Is Obama Channeling Marcus Garvey?
The power of Obama’s oration relies not so much in the actual words of his speechifying but in its capacity to convince; in its ability to transmit what the Spanish call Duende, a most profoundly felt emotion. Marcus Garvey was bathed in the spirit of Duende; his rival, W.E.B was not. Arguably Barack Obama has the spirit; Hillary Clinton does not.
Listening to their oratory one could believe that Garvey and Obama were poured from the same bottle; though, clearly, Obama has added water to the wine of his predecessor’s zealotry. Garvey, a superb Ciceronian orator, made his name atop the soap boxes in Harlem’s Speakers’ Corner in the unseasonably warm spring of 1917. His passion fired an audience like no other before him. He had arrived penniless and unheralded, and yet in a few years Garvey was presiding over a mass movement, the Universal Negro Improvement Association, with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of members and branches scattered across America. As a character in Ralph Ellison’s satirical novel, Invisible Man says, ‘Garvey must have had something. He must have had something to move all those people! Our people are hell to move! He must have had plenty!’ To date, Senator Obama has a compelling and simple message – an ‘audacity of hope’ that aims to unify the country. But just like his Jamaican-born predecessor, Obama’s most obvious strengths (his powers of oration) are turned against him by the rival camp. Back in 1919, the African American journalist, John E. Bruce, then a fierce critic of Garvey, wrote: ‘We like to listen to the music of his mouth,’ but went on to dismiss him as a glib phrase maker, mocking his lilting Caribbean voice: ‘You won’t do Mr.Garvey too muchee talkee.’
Similarly Obama’s rivals have recently tried to blunt his eloquence, casting him as plagiarising charlatan who can talk-the-talk but is lacking in substance. But the charge that he is some kind of linguistically adept snake oil salesman seems a poor fit for Obama, especially when his sincerity is near impossible to dint: it strikes many as a naked and clumsy attempt to attack “the shepherd and scatter the sheep.” A year ago the prevailing wisdom held Obama’s color to be more problematic. But, so far, the African American senator has pulled off an astonishing coup. He has campaigned in such a way to allow Democrats, especially white ones, to cast their votes in a colour-blind manner. His simple strategy has been to avoid focussing on color or black issues; for a man who aims to represent the whole nation, it would not be prudent to do so. “Race” is the fear word, the corollary to Ronald Regan’s “socialism”, that must not be mentioned lest it ostracise potential supporters. The racial terrain is difficult and vexing, but, so far, the man with lambent eyes and a powerful and persuasive rhetoric has negotiated the landscape with consummate skill. Can he maintain that stance?
As the political juggernauts rolled on from South Carolina, it became clearer that the black voters were prepared to cast to one side doubts that Obama was one hundred percent African-American and one of their own. Peculiarly, Obama had Bill Clinton to thank for reminding voters that his wife’s rival was black – in a way that was not detrimental to the senator from Illinois but boomeranged on Hillary Clinton. The former president’ attempts to ‘out’ Obama as black with veiled references to the undeniably black Jesse Jackson - whose success in South Carolina, when he ran for the Democratic nomination, was not sufficiently replicated in the rest of the country - have not worked in the subliminal way intended to the advantage of Hillary Clinton. Black voters, now that battle has been enjoined, are more solidly behind Obama than ever before. The same can not be said to be true of their African American representatives in Congress.
Again there are parallels in the way that both and Obama and Garvey seemed to come from nowhere to establish an ecstatic and devoted following in an astonishingly short time. Both men departed from the more traditional route to the black electorate. To his critics (largely an older generation of African American race leaders) Obama must appear, just like Garvey, as an undeserving interloper - one who turned comfortably in his cot as they rode the freedom buses, stoically taking beatings and being thrown in jail. Half of all African-American congressmen have made it plain that they favour Obama’s rival. That these representatives belong to a group that calls itself the Congressional Black Caucus underlies the fact that the oft repeated talk of ‘unity’ amongst African Americans was always a myth. But cracks are appearing; the stress lines of maintaining support for Hillary Clinton at variance with the wishes of their constituents are beginning to show. The staunch Clinton ally, John Lewis, wavered early in February, and then embraced Obama; and even the Harlem congressman, Charles Rangel, who has said that the time is not yet right for a black president, has edged away from that certainty. Lewis further articulated a danger for either successful candidate should the campaign turn brutal and vengeful. Clinton and Obama might do well to turn to the history books, to reflect on an earlier comparable and internecine struggle between Garvey’s UNIA and Du Bois’s NAACP.
Samuel Redding grew up in a NAACP stronghold and recalled how ‘the coming of the Garveyites shattered the defensive bulwark around the protective community of Negroes.’ In the district, with a large black population, black folk had enjoyed political control, ‘the same men had been returned to office again and again. What they did there seemed not nearly as important as just being there. They had enormous prestige ... and they had not had to fight to keep it.’ But in the elections that year Garvey sent out agents from Harlem, and the local UNIA divisions put up their own candidates who split the black vote. The campaign, wrote Redding, ‘smelled of pitch and brimstone and led to street brawls….and while Negroes fought one another, whites won the offices. Even the least subtle Democratic mind can see the danger of a bruising battle amongst themselves allowing the Republicans a smoother path to victory.
No one wants to be on the losing side, but clearly the faltering allegiances amongst African American Super Delegates are not just signs of expedience. A seismic shift is taking place in the minds of senior Civil Rights activists who, despite decades of advocacy, never firmly believed it possible that a black man could be elected president in their life time. The extraordinary wave of enthusiasm for Obama, and the way he has withstood the onslaught against him, has undermined the conviction of the doubters.
