Marcus Garvey recognized that there were huge disparities and inequalities encountered by black people on his travels from Jamaica through Europe to the United States. IN 1914, he founded UNIA (Universal Negro Improvement Association) and later brought his movement to New York. The movement preached Black Nationalism which aimed at uniting people whose ancestors had come from Africa and celebrating the contributions made by black heroes and leaders. He believed that unless blacks seceded from white Americans, they would never attain true freedom (Garvey 2). He started to advocate for all Africans to return to Africa because he believed that it was only in their homeland that they could achieve the true political and economic independence that would result in true emancipation. This paper takes a stance against Garvey’s “Back-to-Africa-movement” and presents arguments against his claims that lacks would never be free alongside white Americans.
There are several reasons why Garvey’s Back to Africa Movement was not the best approach to settling the inequalities between black and white Americans. First, Garvey’s idea of returning African Americans to Africa was highly unfounded and undemocratic. Marcus Garvey had not consulted any African leaders when he held the first UNIA convention; he was proclaimed the “provisional president of Africa”. This is despite the fact that he had not been to Africa in a long time. It can be argued that his plans looked down upon Africa. In his article in The Negro World, a Newspaper for the UNIA movement, Marcus Garvey stated that after “a few more years”, Africa would be “completely colonized by the negroes” just as Europe had been colonized by the whites. This, however, did not come to pass.
Secondly, he called for separatist development whereby blacks would run their own businesses and depend on black customers. This kind of development was not possible because African Americans were not economically empowered at the time. His attempts to sell stock in the Black Star Line failed miserably. Booker T Washington was against the ideas held by Marcus Garvey. This is because he believed that blacks could reach for the socio-economic heights reached by the whites without having to be separatists.
Thirdly, Garvey’s methods in rallying support and raising funds were often unpleasant and unorthodox to the point of drawing sharp criticism from other black luminaries. For example, he met with leaders of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in Atlanta based on the notion that both parties wanted the same thing: for blacks to go back to Africa. In addition, he rejected social equality and miscegenation. In this regard, DuBois thought that Garvey was the greatest enemy of black America who was a “Lunatic and traitor” (Garvey 30). Garvey was also involved in shady dealings with regards to the Black Star Line such as fraudulent dealings in selling stock. BuBois, through The Crisis literary works published writings by Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes and other writers from the Harlem Rennaissance. These writers held different views from those of Marcus Garvey, calling on blacks to rise up through integration and triumph against the odds stacked against them.
Conclusion
The Back to Africa Movement as fronted by Marcus Garvey may be discredited because on three accounts. First, it was highly unfounded and undemocratic. Garvey openly asserted that he and his fellow UNIA members would colonize Africa just as the whites had done in Europe. This was despite not having consulted any African people. Secondly, his separatist views were not workable as is evidenced by the collapse of businesses for blacks only and the Black Star Line. Thirdly, he used unpleasant and unorthodox means to achieve his goals.
Work Cited
Garvey, Marcus. The crisis. New York: The Crisis Publishing Company, Inc, 1924. Print.
Garvey, Marcus. "Africa for the Africans." The Negro World, 12.10 (1922): 1-12. Print.
