses and worries them.

FREEING OUR MIND

“None but ourselves can free our mind”, is another intriguing line by Marcus Garvey quoted by Bob Marley in Redemption Song, that sure is confirmed now, with governments all over the world in love or seemingly even hooked on rights-trampling “lockdowns” as policy tools. People have to free themselves from such powers that be (“Babylon”) – corrupted governments - fighting against the people (and their culture), not with them or for them.

A nice way in this freeing of our own mind, is another line in Bob Marley’s Redemption Song, namely “Have no fear of atomic energy, cause none a them can stop the/Jah time”. There is a higher truth of essential humanity and inherent self-worth we all have within us.

Power is an illusion, yet this “positive freedom” (as Fromm called it), or “repatriation” or “sighting Rastafari” as others define it, other forms of spirituality, or even as “finding one’s self and identity”, remains there as a way to give sense, and keep our good senses. In that sense I agree with some of Erich Fromm’s theories.

This sense-giving positive freedom must awaken and reign among people to achieve an eventual freedom from this “mental slavery”, caused by hidden dictates from a wealthy, powerful few, resulting in psychological warfare.

A wealthy few that is – after all – also historically racially privileged.

There is in that sense nothing new under the sun.

Reparations

A perhaps less widely known aspect of the Black Lives Matter movement - arising in the USA - is their call for reparations for slavery, formulated as such in 2020. This was an actual concrete, tangible - and centralized - advise and guideline aimed at the US government.

One might say that it got drowned in the recent upsurge of attention for the movement, as worldwide protests were organized against racism in, mainly, the form of police violence. This became the main focus, also of the Black Lives Matter movement following George Floyd's death. That movement was essentially decentralized in character, and therefore uncoordinated, but some centralized aspects, including repatriation proposals became part of it, as said in 2020.

Of course, this is not a new theme: reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery of Africans and their decendants, knowing several national variants. The Rastafari movement in Jamaica proposed it in 2004, having calculated a sum of 129 billion dollars to be paid to African descendants in Jamaica, especially by Britain, with as more specific goals also financing with it the resettlement of 500.000 (Jamaican) Rastafarians in Africa.

This 2004 initiative was a shared initiative by all six Rastafari "houses" (sub-organizations) in Jamaica.

DEBATES AND RECOGNITION

Since then it remained an ongoing debate in Jamaica and the United Kingdom.

Yet not just there. I used to work in a scholarly library, with a large Caribbean collection in university town Leiden,in the Netherlands. Mostly, though not exclusively, focussed on former Dutch colonies in the broader Caribbean region (Suriname, Netherlands Antilles). Less known is that also what is now Guyana was for a period a Dutch colony, later taken over by Britain.

The institute was historically focussed, and was largely aimed at, historian scholars, as well as Caribbeanist (other social science) scholars. Of course, many books in the collection dealt with the history of slavery in the Caribbean (Dutch colonies or not). I worked with these books, having catalogized and described many. I even made summaries of them.

Personally, I learned a lot from all this historical knowledge about slavery and colonialism - naturally -, but I recall also from that period that the institute (KITLV) got involved in public debates about slavery, recognition of the Netherlands' slavery past, and also reparations. The particular institute - for more information, see http://www.kitlv.nl - was seen by many Afro-Surinamese activists and commentators as too White and conservative. Understandable, since it was old, and founded when slavery was actually still going on in former Dutch colony Suriname (1840s).

Historians working at the institute, including those I eventually worked under, claimed they were professional and ethical, just neutral "researchers", without public political stances on the issues they study.

This is hard to ensure, however. Corruption, biased choices,and conflicts of interests, slipped in there too, though maybe not as intensive as in the medical and health sciences, now almost under a pharmaceutical hold.

More relevant for this specific post, I remember from the debates the arguments put forth in favour or against reparations by these scientists and scholars in the Dutch context. As elsewhere the predictable argument: the descendants or directly affected are no longer alive, was used as argument against Dutch reparations for slavery.

I recall also how excuses for the Dutch slavery past also became a debate issue, as during my time there, the "slavery monument" in Amsterdam's Oosterpark was unveiled, a ceremony involving speeches, and surrounded by wider media attention. This was in 2002, and on 1 July, the date when slavery was formally abolished in Dutch colonies in 1863 (1 August, 1834/38 in British colonies).

Unfortunately, this whole ceremony was tainted, as for the "official" part only official delegates, including the Queen of the Netherlands, were admitted, while the rest of the audience and public were barred off, including many actual Surinamese and other descendants of slaves. This led to some tensions. Still a nice gesture and monument (by the meanwhile deceased artist Erwin de Vries), but it started off somewhat tense, let's say..

Anyway, I found out in that period that words by (the Netherlands') heads of state, and prime-ministers were chosen carefully for legal reasons. "Excuses" for the Dutch slavery past were never given as such, but rather "recognition" of the "regrettable" period ("spijtbetuiging" in Dutch) was the farthest politicians went. Anything closer to formal excuses would open the legal door for, well, reparations. The same - no "formal" apologies by politicians - applied to other European countries (Britain, France a.o.).

Again, this shows that the reparations for slavery are "under debate" and problematic in several countries. The 2004 proposal by the Rastafari movement (and others) in Jamaica for the mentioned sum of 129 billion dollars for African-Jamaicans, and resettlement of Jamaican Rastafari-adherents in Africa, also never materialized.

Also in the Netherlands, some proposals have been made, to no avail.

The same applies to colonies of other countries involved in the slave trade and slavery, like France, the already mentioned USA, Portugal,and other countries.

I think it will be of little use to describe here all those separate, international "initiatives by organizations and spokespersons for reparations for slavery" in detail (these can be found elsewhere), but I find it more interesting to - upon acknowledging their existence (and recent reappraisal as part of the internationalized Black Lives Matter) - to reflect upon whether this reparations claim is sensible.

Personally, I consider myself part of the Rastafari movement. I am also in favour of reparations, but after careful deliberation. I once joked with an acquiantance when discussing this theme informally that "I'm a Rastaman so I have to be in favour of those reparations for slavery". That was simplified, and I knew it, but still not totally untrue. A serious joke. Not only in light of the already mentioned 2004 proposal by the Jamaican Rastafari movement, but also seeing the history and origins of the Rastafari movement.

MARCUS GARVEY

The main prophet of the Rastafari movement, Marcus Mosiah Garvey, founded an organization called the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). Most of his thinking, organizing and activities were aimed at just that: improvement of the position of African and Black people worldwide. Not just culturally and mentally, but including material and political aspects.

