The Most Honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey and W.E.B.Dubois
In this post I want to examine the lives of two men said to be highly influential amongst the early Afrikans in amurdikkka, once called the Negro These two men are used as diametric opposites during the debate on how to best deal with white supremacy, in all its forms and fictions. Before I want to lay out the basis of this analysis. As usual the reader will overstand that this is my analysis, and while it may not be 100 percent on the ball, I am confident that its as close to accurate as can be. Firstly lets look at the term intellect. According to the dictionary, a series of books that defines how and what, white supremacy should look and sound like and be defined as, intellect is…:
1.Of or relating to the intellect. “children need intellectual stimulation”
2. A person possessing a highly developed intellect.
The term intellect as a lot to do with intelligence and the ability and or capacity to use the brain as maximally as possible. The option to maximize the brains ability is in no doubt predicated on several factors. Those factors includes, ones parentage, ones environment, ones education and ones experience, the latter not necessarily associated with education. Since all sentient beings…
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
It stands to reason that there is a modicum of” intelligence”….”consciousness”…”awareness”…. inherent in all sentient beings. Which means someone with downs syndrome has intelligence, just as some one without formal education has intelligence. What trips up people is confusing intelligence with articulation or someone speaking with great dictum or eloquence and ASS sume that this is indicative of intellect. It is quite easy then in using a narrow definition of intellect, one can impinge on another’s brain capacity and function, by calling them dummies, lacking intellect or intelligence. We tend to through these things in the mix to suite our personal agenda.
I have often heard many a book readers and academic revolutionaries, refer to W.E.B Du’bois as the foremost intellectual of the early 20th century. In the same breath, I have heard effusive comment of the Honorable Marcus Garvey, not as an intellect, but as a fiery orator. An exceptional organizer and motivator.
To broaden the overstanding of intellect, lets seek some additional definition.
1. appealing to or engaging the intellect : intellectual pursuits.
2. of or relating to the intellect or its use: intellectual powers.
3. possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, especially to a high degree:
4. guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than up on emotions or feelings; rational.
5. characterized by or suggesting a predominance of intellect : an intellectual way of speaking.
7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.
- the mental faculties.
- things pertaining to the intellect.
Again the inference is that one who uses his/her intellect uses their brain capacity or intelligence to a high degree. But if you note…the emphasis is on logic and rational over emotions. Thus when the academic revolutionaries comment on Du’bois, he is an intellect. Yet in Garvey’s case he is fiery or a motivator…another explanation for being emotional
Before delving further into this curious double standard, lets look at a small biography of both men. From the position of a revolutionary stand point.
1. of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change:
2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure,principles, etc.:
a revolutionary discovery.
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Compare social evolution.
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
4. a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.
5. a single turn of this kind.
- a turning round or rotating, as on an axis.
- a moving in a circular or curving course, as about a central point.
- a single cycle in such a course.