Marcus Garvey is a revered personality in Jamaican history, but few have grasped the substance of his ideas. One popular theme of Garveyism is the back-to-Africa trope. Yet, despite resonating with contemporary Garveyites, the movement only existed in a psychological sense.

As a rhetorical tactic, the back-to-Africa mantra motivated blacks to envision Africa as a significant world power. Though Garvey did not advocate massive migration to Africa, he expected talented blacks to play a pivotal role in building an African empire. Garvey recognised that the status of blacks depended on Africa being a model for the world. Unless Africa was prosperous, blacks in the diaspora could not attain status in a racist society. Hence, the back-to-Africa message was aimed at progressive blacks in the diaspora able to spearhead development in Africa, not random black people (Levine 1982).

Further, unlike some present Garveyites, Garvey had no interest in banishing the Western canon. Instead, he argued that Western thinkers endowed civilisation with a useful body of knowledge responsible for creating the modern world. The estimable Marcus Garvey was versed in Western philosophy and would view attempts at replacing the Western canon with Afrocentric scholarship as political indoctrination. Many fail to understand that Garvey objected to Western imperialism. However, he wanted blacks in the diaspora and Africa to appropriate Western culture. Therefore, we should not be surprised that one of the goals of the Universal Negro Improvement Association is “to assist in civilising the backward tribes of Africa”.

Being an intelligent man, Garvey dispelled the notion that all cultures are equal; such thinking precludes societies that are lagging from incorporating superior practices. In his description of Garvey and other early black activists, scholar Dean Robinson asserts that: “They shared with Garvey a certain orientation toward Western culture and capitalism, operating out of what we would today call a Eurocentric framework… Neither Garvey nor the black nationalists who preceded him had any intention of reclaiming African culture, as some 1960s ‘modern’ nationalists would. They wanted to be rid of it.”

Based on the quality of Garvey’s ideas we know that Jamaican intellectuals wanting to replace remnants of British culture with subversive ideologies would be bereft of his support. Throughout history societies have prospered when they acknowledge the inferiority of local practices and ideas to foreign influences. If Europeans during the medieval ages refused to build on the legacies of Arabs and Greek scholars on the flippant basis that their perspectives were equally good, we would have no tomes explaining the rise of Western European. The Chinese for example were often hesitant to reform their culture when confronted with superior ideas and as a result they regressed relative to Western Europe for a long time. Moreover, several present-day exponents of Garveyism are socialists and communists. Such ideals, however, are inconsistent with Garveyism. Garvey posited that capitalism was superior to the inefficient systems of socialism and communism that are inept at allocating resources. In addition, he opined that the former enabled delusions by indoctrinating ordinary people to believe that the rich will one day wilfully share their wealth with the poor.

Garvey was even cynical of trade unions, rightly perceiving them as tools of racism, since many union leaders held anti-black sentiments. Due to his insight, Garvey advised blacks to become strike-breakers, because in the event of strikes they could replace white labour. Though he supported capitalism, Garvey promoted regulations to prevent excesses.

The type of economic system preferred by Garvey is best demonstrated by the social market economies of Europe. In the realm of governance, Garvey was an unabashed elitist arguing that only the most competent should lead. As an admirer of Plato, he envisaged a Government ruled by an enlightened administrator whose policies would go unchallenged (McCartney 1992). These recommendations may appear impractical, but Singapore adequately reflects the type of governance Garvey thought best, in that it is ruled by a meritocratic elite and sanctions are quickly applied for non-performance.

Conversely, Rastafarians admire Garvey, but their beliefs contradict Garveyism. To Rastafarians, Garvey is a prophet, although he never accepted this title. Further he repudiated their rituals, particularly the smoking of ganja. In an article titled ‘The Dangerous Weed’, published in Garvey’s New Jamaican on August 13 1932, he explicitly condemned the use of ganja: “Ganja is a dangerous weed…We have come into contact with young and middle age men who have become a menace to society through the smoking of ganja.” Science has indeed confirmed Garvey’s assertion, because ganja induces psychosis in some groups (Large et al 2011). Garvey may not object to the legalisation of ganja to facilitate scientific research, but he would find it untenable that Jamaicans actually take pride in smoking this herb for leisure.

In contrast to his modern acolytes, Garvey never affirmed culture nationalism. He held Obeah in low regard and had no desire in advancing backward practices on the premise that they are a part of African culture. Marcus Garvey’s ideas are still relevant; however, if most Jamaicans understood them then they would definitely dump Garveyism.

lo_matthews@yahoo.com