The difference with some reparations proponents elsewhere, and especially later, was his focus of liberating the African continent from colonial rule. Naming himself the provisional president of Africa, Garvey even tried during his lifetime to negotiate with European powers on an equal level to take control over parts of Africa, such as those abandoned by the Germans after losing World War I. Respectably ambitious, but as could be predicted, he and his envoys were ignored by European delegates, wanting to keep colonial control over Africa. Former German colonies in Africa went mostly to Britain, France, and Belgium.

This points at some wider problems with this reparations for slavery demand: unequal power structures in this world. The historical trajectory is crucial to consider too. When Britain and France started to abolish slavery in the 1830s and 1840s they already started to colonize most of the African continent. Africans thus remained dependent on Europe on a global scale.

COLONIZING AFRICA

The cynical truth was thus, that people with origins in Africa saw since then their original homeland and motherland being taking over by the same Europeans once enslaving them. The ambition and dream of repatriating to the motherland, certainly lived on and was cultivated in the African diaspora in the West - to differing degrees -, and Marcus Garvey worked that out most. The Rastafari movement kept and keeps that vision going, and Emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie - another important person for Rastafari-adherents - set some land apart for Rastafari wanting to repatriate to Africa, specifically Shasamane in central Ethiopia, in the 1960s.

African Americans also repatriated over time in part to Liberia and Sierra Leone, taking even the role of elite over indigenous ethnic groups, while also - more haphazardly - a number of Afro-Brazilians and Afro-Cubans (of Yoruba descent) were able to repatriate to countries like Nigeria, though more "blending in".

IN FAVOUR OF REPARATIONS

Arguments in favour of reparations seem in reality quite obvious to me. Slaves could not save money to give on to next generations (unlike free white, European settlers in colonies). This caused a severe and lasting economic disadvantage among Black people in the West, continuing in the present.

European countries and the US without a doubt benefitted strongly from slavery gains. This has been documented enough.

A distinction must be made maybe between the ways it enriched European countries: creating wealthy families as concentrated wealth (Spain, Portugal), or more long-term and effectively "invested" in industry (Britain, Netherlands, France).. In fact the Industrial Revolution in Britain had a worldwide impact and was largely funded by colonial and slave trade and slavery gains of the British in the Caribbean. Birmingham in England was the world's first "industrial city" as such, largely financed by colonial and slavery profits. This is not even very known widely, world wide, I think. Trinidadian scholar (and later politician) Eric Eustace Williams studied this history for his 1980 work 'Capitalism and slavery'.

In Spain, only in more industrialized Catalonia a similar industry-stimulating effect took place, as relatively many (wealthy, industrialist) Catalans invested in slavery in the Spanish Caribbean (especially Cuba) as slavery increased in Cuba in the mid-19th c., for a period. Catalonia is still one of the most wealthy and industrialized parts of Spain. The same "blood money" ended up in earlier stages more in mainly luxury spending and palaces in Portugal and Spain by early colonizers that went with Columbus, and probably even as sudden wealth of early English pirates/enslavers as John Hawkins. Eventually, though, it stimulated the wealth and economic prosperity in several European countries.

It is okay to focus on and "shame" certain banks and other companies in Western countries that were once involved in slavery, but the economic effects were much broader for Europe and the US. More and more the actual slave-owners and their families and descendants are also known, and it is even recorded well now how much and which slaves they owned. Some inhabit now - ironically - the same European cities (London, Amsterdam, Paris, Lisbon, Barcelona) as descendants of these very slaves.

The long-term, cross-generational effects of the trans-Atlantic slave trade are thus evident, and the argument that " the slaves are no longer alive" thus invalid.

MONEY AND POWER

Unfortunately, in this world we live in, you need money and power to get things done. Power and money mutually enforce each other. Also, political craftiness and privileged positions play a role. Japan and Germany up to recently are still paying reparations to several (citizens of) European and Asian countries, for the damage and deaths during World War II. Germany also paid reparations to Jews, and others affected and (decsendants of those) killed by the Nazi regime.

In light of the interrelation between trans-Atlantic slavery, European colonialism, and European dominance over Africa for so long, I think a global approach to these reparations is needed, more than in national cases of reparations (former national dictatorships or human rights abuses), or even wars between some nations.

The degrading and dehumanization of Africans has been global and worldwide for over 500 years now, pepetrated mainly by Europeans, but also Arabs, and and in the wider Islamic world. This resulted over time in an unequal power relation, and much higher poverty rates of African(-descended) people, and a disadvantage of both Africa as continent and the African Diaspora vis-a-vis Europe. History teaches us that this is no coincidence.

This inequality needs "repairing" both culturally/mentally, and materially. Garvey's focus on Africa has not become the mainstream of the Black Power movement, time has shown. The Nation of Islam chose to focus on (sepatration from Whites within) the USA, and became over time much more influential than Garveyism, or its offshoot the Rastafari movement. Other movements, including the Black Lives Matter one, are also mostly locally, nationally oriented.

BLACK

Even the normalized term "Black" for African-descended people shows that. I have mixed feelings about that term Black as replacement of African (originated), especially since the cultural connection got somewhat ignored in it, due to a lost connection - largely - with the African origins. Furthermore, it simply does not seem terribly intelligent to name a people or supposed culture after something visual and superficial.

Very relevant with all this, is that Africa has moreover never become a superpower (like now China, US, EU, and Russia) the world has to consider as equal and respect, as Marcus Garvey once envisioned and worked for. In the present, certainly not. Instead Black people in the African Diaspora try to integrate for better and worse in White-dominated countries.

I know, the culturally genocidal loss of languages and last names of Africans that came with trans-Atlantic slavery, makes that these Africans are not so much to blame for this, and make an integration and equality aim in "white man countries" to a degree understandable. Unlike Chinese in e.g. California they learn no languages of their motherland at home with their parents, and neither know their original families surnames. Unlike other migrants, even semi-forced ones like contract labourers, the Africans transported to the Americas, after all even lost their family names, and their languages. These African-descended people instead grew up with (partly Africanized variants of) European languages, some (mixed) retentions of African cultures, and formalized European slave names (Johnson, Williams, Condé, De Souza, Ferrer, Ronde, Seedorf, etcetera, etcetera).

This still shows the global power inequality Africa as continent, and its children, continue to suffer in the present.

With this massive, structural global inequality, reparations are therefore needed all the more, but also, and with a sad irony, harder to achieve.

Reviews reviewed: the "aura of neutrality" and Colin Grant's biography 'Negro with a hat' on Marcus Garvey

Reviewing work by others is a multifaceted, complex issue. In this day and age, with mass media, broadly developed publishing and journalism, extensively developed cultural sectors and industries - especially in wealthy societies -, it is perhaps unavoidable that new works - be it biographical books, fictional and nonfictional books, music albums, films, or concerts - are scanned and discussed (opinionatedly). This is typically done by experts (or self-declared experts) on certain matters and fields, through mass media.

