Marcus Garvey & the kkk

[Tehuti-4]

What do you think of the claim that Garvey willingly conspired with the KKK? Does this compare with ZIONIST collaboration with the NAZI'S? Is there a line of priniciples that should not be crossed in the struggle for Pan-Africanism?

[IfasehunReincarnated]

I found these two articles, one by Franklin Frazier with whom I am familiar where I see this comparison being made between Garvey and the KKK. I also see quote attributed to him, ".. telling us what they are, and what they mean, thereby giving us a chance to stir for ourselves." Well, although people are saying that Garvey is "praising" the KKK, that just isnt the case. He is simply saying that he appreciates people being upfront about their feelings.

One cay hardly compare hoods to uniforms and racial pride to cross burning and lynching.

Other than this, I cant find a solid lead that suggests that he worked with the KKK on a "project". Suffice to say, talk without action is nothing. Unless he had a reassurance from the KKK to not damage UNIA property or to work on a goal together, to which they honored then its all legend to me. Afterall, what would the KKK have gained? The federal gov't compelled Liberia to lease UNIA purchased land to Firestone, which it owns to this day. So if the KKK was interested in us going back to Africa, they sure didnt help get the job done. They certainly had congressional seats, money, influence.

I doubt this went beyond a few miscontrued comments. I hear "they spoke at one another's rallies about racial segregation." But i think what's more probable is that they showed up at common venues, but no enmasse. Afterall, how many occasions do you think could be organized between a mob of KKK and a mob of UNIA that didnt eventually break down in fighting or disrespect.

Other than that, the answer to your question is "yes, there are limits." The KKK would never work toward any pan-african goal unless it had a way to undermine that goal once it got what it needed. Pure folly to even deal with them, except with a billy club in hand..over their head.

[IfasehunReincarnated]

Among the most controversial dealings of Marcus Garvey was his summit conference with the Ku Klux Klan in 1922. "In June 1922, while on the extensive tour of the United States, Garvey stopped in Atlanta for a conference with Edward Young Clarke, Acting Imperial Wizard of the Klan. As a result of the discussions, Clarke expressed sympathy for the aims of the UNIA, while Garvey was reinforced in his suspicion that the Klan represented the invisible government of the United States." Consequently, black and white integrationistswere protesting against the UNIA-KKK summit. However, Garvey concluded that "Between the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP, give me the Klan for their honesty of pupose towards the Negro. They are better friends to my race, for telliing us who they are, and what they mean, thereby giving us a chance to stir for ourselves."
Source: Tony Martin, Race First.

(now in my book this does not sound like they were travelling around the south holding joint lectures. it sounds like they had ONE big meeting between Garvey and Clarke, and as a result Garvey felt the KKK might be a critical part of the backbone of the "invisble gov't" that runs america....which logically suggests that he probably didnt start a long term friendship or working relationship, given the constant harassment he got from the u.s. feds. in any case, the words "friends" is misconstrued by those with their own motives or by plain simpletons.)

[Kweku_Omowale]

well according to what i know i heard W e Dubois was working with the fbi and dubois didnt like garvey, as chairman omali explained to me in london uk,i might be wrong,but he clearly stated that dubois was working behind the scenes with the enemy

[IfasehunReincarnated]

No personally I think that our greatest leaders also had a tremendous amount of pressure on their shoulders and that they too often spoke w/o thinking about the long term ramifications. heck, that might a part of their greatness. i am sure that dubois, booker and garvey had the belief that anyone could do what they did. they probably had no idea that nearly no one would ever accomplish what they did again.

dubois and the fbi? i doubt it. dubois and his ego. very possible. who knows i still honor both. and it took ego to wear those hats of garvey's. lol but in my book, he is a hero despite it all.

[BlkSpartacus]

Its been rumored that the whole purpose of the kkk for working with Garvey, was them supporting the whole back to afrika movement. They didnt want blacks in this country anymore, after they started to reap the benefits of slaves.I believe that they also would have supported the UNIA with financial contributions to get out.

[rebelAfrika]

What do you think of the claim that Garvey willingly conspired with the KKK? Does this compare with ZIONIST collaboration with the NAZI'S? Is there a line of priniciples that should not be crossed in the struggle for Pan-Africanism?

For the most part, I think serious contemplation/meditation on the questions regarding Garvey will yeild the answer you are looking for. But what I want to give an answer to is your question about principles. I believe that principles should NEVER be compromised. NEVER. Once you have taken up something as a principle, you should not EVER compromise on it. You should ALWAYS be prepaired to change strategies and tactics...but NEVER compromise principles. Dr. King made the mistake of making "non-violence" a "principle" and therefore like ANY honorable human being, he could not compromise on the question of non-violence. Had he kept it in the realms of what it TRUELY should have been for him...a tactic...he would have been able to change tactics. But a principle is something you should never compromise. One of my principles is that NOBODY can touch my mama in a way that makes her feel uncomfortable. Not the police, not Bush, not even Jesus. You "MIGHT" be able to call her out of her name in front of me and live...but if you touch her in a way that she doesn't like, I will kill you or die trying to kill. You see? THATS a "principle" for me. If I ever compromised on that principle...whats the point of living? I'd rather die than compromise that principle. For me, principles are the "meaning" of life (and the "secret" of life is to have no fear). Do I need to say the name of the brutha who imbued this in me?

