Africa for the African.
Asia for the Asian.
Europe for the European.
and Palestine for the Jew.
-Marcus Garvey
If you are interested in the European then be for the European.
If you are interested in the Asian then be for the Asian.
I am interested in the African so I am for the African.
-Marcus Garvey.
The above is Garveyite Pan-Africanism in very short. This is the meaning behind the Red, Black and Green. If you claim the RBG and do not adhere to the above, then you are not a Garveyite and therefore should not be flying the RGB. This post isn't a discussion of what is or is not Garveyism, but rather what real, actual factual "Black Nationalism" is supposed to be about. When Garvey brought his brand of nationalism to the world stage he was very clear that the aims of that nationalism was to bring the African onto the world stage as an equal to all others. One of his aims was to end the exploitation of one group by another. His idea was that when a man (or group of people) are weak, they are likely to be predated upon. His idea was that the African doesn't become free and equal by guilting people into doing things
forthem but by
doing for self. This is encapsulated in the statement:
Anything one man has done you can do also.
Part of Garveyite philosophy as shown in the lead quotes is that the natives of a land have the rights to that land. They have the right to say what their culture is. Who gets to come. who should go and to have that society work for the interests of the natives of that land. Over the past decade or so, we have seen that many lefty people have denied one group their native status: The European.
If you are a Pan-Africanist of the Garvey variety, this should bother you. If Africa is for the African because the African is native to Africa, then Europe is for the European because he is native there. However; somehow the
European is being dispossessed of claims to his very home:
In Collier’s own book on the subject, “Exodus,” he used the term “indigenous” British which Hasan, whose parents were from India, found deeply offensive...
Why does Hasan's opinion or feelings on the matter even matter. He is in fact NOT indigenous to England. He knows it too.
A less defensive Collier might have suggested that Europeans’ use of tribal nomenclature should be no more offensive than referring to descendents of America’s pre-Columbian inhabitants as indigenous peoples. Although in pushing for such claimed status, without evidence , Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, aka “Pocahontas,” might have unknowingly reinforced Hasan’s concerns that exclusion from “indigenous status” must incur some disadvantage. A cowed Professor Collier hesitatingly agreed that Hasan was indeed an “indigenous” Brit. [my underlines]
When a Brit has to apologize to a non-brit because he called the non-Brit exactly what he is, then you know you have reached a point in which you have lost your country. Many so called conscious black people like to quote Malcolm X in which he says that a kitten born in an oven is still a kitten rather than biscuits. You cannot agree with such a sentiment (that simply being born somewhere somehow magically transforms someone into a native of that place) as it applies to Africans (born in America) but then be offended when the same applies to others.
I have to say that I was pretty shocked to read that someone actually had to apologize to a foreigner for calling him what he was. We know full well that such a thing would not have happened in Japan, China, Africa or to a Native American talking about "pale face".