I guess this has – like so much in this world – pros and cons. Pros: there is much being published and offered, with new releases regularly, that even aficionado’s with relatively narrow interests cannot keep up. A review might just stimulate a choice to check out a book, writer, or artist. It can make curious and trigger interest. The simple fact is that you don’t have the time in one lifetime to check everything yourself that somehow interests you. The plethora of reviews might give you a hint what to choose/select from the bunch of cultural offers.

A main con of reviews, on the other hand, is that they are exactly that: “reviews”. That is: by definition opinionated; else it would be a summary or “abstract”. No, a review is an opinion by a person who for some reason got “authority” in a specific field, recognized by others around him/her, including his/her employers. This is especially the case when these reviewers work for big, well-known newspapers like the New York Times, or other big newspapers, journals, or journals with smaller, but demanding readerships, such as academic journals. Even this seems reasonable in some sense: if – by way of example – someone has studied and researched for over 20 years the Irish-British author Oscar Wilde, in a scholarly, profound manner, even including field work, and has read all previous biographies on Wilde, it is perhaps not a bad choice to let this person give an opinion on a new biography that appeared on Oscar Wilde. His opinions would then be well-informed.

However, at a deeper level even this can be problematic as well, because reviews are, again, opinionated. Academic researchers – and reviewers among them – might have the aura of neutrality. They have a purely rational, balanced, yet opinionated focus. The problem with this is that this is humanly impossible. In the whole wide world there is not one – not one! – human being who is fully able to detach oneself from oneself, so to speak. To have a rational, neutral analysis separate from one’s own personality, history, and biases. The selection of facts, and way to interpret these facts can only partly (if at all) be separated from deeply entrenched personal biases. One can – admirably – strive for balance or neutrality, that can be reached only to a degree.

I myself read reviews of music, albums, books (fictional and nonfictional), concerts, theatre plays, films, or television programmes. Besides this, I actually write reviews myself: for my blog (music, films, and books) and for other sites (of reggae albums mostly). So, I have to face these pros and cons of reviewing as well. I like to write, and in writing I also try to cultivate humbleness. This can be solved in writing by adding words indicating that it is “my” opinion, and with what I (with my knowledge and history) am able and willing to compare works. Terms like “In my opinion..” or “I find..” and “I think..” are very useful in this regard.

Not all reviews seem to have this overt humility, and I admit that I also have enjoyed reviews that are very humorous, though not seemingly modest or humble. I then find them “over the top” in a funny way. A reggae reviewer once said about a song on an album he found overall mediocre (and which he found less in quality than others by that artist): “the less said about this song, the better..”. This appears to be a harsh, arrogant, personal opinion about other people’s artistic effort, but is at the same time a funny way to put it. That compensates somehow.

NEGRO WITH A HAT

I delve into this theme of “reviewing”, because I got curious about the critiques or “reception” of a book I personally appreciated very much. A pleasant and informative read, I found it to be. I am talking about ‘Negro with a hat : the rise and fall of Marcus Garvey’, a biography of Marcus Garvey – the Jamaican-born Black Power thinker and activist -, written by Colin Grant – a Briton of Jamaican parentage -, and published in 2008.

I understood quite some research for this biographical book has been carried out (secondary and primary research), resulting in a quite voluminous book of about 530 pages. I also liked its quite humorous writing style. Besides this I felt I learned a lot more about the nuances of Marcus Garvey and his movement. The author Grant had proper attention to social, political, and historical contexts, while I felt I got to know the person Marcus Garvey better as well, through his life story.

Specifically, Grant addressed Garvey’s personality, including his contradictions, good character traits, as well as flaws. This made the biography in my opinion all the more “real”. Of course he was a (pro-black) thinker and ideologist, as well as activist – and pioneering and influential at that -, but separating that from his personality is so functionalistic that it becomes artificial and absurd. Thus unconvincing. I know.. many such biographies – called “intellectual biographies” – on the ideas but with only superficial sketches of the person who had them - have appeared, and some I read, but most of these failed to convince me fully. There are, however, interesting philosophies and ideas independent of persons who formulated them, but they did not arise in a vacuum. I think Colin Grant in his 2008 biography on Garvey shows he grasps this unavoidable connection between person and ideas. A matter of credibility, in essence.

It also eases sympathy, at least in my case. Eventual “blind spots”, flaws, contradictions, irresponsibility of Garvey as a person or leader Grant describes as well, alongside “positive” character traits and actions, and certainly his noble goal of uplifting an oppressed people. Realistic, because no human is perfect. In essence it shows Garvey’s humanity: at times irresponsible, spiteful, paranoid, distrustful, even unreasonable.. it is all there.. but are those flaws not latently present in all of us, depending on circumstances? The importance is that you learn from your mistakes to improve yourself, and Garvey - as the “self-made man” par excellence, wanting to help downtrodden Black people forward - did just that: learn to then improve, as he recommended as well to his followers. In that sense he – despite that he was criticized for having a too big ego - showed more self-reflection than other leaders the world has known.

The flaws in his character further did not seem of the truly “wicked” kind to me. Maybe because he was a very honest and direct person, he lost the avenues to really fool or hurt people consciously. Though Garvey himself advised leaders to present themselves well in public and keep certain things private, his talent for hypocrisy proved overall too small. His rotund opinions on some issues could sound harsh in some ears, but inspiring to others: the same is the case with all “innovative” leaders and thinkers: including people like Rousseau, Kant, or Mahatma Ghandi. Or Buddha and Jesus Christ for that matter.

I think it is useful to give my opinion on the work with some argumentation, but before this part turns in a review of Colin Grant’s book (by me, this time), I think it is time to focus on how reviewers in the press and media, the US, Britain and elsewhere responded and discussed this book.

The biography has appeared in English in 2008, and a French translation, by Hélène Lee, has appeared under the title ‘Le Nègre au chapeau’ in October, 2012. The same Lee also wrote the biography on Leonard Howell ‘The first Rasta’. Also Garvey was of course very important for the Afro-centric Rastafari movement, as main inspirer, including of Leonard Howell and all early Rastas of course. Some describe this as a John the Baptist-like function that Garvey had for the Rastafari movement, that first arose in Jamaica in the 1930s.. not long before Garvey’s death in London in 1940 (after a stroke) at the age of 52.

So a French translation has appeared, and not yet in other languages as far as I know, however..the bulk of reviews of ‘Negro with a hat’ I could find were in English, and appeared in US-based, Britain-based, or (Anglophone) Caribbean newspapers and journals. These include the big newspapers Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and the larger British newspapers.