[Tehuti-4]

For the most part, I think serious contemplation/meditation on the questions regarding Garvey will yeild the answer you are looking for. But what I want to give an answer to is your question about principles. I believe that principles should NEVER be compromised. NEVER. Once you have taken up something as a principle, you should not EVER compromise on it. You should ALWAYS be prepaired to change strategies and tactics...but NEVER compromise principles. Dr. King made the mistake of making "non-violence" a "principle" and therefore like ANY honorable human being, he could not compromise on the question of non-violence. Had he kept it in the realms of what it TRUELY should have been for him...a tactic...he would have been able to change tactics. But a principle is something you should never compromise. One of my principles is that NOBODY can touch my mama in a way that makes her feel uncomfortable. Not the police, not Bush, not even Jesus. You "MIGHT" be able to call her out of her name in front of me and live...but if you touch her in a way that she doesn't like, I will kill you or die trying to kill. You see? THATS a "principle" for me. If I ever compromised on that principle...whats the point of living? I'd rather die than compromise that principle. For me, principles are the "meaning" of life (and the "secret" of life is to have no fear). Do I need to say the name of the brutha who imbued this in me?

I agree with the analysis of Dr. King and the "non-violent" movement. I am very fond of using the fact that the Zionist collborated with Nazi's to blast their supporters and apologist. I wondered about the claim that Garvey had "dealings" with the KKK and possible comparisons with Zionist.

Another important jewel that I know comes from your well rebel is "No permanant friends, no permanant enemies." Under what circumstances will/would we collaborate with our enemies? How would/could you do this and still remain true to your principles?

It is hard to imagine the UNIA being as successful as they were, in forming what is still the largest Pan-African organization in history, during the historical period in which they did. The KKK and other outright racist organizations were openly terrorizing Africans. The approach of "you don't want us here and we sure as hell don't want to be here" if indeed this was the essence of Garvey's dealings with them, certainly sounds reasonable on its face. I think Ifasahun is correct in pointing out the Garvey believed that the KKK was the invisible hand of the US government. However, Dubois and other anti black-nationalist seized this "error" by Garvey and used it to viciously attack him. It is argued that this meeting between Garvey and the KKK is what created the wave of attacks from the government and other anti Garvey forces from which the UNIA was never able to recover and which landed Garvey in jail and then deported.

My questions were intended to spark discussion on this issue specifically in terms of why this move on the part of Garvey became so damaging to the UNIA? And on a larger point again of how when and under what circumstances would we attempt to collaborate with an "enemy"?

[TyreeA]

Its been rumored that the whole purpose of the kkk for working with Garvey, was them supporting the whole back to afrika movement. They didnt want blacks in this country anymore, after they started to reap the benefits of slaves.I believe that they also would have supported the UNIA with financial contributions to get out.

The UNIA-ACL does not take $$ from anyone other than Blacks! We do not take $ from whites, white orgs, or the govt.

[TyreeA]

I will consult with an UNIA-ACL Elder on thie topic and share his/her wisdom with you.

Whem Malcolm X met with THe KKK (for the same reason I am sure - to tell them to back off of our people, so deal with us for real!) no one ever said he colobrated with the KKK so I wll chalk this up to people not understanding the motive my Founder may have had. But as I saild I will consult and gain the truth of the matter and share.

[IfasehunReincarnated]

I think we should collaborate with the enemy when we believe we can trick them into believing we are sincere. It should always be our intention to break our promises to them, exploit them, entrap them and turn them over to whomever is THEIR greatest enemy or nemisis later on. We should be accomodating, beguiling, generous and deceptive for the purposes of gaining information, tools and time. We should do this often and strategically.

This is not a real collaboration with the enemy. It is deceiving the enemy. This is what I advocate.

I think that the U.S. gov't has lots of reasons to attack the UNIA based on Garvey's meeting with Clarke. But I would frame it as such. It was an opportunity, not the catalyst. They always intended to attack Garvey. They would have always used negroes in Liberia to sell UNIA land and put it in the hands of Firestone. They would have always brought phoney mail charges. They would have always exiled him. They just wanted to have as many reasons as possible when they did it. So that they could get the blinded herds of white masses to say, "yep. you did the right thing for sure."

[BlkSpartacus]

The UNIA-ACL does not take $$ from anyone other than Blacks! We do not take $ from whites, white orgs, or the govt.

Never said that he took it, but they were willing to give it to him I picked this info from an elder also.

[rebelAfrika]

Never said that he took it, but they were willing to give it to him I picked this info from an elder also.

KKK supports the idea of us going back to Africa (and not "really" to Africa, but anywhere away from them...and for me the feeling is mutual, LOL!!!). This is one aspect as to why white people would financially support Garvey. Another aspect of white people attempting to "inject" their money into the Garvey movement could have been to co-opt Garvey's efforts. Look at what Malcolm X said about white people injecting their money into the March on Washington.

[BlkSpartacus]

Again I have to upmost respect For Marcus Garvey and everything he's done. His teachings are detrimental to everything we do today...... this is your organization, and I understand where your coming from.Just the mention of kkk and Garvey dont seem right.Like I said before in introducing myself Iam willing to learn from others.

[rebelAfrika]

Again I have to upmost respect For Marcus Garvey and everything he's done. His teachings are detrimental to everything we do today...... this is your organization, and I understand where your coming from.Just the mention of kkk and Garvey dont seem right.Like I said before in introducing myself Iam willing to learn from others.

Something that is "detrimental" is something that is "damaging"...Maybe you mean "fundamental."