Garveyism is an outdated ideology

THE EDITOR, Sir:

OVER THE years, there has been much debate about the importance of Garveyism in our society. Furthermore, several eminent academics have been advocating the teaching of Garveyism in secondary schools.

Garveyism is an idealogy and, like all other perspectives, it is subject to criticisms. However, academics and media practitioners have failed to engage in rigorous debate about the issue in order to provide the citizens of Jamaica with a more balanced image of Marcus Garvey. For too long Garvey has been portrayed as an icon, who only wanted to uplift the black race.

Marcus Garvey was a man with lofty ideas and impractical aims, and, contrary to popular belief, he was very naive about the real issues affecting blacks and what was really needed to empower them. Marcus Garvey was of the view that slavery had a debilitating effect on individuals of African descent. Further to this, Garvey wanted to uplift these oppressed individuals. However, the methods which he chose were far from workable. By preaching black supremacy and racial separatism, he expected to inculcate some level of pride in his downtrodden black brothers and sisters. This policy achieved very little; it only created a group of delusional blacks, who thought that they were superior to whites.

A practical suggestion

Racial integration, which was pursued by George Schuyler, an eminent intellect during Garvey's time, was a more practical suggestion. One must understand that blacks cannot be truly uplifted if they, too, become racist like white supremacists. Black supremacy only created division, and engendered hatred. Furthermore, Garvey's policy of racial separatism was illogical. Garvey was an idealist who wanted African Americans to return to Africa and rule Ethiopia. This policy would not have aided in the development of blacks in any way. Second, Garvey strongly believed that a classical education for blacks was not necessary. To Garvey, wealth and commerce were more important than the intellectual development of blacks; this is another fallacy.

It must also be noted that his enterprises failed and the blacks who supported him became rich not with wealth but with delusion. Garvey was an egotist with lofty ideas. For example, he gave himself grandiose titles such as 'The Provisional President of Africa', and 'the world's greatest orator'. Most of the intellects who existed in Garvey's time considered him to be a mere "demagogic charlatan" and this was not far from the truth. Garvey lived in an unreal world. Furthermore, he preached black supremacy and encouraged division on more than one occasion. It must also be noted again that preaching black supremacy will not assist the black race. In addition, contemporary black scholars should understand that only a well- rounded education which includes the sciences and western humanities will improve the plight of blacks.

A lecture on Garveyism or pan-Africanism does not suffice for the teachings of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. Although blacks should know about their history, in particularly ancient West African, there is no need to for scholars to continuously educate blacks about the evils of slavery, or the dependency theory, because we are already informed about such issues. This act will only engender hatred, or worse, encourage blacks to subscribe to the "cult of victimology". Furthermore, the purpose of an education is to aid in the physical, social and emotional development of the individual. And in a free society, a school should not be indoctrinating anyone.

Learning about Garveyism is a choice, and blacks can be empowered without being fans of Garveysim. Lastly, members of academia are of the view that Garveyism will make black students more confident; this is another fallacy, one can be confident without it.

Lipton Matthews

lo_matthews@yahoo.com