How did these reviewers read the same biography I read? What recurs or differs throughout these reviews, what is remarkable, what is emphasized or ignored? In the remainder of this post I will try to answer such questions..

THE REVIEWS

“Las comparaciones son odiosas” – meaning “comparisons are hateful” - is an interesting Spanish expression, I did not hear yet in other languages. This is interesting, because not just reviews, but all analytical and scholarly work rely partly on comparison. Are all these analysts therefore hateful, or do they simply weigh pros and cons? Either way, I pointed out before that biases are ALWAYS there, even among known scholars who have (and cultivate) an “aura of neutrality”. This is an illusion, though recommendable as a goal.

That the person Garvey, as well as his social ideas and movement, all get attention in Colin Grant’s biography reflects in the reviews I read. Both Garvey as man, and Garvey’s ideas and movement get attention, also in these reviews. Balanced, it seems, but the aspects of his person and his movement that get emphasized at times surprise me somewhat. In some reviews they also annoy me.

The “authoritative” New York Times review (2008) states that the Garvey movement had Fascist characteristics. Inappropriate, I think, not just because I do not want to hear that, but because I read Marcus Garvey’s own writings as well. The recurring humanity in them, his espousal of equality among man kind (beyond racial conflicts), the nuances, despite radical aspects and indeed “collectivistic” aspects of his movement, sets it apart from the basic tenets of Fascism, first developed by Benito Mussolini in 1920s Italy. The context was also different: Italy was then an independent, if relatively young, nation and state. It wanted to make its mark, and perhaps was jealous of the imperial power and pasts of other European countries. Blacks in the time of Garvey, on the other hand, were – simply put – not even free in their own lands of origin in Africa: apart from Ethiopia, and a few other regions, most of Africa was subdivided among and controlled by European colonial powers. Blacks/Africans outside Africa were generally in a dependent and oppressed position. The Garvey movement was therefore an emancipation movement, aimed at acquiring basic human rights. It lacked the cynical (some would say; “male”) power and conquest rationale of Fascism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/books/review/Devlin-t.html?_r=0

This and other parts of the New York Times review – that was overall quite positive on the biography as book, by the way – made me doubt whether the reviewer Paul Devlin has read also ‘The philosophy and opinions of Marcus Garvey’, wherein Garvey relates his own views, and adds some biographical aspects. He might have, I don’t know. Some parts of his review describes the biography well, though his focussing on Garvey’s dealings with the Ku Klux Klan borders on the sensationalistic. It was perhaps an odd move by Garvey, but explainable in some way. Even some African-Americans today prefer the direct, overt racism of white supremacists or less organized “rednecks” over the hidden, hypocritical racism – or “white dominance” equally present among many white Americans, and covertly/hidden present in social and organizational structures. “Better the devil you know and see coming”, so to speak. Instead of this KKK episode, Devlin could have emphasized more Garvey’s pioneering role in giving Black people pride. He somewhat neglects Garvey’s historical significance and legacy.

Another authoritative newspaper, Britain’s The Guardian reviewed the biography a few months before, in February 2008. Maybe because Colin Grant is British himself, reviews appeared earlier in Britain than in the US. The reviewer for the Guardian, Margaret Busby, justly emphasizes Garvey’s pioneering role in black pride, more than Devlin. She summarizes also in a well-balanced way, on the whole. Busby, on the other hand, also mentions some aspects that seem a bit sensationalistic. That he had two wives, and married another one after separating from the first, is not that extraordinary nor immoral. The contributions of these women are more relevant, yet discussed little. Busby – as do other reviews – also mentions the odd circumstance that, after one stroke, some thought mistakenly Garvey had died, while Garvey still could read the premature obituary on himself. Not long after that the fatal stroke came.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/feb/09/featuresreviews.guardianreview6

Some say that irony/humour and death do exclude one another, yet some of these reviewers – perhaps unwillingly – seek to combine irony/humour and death. It is an anecdote worth telling, perhaps an interesting one, but not a very amusing, or even relevant one. The cause of death was a stroke: why this, and what could have caused this (hereditary, stress, health problems, poverty)? This seems more relevant to me. In the biography his mother died of a stroke as well (or “apoplexy” as it was called), also relatively young. The fun fact of someone reading his own obituary outweighed this crucial biographical detail, apparently.

I must point out, in all fairness, that Busby does not emphasize sensationalism or irrelevant anecdotes too much, and overall I found her review well-written and quite accurate and balanced.

I am also positive about Kevin Le Gendre’s review in The Independent, also published in February 2008. He gives a well-balanced description of the biography, and points – more than other reviewers – to Garvey’s lasting legacy, albeit in abstract terms. Not much I disagree with here, further, and Le Gendre points at the paradoxes in a good way, the opposition against him – note especially the second paragraph of this review.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/negro-with-a-hat-the-rise-and-fall-of-marcus-garvey-by-colin-grant-779373.html

I think Le Gendre has read Garvey’s own writings, including ‘The philosophy and opinions of Marcus Garvey’. A minor flaw is what became a cliché in reviews on Garvey’s biography: his dealings with the Ku Klux Klan, but I mentioned that already. At least the “obituary-anecdote” is refreshingly absent.

In the short review by Kirkus Reviews (anonymous?) both these clichés recur, but at least Garvey’s “genuine commitment to bettering the lives of blacks” was recognized. It argues, though, or worse: “states”, that this was compromised by Garvey’s outsized ego. As I mentioned elsewhere on this blog (e.g. regarding the biography of James Brown) sometimes things like “bluffing” or “an outsized ego” are nothing more or less than the only way of “survival” in an hostile world.

http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/colin-grant/negro-with-a-hat/

The extensive review by Eric Arnesen in the Chicago Tribune is actually quite critical, and partly negative. Both regarding Grant’s book as on its subject: Marcus Garvey. I think Arnesen exaggerates Garvey’s character flaws. I do admit Arnesen has some good points of weaknesses in the book, as well as of Garvey and his movement. With some of his conclusions I do not agree, however. I do not think Garvey treated his wives as servants: they were for their times quite independent already, and Garvey respected that. If anything, compared to other intellectuals and leaders from his time (white and black) – or even later times – Garvey seemed relatively more to favour female equality. The later Nation of Islam (partly influenced by the Garvey movement) in the US, had at times a barely disguised “(Black) women should be servants and get out of men’s way” focus – though differing per Nation of Islam-member. Even Malcolm X – whom I overall consider to be intelligent and open-minded – in his own writings showed here and there this expectation of female obedience (to Allah/God, and then to men), probably derived from conservative Islam and conservative Christianity. Garvey had this much less.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-03-22/entertainment/0803200314_1_marcus-garvey-colin-grant-admired

At most, Garvey tried too much to be rational and practical, neglecting complex and strictly speaking “weakening” and “paralyzing” personal things like affection, emotions, relationships, love, and friendship. That is unfortunate, but understandable with a certain life history : Garvey soon – in his early teens - had to become independent, and in time he developed broader goals for his people, the world, and not just himself. A rational focus seems required for that.