Again there is a corollary in the spectacular early career of Marcus Garvey. At the height of his fame, as the applause crested and then died down, Garvey could just make out the slow hand-clap of one of his staunchest critic, John E Bruce. But then one evening in the autumn of 1919, Bruce stood at the back of the crowds on a street corner in the heart of Harlem. He had attended Garvey rallies before. He had remained aloof and sceptical. But on the evening of 13 October 1919 as the autumn leaves began to fall from the towering poplars that lined 135th St, so too did John E Bruce’s suspicions about the explosive Jamaican start to recede. For, as Bruce wrote in his memoirs, he had often listened to the great orator but on this occasion he ‘heard’ Garvey perhaps for the first time – and it was as if the whole of Harlem was speaking with one voice. He’d listened and listened until he’d got a line on Garvey – ultimately on his honesty and tremendous earnestness - that would not break. Until then, Bruce had rarely passed up an opportunity to ridicule Garvey and his schemes, which seemed ‘wild, chimerical [and] impossible of accomplishment’ – ideas as fanciful perhaps as that of there ever being an African American president.
It has been often cited, that the view that the white electorate will not vote for a black man is so last century (not withstanding the “Bradley effect” whereby voters store away their prejudices when the pollsters knock on the door only to unpack them in the privacy of the ballot booth). Nonetheless, given the extent to which American society is still racially stratified in 2008, Barack Obama needs the Congressional Black Caucus to come on board. He must be hoping that, as with Garvey’s conversion of Bruce, so too with he be able to bring about a change of heart of Charles Rangel and all of the members who still have a foot less than adroitly in the other camp.
comments powered by Disqus
David Ben-Ariel - 4/14/2008
Gary Bailey - 3/16/2008
Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?
A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
And this matters a great deal.
....Obama suggested that more and more is being made of racial divisions. The Illinois senator's comments came a day after he denounced statements appearing on television and on the Internet by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright the pastor of the Trinity United Church which Obama joined nearly 20 years ago. Rev. Wright does not speak for Obama but Rev. Wright has been consistant in his thoughts and sermons for the last 20 years.
In an aired video, Wright referred to the United States as the "U.S. of K.K.K.A."
Wright previously drew criticism when the church magazine honored the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan.
Is it possible for any right thinking person to believe that the United States can be labeled the K.K.K.A. ?
Is it possible for any right thinking person to agree with the threats and hatred which Louis Farrakhan spouts ?
Would you sit and listen to this hatred ? Granted there have been many injustices done to Blacks and there will most likely be more in the future but to amplify the injustices only brings hatred and division to the Blacks.
On Saturday (3/16/08) Sen. Barack Obama decried "the forces of division" over race that he said are intruding into the Democratic presidential nomination contest. What did Sen Obama expect when he has belonged to the The Trinity United Church of Christ nearly 20 years ago and their beliefs are stated on their web page, http://www.tucc.org/about.htm , as follows: " We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community".
I think the President of the United States needs to be true to one country and I would hope that in the United States we have enough people that are of the Christian Faith that they will be aware that as a Christian you should not be separated by race because all races are united in Christ. Christ is the Church. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Senator Obama states "We have to come together," And yet the church which he has belonged to for almost twenty years sounds like they want to remain apart .... As things go on Obama will have to distance himself from his church because he has said,.... " ...This country wants to move beyond these kinds of things." and the church he has belonged to for almost 20 years is unable to leave Africa. When I read .... "true to our native land"... I am confused as many blacks must be. If you are born Black in the United States you are an American not an African. This kind of division of people by color is wrong for Whites to do and it is wrong for Blacks to do.
Senator Obama also said, "If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked,"
Obama said that pointing out racial differences only makes it harder to "deliver on the big issues. I guess this would mean not to say anything about the religion which Obama has professed to believe for the last twenty years. Does Obama believe he is an African and does he remain "true to Africa," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization....... ?
I have no respect for and anyone living in this great country of ours that is divisive they might be exercising their Freedom of Speech, choice or religion but they should definitly not be elected President of the United States when they don't take action to condem racism, hatred and anger that exists in many leaders of different colors.
Obama, whose mother's family was from Kansas and his father from Kenya, said he was speaking "as someone who has little pieces of America in me." This is just like any product you by today it might have a made in USA sticker but most of the parts are foreign made.
Well I don't know about you but I want someone that is all American and has no doubt about which country they support and that they will support the people, all the people, of the United States all of the time.
Doesn't the United States have better canidates for President than those that are presently being offered up and paid for and bought by big business ?
Daniel J. Herman - 3/10/2008
This is a wonderful piece ... the argument interesting and the prose graceful.
I wish the black caucus would board the Obama train. Eight years of the presidency, plus the library in Harlem and the bigshot fundraising for good causes, has given the Clintons sway with almost every official in the Democratic establishment. The problem is that those people, if they support Hillary Clinton in the struggle to overturn the majority will of the party, will DEFINE themselves as part of a hated establishment.
I don't hate the establishment; I don't even think there is one; but there is one being created right now by the Clinton campaign.
Hope that the black caucus would read this piece instead of the anti-Obama reporting/editorializing that keeps showing up in the NYT. Yesterday there was "Obama in the Senate: Star Power, Minor Role," which the Obama campaign has rightly savaged for its truly bad reportage.
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing