Understanding the Aim of Garveyism, there are certain political decisions that flow from that. On the way to this Aim it was clear to Garvey that blacks would need to have economic ties amongst themselves and therefore founded the Black Stay Line, Black Star Factories, etc. So then clearly the Pan-Africanist is not against business, small or large. Rather the Neo-Garveyist Pan-Africanist is concerned with the proper conduct of business. Business should be conducted in a manner that respects the human being first and foremost. Business should be run in a manner that does not destroy the environment. Thus the Pan-Africanist is an Environmentalist. Many people on the "left" of Pan-Africanist have issues with "big business." That's their business but in reality any business that is successful will become a big business. The Pan-Africanist is not anti-corporation. A corporation is simply a legal entity run by actual people. Again since the Pan-Africanist is concerned with the way corporations operate and not the corporation itself there is no citing the Pan-Africanist as anti-business. So for example, if Sean Combs was a Pan-Africanist he would not allow his clothing apparel to be made in sweatshops in "Third World" countries. instead he would contract with a company that treats it's workers fairly OR forces the factory to change in order to get it's contract. Of course this means less profit for Sean Combs, but as stated, the Pan-Africanist puts the human first ( as opposed to the legal entity). Garvey wanted to cap a persons income at $1 million. Neo-Garveyism does not agree with this. A person may wish to limit his or her own income by whatever means, but the state should not be able to impose an income limit on a persons legal activity. This position also means that the Pan-Africanist is anti-Capitalism. Capitalism (technically the study of money) is a profit driven ideology that subordinates the person to profit. Therefore it is inimitable to the ideals of Pan-Africanism.
Pan-Africanism is not anti-war. Indeed we believe that there are cases for armed conflict, but such conflict must be in self defense. Thus the Pan-Africanist is opposed to the war in Iraq because it is not a self-defensive war. The Pan-Africanist is not Pro-Christian or Pro-Islam or even Pro-religion. The Pan-Africanist believes that religion is a personal thing to each individual and therefore does not believe the state should be in the habit of imposing it's official or unofficial view of religion on citizens. In the Pan-African state, the school system would make instruction on religion(s) available to all students. Also it would not be in the habit of declaring religious national holidays. Individuals can observe their days as they wish, just don't expect banks or malls to close for it.
Is the Pan-Africanist Anti-American? This is really a trick question since no one to date has defined "American." Indeed some people define it as "freedom to do what you want." This is clearly not true as there is no "civilized" place where people can do anything they want. Even within the states there are clear boundaries to individual activities. beyond that, there are many countries where people can "do what they want." So the "freedom" claim is pretty specious. There is though a particular and pernicious Americanism, which to be fair, is shared with a number of countries. This Americanism, is that Americans (mostly those capitalists) can have any and everything that exists. Pan-Africanists are opposed to such an ideology. Pan-Africanists oppose the Americanism that they can dictate how other people should govern themselves. For example Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. The former is opposed simply because he founded a communist government. Of course the focus is on 'human rights abuses" such as detention and jailing of dissidents. However; given that the US has supported multiple terrorist actions against that government, it isn't surprising that the Castro government is so sensitive about dissidents. Besides who is the US to talk since it now does the same thing, and puts some of them in Cuba! So while it is easy to say that the Pan-Africanist is "anti-American" it simply is not the case. Such claims are often made by those people who agree with the morally bankrupt ideas that are behind such naked aggression against people like Castro and Chavez.
On the home front the Pan-Africanist is very much opposed to "handouts." In fact this idea is what get's the Pan-Africanist in trouble with "the left." Neo-GArveyite Pan-Africanists agree with Bill Cosby. Garvey was often quoted about how black people needed to be educated, to know how to read and speak the language of their home country well. Garveyism was always about presenting oneself well. The Pan-Africanists sees that black people world wide are in a whole heap of trouble. The black man and woman is on the verge of extinction As we speak, AIDS, warfare and natural disasters are killing millions of black people on the continent and the vast majority of these victims are dependent on outsiders to help them! What kind of situation is this where people in so called "sovereign" countries are dependent on Aide agencies and NGO's for health care! We agree with Bill Cosby because there has been a serious decline in the do for self in the black community. Not only in the poor segment but in the middle class one. We agree with Frantz Fanon when he stated that the native middle class is but a shadow of the middle class that is deposed. Indeed the Pan-Africanist observes that black business ownership and land ownership suffered due to integration. This is why the Pan-Africanist, while opposed to racial segregation (the forced separation of races) it is pro black neighborhoods. The Pan-Africanist notes that integration has had the effect of making black people more dependent upon outsiders while increasing the access to black capital by white business people. Now the general agreement with Bill Cosby rankles some first and foremost because they only know what the media reported him saying and have not even read or heard the original speech in it's entirety. This is a part of the problem with some in the black community who are often too quick to apologise for or make excuses for the behavior of some of our population. The second thing that bothers some is that they felt that Cosby was being "mean spirited." I don't agree. We hold to the lessons taught to us by Dr. Welsing that our feelings on the subject are irrelevant to the subject at hand. Unless the subject matter can be shown to be false, then who gives a hoot? Given the global situation facing black folks, some hard language is needed I say. I also offer this perspective, When a parent spanks a child it isn't (shouldn't be) because they hate the child, it is because they love the child and needs to impress upon the child the very real dangers of that behavior. Similarly, black people as a whole need a good spanking. A wake up call. It saddens the Pan-Africanist to see the events unfolding in Sudan. The Pan-Africanist hates to see what happens to black people in France and Egypt. The Pan-Africanists says however, that the answer does not lay in asking the White and Arab governments for favors. We say that it lays with the oppressed to get together among themselves and build themselves up so that they no longer need to ask for amnesty from those that see them or participate in their oppression. Now you say: "What does this have to do with the poor Cosby was talking about?" Cosby's comments are the same. the UNIA had also set up black employment agencies. So even though Garvey was for black people doing for self and having a low tolerance for slackness, Garveyism also had a component to help out those that wanted to do better.
The Pan-Africanist is not against Hip Hop as an art form but is opposed to it's ownership and control by white people. It is opposed to black faced record companies as well. Hip Hop was not and to an extent was, never all about guns and hoes. But anyone who grew up in the late 70's and early 80's knew that Hip Hop then had far more variety then it does now.
The Pan-Africanist believes that government is formed primarily for the benefit of people and not business. It is unacceptable that there are people going bankrupt from medical costs in the richest country in the world. It is unacceptable for people to be without medical coverage in the richest country in the world. If government is supposed to be for the common good then how can this be acceptable? The Pan-Africanists believes in universal healthcare. The Pan-Africanist does not believe in universal employment though. The state does not create jobs only the framework wherein people can create businesses. business's provide employment. The state can only employ that which it needs to run. The other thing is that in some cases there are people who are lazy and wont want to work. Yes they exist and we should admit that.
So in closing I'll say that the entirety of Neo-Garveyism Pan-Africanism has not been discussed here but this should serve as a summary of our positions.
Technorati Tags: Pan-Africanism