ACADEMIC REVIEWS

Then there are reviews more aimed at a scholarly and academic public, in more scientific and academic journals. These tend to be more extensive and detailed – as can be expected. The scientific and scholarly world cultivates its “aura of neutrality”, which as I pointed out is in fact an illusion. Yet, many journalists do the same. At least some scholars strive for objective analysis, and that in itself can lead to new, valuable insights.

Huon Wardle of the University of St Andrews wrote a thorough and in itself fine review of Grant’s ‘Negro with a hat’. I find it only unfortunate that Garvey’s lasting legacy is sidelined in it a bit, and that Wardle focuses on his mass support at the time itself. He does not say this, but like that mass support depended more on circumstance or “magic” than on content. I think maybe the message itself was necessary, explaining the mass support, and not just Garvey’s good oratory skills or organizational and promotion capacities. Also, Wardle cannot avoid to go down almost sensationalistic side-paths too: his negotiation with the Ku Klux Klan, or the extraordinary uniforms he wore. Wardle pays much attention to the fact that Garvey was a Jamaican migrant in the US, and that his support included at first many other West Indians. This is only partly relevant, I would say. He soon got much support among African-Americans/US Blacks as well, making his Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), by the early 1920s, the biggest mass organization of Blacks the world had yet seen. The attention he pays to the extravagant uniforms UNIA members and Garvey himself does not seem that relevant to me, but I do find interesting how Wardle (unlike other reviewers) draws the connection with the Caribbean carnival tradition of “inverting the order”, not to mimic but to rebel in a playful way.

http://openanthcoop.ning.com/group/oacbookreviews/forum/topics/book-review-negro-with-a-hat-the-rise-and-fall-of-marcus-garvey

I do not agree with Wardle at the end of his review, seemingly a conclusion. He wrote: “The sudden explosive growth of the UNIA is an instance where a submerged nexus of utopian ideas and values briefly pierce the membrane of what actually exists and acquire a reality of their own”. This is even derogatory in some sense, and ignores the deeper message and significance of the Garvey movement: black self-determination, a self-determination other races and nations already had. From that line of reasoning “nation” ideas like Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France, United Kingdom, China, USA, India and so on, are likewise “utopian”, as well as political parties or interest groups. Some ideas seemed once temporarily utopian because they were too progressive, different from the status-quo. They remain utopian because they are repressed by the powers that be.

Paul M. Heideman, writing a review on the biography in 2009 for the African-American Review, has some interesting points, I think. Like me, Heideman opined that the contradictions/complexities of Garvey come well to the fore in Grant’s biography, and that it is well- documented, -written and accessible. In addition, Heideman states that Grant “lets these contradictions speak for themselves”, by simply relating Garvey’s actions and reproducing Garvey’s own writings. This lack of authorial explanation has its advantages, but can also be a flaw at times, Heideman states. I agree partly. I also found some explanation lacking in Grant’s book regarding Garvey’s choices; not just regarding Garvey’s distancing from Marxism and the Left over time, but also his enigmatic religious choices. Garvey became Roman Catholic – while raised Methodist - , called himself even Catholic, despite his own critique that religious sculptures of Jesus and others in Catholic churches looked white and European. The irony is that Roots Reggae lyrics by Rastafari-adhering artists mention Garvey a lot positively, but also often criticize Rome and Catholicism (or mainstream Christianity). Some Rastafari-adherents might deplore Garvey’s adherence to Catholicism, others may explain it historically, but Grant unfortunately does not pay much attention to Garvey’s religious choices. Maybe, no information or sources were available on it, that is also possible.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/african_american_review/summary/v043/43.1.heideman.html

Anyhow, I found Heideman’s review all in all okay and balanced, albeit a bit limited in scope.

In the Caribbean Reviews of Books journal, Jeremy Taylor reviewed the biography in 2008. Quite critically, and not in all aspects positively. I do appreciate how Taylor does pay sufficient attention to Garvey’s historical influence and legacy, especially in the final part of his review.

http://caribbeanreviewofbooks.com/crb-archive/17-august-2008/hail-to-the-chief/

Some aspects he found missing in Grant’s biography, I found missing as well, such as religious issues. The pop song Garvey wrote while imprisoned in Atlanta (1923-1927) could further equally receive more attention in Grant’s book.

http://geoffreyphilp.blogspot.nl/2011/06/keep-cool-by-marcus-mosiah-garvey.html

It would recur partly in lyrics of some reggae songs, such as this one by the Twinkle Brothers (‘Give Rasta Praise’ from 1975): a few lines are taken from this pop song Garvey wrote (and named ‘Keep Cool’).

Jacob Dorman, at the University of Kansas, wrote a review of ‘Negro with a hat’ that was critical and even more negative. He even made me doubt if I read the biography that well, and if Dorman might indeed be right, if I look at the book in another way. I think this is only partly the case, because Dorman failed to note a main theme in the biography: the idea of the “self-made man” that Garvey represented. I think Colin Grant with his biography really aimed at showing contradictions and complexities of Garvey, and did not aim at a negative portrayal.

http://www.academia.edu/544208/Negro_with_a_Hat_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Marcus_Garvey_review_

Certainly, Garvey could be harsh, right-wing in some issues, sided sometimes with the wrong persons, was at times insensitive, inconsistent even theoretically, or mistaken. He was human and could make mistakes. Another glorified and influential self-made man, Henry Ford, also had inhumane, harsh, right-wing, and even anti-Semitic ideas, if one checks it out. Worse than the worst statements of Garvey, who overall at least seemed to believe in equality of races and people, despite criticizing some ethnic groups generally at times during moments of frustration.

Dorman misses the deeper layer: the story of someone starting with nothing, belonging to a poor oppressed race in a poor, marginal land, working himself up to lead a Black mass movement in the US by the late 1910s. A pioneer that inspired other, later Black leaders, influenced partly by his ideas, but going beyond that.

The Rastafari movement – a “Black Power movement with a theological nucleus” (dixit Mutabaruka) - is described as “using Garvey to go beyond Garvey”. After all, Garvey was Catholic, more European/British influenced in his cultural tastes, even colonially influenced, and Garvey even became critical of Haile Selassie, the main, revered person within Rastafari. Garvey applauded the coronation of Selassie in 1930, but later criticized in harsh terms as “cowardice” the strategy of Selassie in dealing with the invasion by Fascist Italy (i.e. by allying with other European powers against Italy), instead of organizing African unity at that time (later Selassie did help shape African unity, by the way). Garvey should have been more diplomatic, I think, but he was only partly wrong: the British, in hindsight, had a dubious, double role during Italy’s invasion, eventually favouring Italy and other imperial powers over Ethiopia’s (or Africa’s) interests. However, Selassie might not have known this neither at that time, and was then naïve rather than cowardice.. Besides this, Selassie’s strategy had some wisdom from a geopolitical perspective.

Similarly, also Kwame Nkrumah, other African independence fighters, like Kwame Nkrumah, initially also Nelson Mandela, several Black Power movements and intellectuals in the Caribbean and the US, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King.. all have been influenced by Garvey, without copying him in every single thing. The positive and necessary essence of Garvey’s Black emancipation and African redemption and repatriation ideas lived and live on. A good example of how “the good you do lives after you..”. Bad or nonsensical things one did or said stay behind, since they do not inspire.

Like some other (academic) reviewers Dorman describes Grant’s biography as a good, and readable introduction, but not much more than that, lacking according to him proper use of research and scholarly methods, and lacking also attention to aspects about Garvey himself, or the motivations of his followers. With the last aspect I agree: Grant could have paid more attention to why different Black people chose to follow Garvey and his movement..

CONCLUSIONS

Dorman’s reviews differs strongly from other ones I discussed, but had similarities with others. Reviewers even say the opposite from each other: some find that Grant wrote a sympathetic portrayal, some say a a balanced one, while – like just mentioned – Dorman characterizes Grant’s portrayal of Garvey as a negative one. Some reviewers called Grant’s biography “definitive”, others (especially in academic circles) as merely introductory.

It goes to show how perspectives on the same phenomenon differ from person to person, from reviewer to reviewer in this case.

Some things recur through all these reviews, though. They all seem to agree that the social and historical contexts of the Garvey movement were related well by Grant in ‘Negro with a hat’. Most agreed that Garvey as a person was in some aspects described too little in it, though not everyone found this. Likewise, more than one review noted that Garvey’s followers got too little attention, but several did not mention this as a flaw.

I criticized before the recurrence in reviews of sensationalistic anecdotes over relevant facts. The meeting with the KKK by Garvey, and the fact that he read his own (premature) obituary is remarkable enough to mention somewhere in a biography, but not in every single review of it (as is nearly the case). These became clichés. Another recurrent anecdote or description was on the, some find, extravagant “imperial” hats and clothes Garvey and other UNIA members wore. That does not seem the most relevant thing to me. Maybe it can be related with the “inverting order” notion of Caribbean carnival traditions, and some reviewers relate it to this. An interesting analysis would I think consist also of a psychological explanation: regaining dignity in a public way. In a few reviews something like this is hinted at.

Unfortunately, this clothing is used in most reviews to illustrate how egotistic, or megalomaniac (not always formulated in such words) Garvey according to some was. This ultimately devalues his importance and his movement’s. The same “school yard” insults due to appearance as a thick-spectacled, red-haired, or otherwise “different” child hears from the vane, bullying “cool kids”. This is meant to exclude such strange or nerdy people from their circle. That this sarcasm aimed at Garvey’s clothing or trivial aspects – apart from the content and goals - is also found in academic journals by scholars is not really surprising. The same exclusion through ridicule as nerdy kids in a school yard endure.

That is what Garvey and the author of this biography on him, Colin Grant, share. They stepped on privileged toes: such biographies are often written by respected academics, not by a journalist like Grant. The condescending “nice try, but we can do this better” message is barely disguised in some of these academic reviews.

Also, as discussed in the biography, WEB Du Bois was an academically schooled Black leader with some influence in the US at the time that Marcus Garvey arrived, and developed and broadened his movement, but with a different message for the same people. Du Bois and others saw this as unwelcome competition for Black support. Privileged positions are disturbed and threatened, making ridicule and repression a final recourse for these privileged people: they have the power and connections to do this. Another, even more privileged group – the White establishment – eventually invented a “mail/post fraud” charge to be able to incarcerate and later expel Garvey to Jamaica (he did not have the US nationality, but a British one).

Several sources – and also recurring in reggae lyrics – point at betrayal of Garvey by other Black people, in the US, Jamaica, and Britain.

Some of the reviewers I mentioned are themselves Black persons. It is good that they remain critical and try to be as neutral as possible on the subject: worshipping is different from reviewing, even if Garvey is seen as a hero by many. That being said, I still find it unfortunate and exaggerated to put the emphasis that much on mistakes, organization flaws, and supposed character flaws of a man like Marcus Garvey.

Garvey has inspired many people and was historically influential. He maybe had flaws, but nothing really came across to me as calculatedly wicked or evil. The FBI at one point even asked his wives, and other people close to Garvey, private questions, hoping to find some “hidden sins”, in order to put him away. Yet they could not find anything illegal in even his private activities. If he were an abusive husband or father (he had two sons), had buried people he killed somewhere, raped women (which for instance Benito Mussolini has done, as a youth, but still became a popular dictator in Italy), or made enslaved people work for free – to name just something – it would have been known at that time. Neither was he involved in financial fraud, extortion, robbery, or violent reprisals against people. Any such things or crimes the FBI hoped to find, but was unable to.

So why this ridicule and critique as a way to downplay Garvey’s influence, among many reviewers?
Attacking the person instead of his/her message or what he/she says is a common distraction tool from what needs for some to be overshadowed or obfuscated: an unwelcome consciousness.

Are some of these reviewers really not open to hear his message and recognize its significance, even today?

That would be ignoring the fact that the world is still unequal today, in 2014. Racially and economically. In 2014 Africa still has less control over its own resources and economy than Europe. Black people in the Americas and elsewhere are overall still on the lower levels socioeconomically, and racism still exists, in daily life and in policies. Slavery as a historical crime against humanity is still only limitedly recognized until today by European nations.

Or, as the reggae group the Mighty Diamonds sing eloquently in their song on Garvey, ‘Them Never Love Poor Marcus’ (1976): “Now the human race in such a squeeze..”

Apparently, people in privileged positions - as part of this same racial and economic order - are not too keen to really ponder on the essence of Garvey’s message: they might feel, well, a bit ashamed or guilty.

That is the hidden bias I found in many – though not all- of these seemingly neutral reviews. Talking about being egotistic.. The complexity of Garvey as an individual can be seen as intriguing as well, and other biographies – on other persons – actually embrace such complexity to give depth to a person. I guess to embrace some one’s complexity you must respect or love that person, else you would not care about his or her various traits. That is basic psychology. On Facebook nowadays many “life lessons” and philosophical quotes are shared, too much and too cheap some say, but some I like: like this one I read: “We judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions”. Seems relevant here.. Besides, anyone can test for themselves through this thought experiment; think about this: do you want to know how your mother – or grandmother - lived when young?, or how she felt about certain crucial choices she had to make, even long before you were born? Many would say..yes I am interested in that. Yet..are you equally intrigued about the younger life of, not your (grand)mother, but another woman who you do not even know and who is not related to you?
The same I think applies to symbolical “mothers” and “children”..

Admittedly, other reviews were more balanced, quite neutral, with good argumentation, and also had attention to positive aspects and legacies of Garvey. Both among scholarly and non-scholarly reviews positive opinions were found on Garvey and this biography by Grant.

It’s a pity though that, from the reviews combined, the overall image that remains of Garvey and his movement is of a megalomaniac failure that mainly through some magic and slick propaganda skills got mass support. The overall image of the biography/book that remains is that it is an accessible, well-written work - not without humour - giving good historical contexts and some information on the complexities of Garvey. On the other hand..also that it is not much more than introductory and should have been written by an established scholar/academic. Not all reviewers say this last thing so directly, but if these reviewers can exaggerate or simplify complexity in such much read newspapers and journals – and several do -, I can do the same regarding them..

Negro with a hat: the rise and fall of Marcus Garvey: Colin Grant . – 530 p. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN: 0-19-536794-4, 978-0-19-536794-2

De Kom en Garvey relatief

Voor mijn werk bij het KITLV schreef ik een persbericht voor de Neder-L website (elektronisch tijdschrift voor de neerlandistiek) over Anton de Kom en diens werk ‘Wij slaven van Suriname’ (1934). Dit was in ‘t bulletin van de site van april 2010, naar aanleiding van de ook op de caraibischeletteren.blogspot.com besproken aflevering van tijdschrift OSO (april 2010) (zie: http://caraibischeletteren.blogspot.com/2010/06/de-turbulente-biografie-van-een-boek.html).

Zie voor persbericht:
http://www.neder-l.nl/bulletin/2010/04/100412.html

Een goede manier om OSO en KITLV te promoten/onder de aandacht te brengen. Dat was natuurlijk het doel.

Zoals het een professional behoort te betamen probeerde ik een correcte, zorgvuldige, en goed leesbare tekst te schrijven.
In ieder geval koos ik mijn woorden zorgvuldig, en ik heb het herhaaldelijk gelezen.
Ik wil nu één zin eruit halen waarbij ik Anton de Kom niet alleen in een breder Surinaams of historisch kader plaatste, maar tevens in een breder Caraïbisch kader. Het betreft de zin:
“Als aanklacht tegen koloniale onderdrukking en slavernij, pleitte de schrijver Anton de Kom verder voor zwart zelfbewustzijn, organisatie, en proletarische eenheid. Met zijn aanklachten was De Kom er relatief vroeg bij en past daarom in het rijtje van Caraïbische voorvechters van bevrijding en zelfrespect, zoals Marcus Garvey, C.L.R. James, Eric Williams en Aimé Césaire”.

“Er relatief vroeg bij” klinkt genuanceerd en is ook zo bedoeld. Woorden als “relatief” - Wikipedia-beheerders/redacteuren noemen dergelijke termen hardvochtig “weasel words” - ondermijnen de stelligheid van het geschrevene, waardoor de tekst wat minder pakkend wordt, maar in een wetenschappelijke context leek mij dat minder bezwaarlijk.
Bovendien is het correct. Kenners van de Caraïbische geschiedenis zullen weten dat sommige van de genoemde namen er zelfs - hoewel niet veel - “later” bij waren: hun emancipatorische, zwart bewustzijn “standaard” werken verschenen later dan ‘Wij Slaven van Suriname’ van De Kom.
Interessant is echter dat De Kom op zijn beurt meldde beïnvloed te zijn door Marcus Garvey. Deze was er wel “eerder bij”. Garvey leidde een volksbeweging van zwarte Amerikanen in de VS die snel groeide vanaf ongeveer 1917, met internationale vertakkingen (ook in Suriname). Garvey’s organisatie - de Univeral Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) - wees qua naam al op het internationale karakter en oogmerk ervan.
Op de beïnvloeding van De Kom door Marcus Garvey – hoewel zeer interessant – ga ik hier verder niet op in. Dat kunnen anderen beter onderzoeken of inschatten op basis van reeds verricht onderzoek.

Marcus Garvey wilde de positie van zwarten in de Amerika’s verbeteren door organisatie, het vergroten van zelfrespect, maar ook door middel van een focus op het moederland Afrika: dat moest bevrijd worden van kolonialisme om een plek te worden waarnaar de zwarten konden terugkeren (repatriëring), en om als machtsbasis in de wereld te dienen. Garvey heeft zeker analytisch nagedacht over de geopolitieke component hiervan, zodat het niet alleen als een romantische droom betiteld kan worden.

Als reggae-fan kwam ik de naam Marcus Garvey al vaker tegen in reggae-teksten: Bob Marley, Burning Spear, Culture, Mighty Diamonds en andere artiesten verwezen naar Garvey, die overigens ook een national hero van Jamaica is. Zijn rol in het leiden van zwarte mensen, pleiten voor terugkeer naar Afrika, en zwart zelfrespect werd mij al jong in grote lijnen duidelijk, ook door achtergrondinformatie (toen nog via de openbare bibliotheek in plaats van Internet).
Die persoonlijke interesse - los ook van het professionele – bleef bij mij, mede door mijn gebleven interesse (vooruit: liefde) voor reggae muziek en Rastafari-gerelateerde thema’s.

Een zeer goed leesbare biografie van Marcus Garvey verscheen in 2008, ‘Negro with a hat : the rise and fall of Marcus Garvey’ door Colin Grant, een Brit van Jamaicaanse afkomst.
Ik heb dit boek met veel plezier gelezen. Grant heeft een plezierige, verhelderende schrijftrant met een subtiel gevoel voor humor en ironie. Hij plaatst Garvey’s leven en activiteiten naar mijn idee goed in verschillende contexten. Hoe Garvey als Jamaicaanse immigrant in de VS vanaf 1917 een grote beweging van zwarten in de VS kon leiden, zijn ambitieuze plannen en ondernemingen die soms mislukten, inhoudelijke en persoonlijke conflicten met andere zwarte en gekleurde leiders als W.E.B. Dubois. Zijn visie op andere stromingen in de tijd (wit racisme, maar ook communisme, gelijke rechten in de VS, de arbeidersbeweging etcetera). Al dit levert fascinerende informatie op, en een goed beeld van tegenstellingen.
Het zegt echter ook veel over de persoon Marcus Garvey, en het pleit voor de biograaf Grant dat hij die persoonlijke aspecten geenszins schuwt. Je komt veel over Garvey als persoon te weten en niet alleen als ideoloog of “denker”. Die zaken scheiden krijgt immers al snel iets onechts.
Aandacht geeft Grant aan Garvey’s vroege jeugd in het Jamaicaanse stadje St Ann’s Bay, armoede, contacten, hoe hij veel kon lezen in bibliotheken. Zijn latere vertrek naar de hoofdstad Kingston, en nog latere reizen door Centraal-Amerika, het Caraïbisch gebied, en meerdere Europese landen. Hoe al dit hem levenslessen bood en zijn denkbeelden deed vormen. Het deed Garvey vooral de noodzaak inzien van een verbetering van de internationale positie van onderdrukte zwarten.

Zoals elk mens herbergde Garvey verder ook tegenstrijdigheden en twijfels in zich, “blinde vlekken” en wellicht ook obsessies. Hij kon ook af en toe wantrouwend, rancuneus of verongelijkt zijn, ondanks zijn streven naar een zekere rationaliteit. Juist dit maakte hem menselijker en dus sympathieker als persoon. En begrijpelijker.
Zijn fulmineren tegen Europees kolonialisme liet bijvoorbeeld onverlet dat zijn onderwijs in Jamaica – wat hij dus meekreeg – wel erg Brits-koloniaal en Eurocentrisch was. Jamaica was toen immers nog een Britse kolonie. Garvey werd daar onvermijdelijk door beïnvloed, maar groeide er ook overheen. Hij bewonderde in zekere zin Napoleon Bonaparte, maar later ook Toussaint Louverture. Hij respecteerde echter ook blanke “self-made men”, zelfs met dubieuze denkbeelden, zoals Henry Ford.

Dat ongrijpbare komt goed over in het boek. Een vat vol tegenstrijdigheden was Garvey wellicht te noemen. Dit stond echter los van zijn constante redeneringen op een aantal belangrijke punten.
Rastafari-aanhangers, voor wie Garvey als een belangrijke profeet geldt, waarderen de meeste van zijn acties en ideeën, maar zullen sommige acties en uitingen wellicht minder waarderen. Garvey was eerst lovend over de in 1930 gekroonde Ethiopische keizer Haile Selassie, ook als voorbeeld voor zwart Afrika, en zei dat deze waardige vorst veel gunstiger afstak dan de Italiaanse fascistische leider en “bully” Mussolini, die Ethiopië in 1935 bruut binnenviel. Later echter werd hij kritischer over Selassie en bekritiseerde zijn slappe houding tegenover Mussolini’s invasie, en het feit dat Selassie zich teveel verbond met Europese leiders en te weinig breder zwart en Afrikaans verzet organiseerde. Het deed hem zelfs positieve opmerkingen over de “bully” Mussolini maken, die tenminste “manhood” toonde met de invasie.
Er zullen ook Rastafari zijn die Garvey’s aanhangen van het rooms-katholicisme niet helemaal zullen kunnen volgen, hoewel Garvey tegelijkertijd ook kritisch was en bleef over de “blanke” geschiedvervalsing en interpretatie van het Christendom.
In de VS leidde zijn geuite waardering voor de “eerlijkheid” (open in plaats van verborgen racisme) van de Klu Klux Klan (en verwante racisten) tot onbegrip bij een deel van de zwarten. Garvey zou zelfs een ontmoeting hebben gehad met de Klu Klux Klan-leider voor een “mutually beneficial” geografische scheiding van wit en zwart.

In zijn persoonlijk leven waren er echter relatief weinig wangedragingen bekend geworden. Zelfs in die mate dat FBI-leider J. Edgar Hoover - hevig op zoek naar iets illegaals om de lastpost Garvey op te kunnen pakken - tot zijn frustratie niets onwettelijks vond om de man zonder VS-paspoort (hij was Brits onderdaan) te kunnen arresteren en uitzetten naar Jamaica. Dat lukte pas in een later stadium.

Garvey was twee keer getrouwd met intellectuele en zelfstandige vrouwen (wat naar mijn idee voor hem pleit) - ook uit “de beweging” - en het eerste huwelijk ging mis. Conservatieve, Victoriaanse huwelijkswaarden waren er nog wel bij Garvey tijdens het eerste huwelijk, maar dat is een klein, en gezien zijn opleiding begrijpelijk defect. Het macho-denken bij Garvey leek al met al - in tekst en daad - relatief beperkt, ondanks zijn prijzen van “manhood” bij dubieuze mannen als Mussolini.
Werk en “the Black cause” gingen bij Garvey echter wel vaak voor het gezin en ook andere familie. Men vond bijvoorbeeld in Jamaica dat Garvey te weinig voor zijn verarmde, ouder wordende vader in Jamaica zorgde, financieel gezien. “Mijn vader heeft ook niets voor mij gedaan”, was zijn verontwaardigde respons. Wellicht onbehoorlijk in conservatieve oren, maar wel weer menselijk.
Zijn moeder was voordat Marcus migreerde al overleden: aan een hersenbloeding. Daaraan zou ook Marcus later zelf overlijden, op 52-jarige leeftijd, in 1940. Garvey woonde toen zo’n vijf jaar in Londen en zijn invloed was inmiddels beperkter.
Na zijn opsluiting in en later (in 1927) uitzetting uit de VS (uiteindelijk gepakt op “mail fraud”), ontplooide hij wat initiatieven in Jamaica, richtte een politieke partij op, maar bereikte minder dan hij wilde. Hij werd ook tegengewerkt. Hij verhuisde toen maar naar Londen, in 1935.

Hij had toen echter al vele mensen beïnvloed, en het zwart bewustzijn en Pan-Afrikaanse denken doen toenemen. Die invloed bleek blijvend en wereldwijd: bij Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Kwame Nkrumah, onafhankelijkheidsbewegingen in Afrika, sommige sociale bewegingen in het Caraïbisch gebied, de Rastafari, maar ook dus Anton de Kom die naast door communisme (waar Garvey minder in geloofde) eerder al door Garvey was beïnvloed..

Deze biografie van Garvey, getiteld ‘Negro with a hat’ (de wat merkwaardige titel wordt al lezende verklaard), van Colin Grant, is hoe dan ook een aanrader. Het geeft een goed beeld van zowel een interessante intellectueel, een historisch vernieuwend en invloedrijk gedachtegoed, alsmede van een boeiende persoonlijkheid.


BOEKGEGEVENS:

Negro with a hat : the rise and fall of Marcus Garvey: Colin Grant . – 530 p. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN: 0-19-536794-4, 978-0-19-536794-2