I think the difference is nominal at best. Sure there were several rebellions on the Island of Jamaica alone. Sure there were leaders born out of Jamaica and other West Indian islands that have had a great impact since abolition of slavery and national indepdendance.

But see, that's what I feel is the key here: national independance. While Colonial and other European coroprations might have tore the heart out of many West Indian nations, they didn't run the Media.

They didn't have absolute power over the courts, and they certainly did not write the history books.

My future father in law was a civil rights organizer/worker in the 60's and he tells me shit I never can find in a book here in the state.s. It's impossible. He challenged me to find books on the shit he was talking about, and I couldn't- not even at the Auburn Avenue reseach library here in ATL (and that's saying sumin).


I said all that to say this. For every Garvey, there are 4 and five Reverend Tacky's and Reverend Sam Sharpes and Cudjoes in JA or Reverend Nat Turners and others here in the US that fought DURING slavery.

The movement for freedom was indeed a Pan Afrikan movement, IMO. I believe- althought I cannot support this at this time that Victories by Maroons in The American South inspired victories for Jamaican Marrons, and South American Maroons, etc.

They knew about what was going on, and the template was the same virtually the world over. The Church and the infrastrutre of pastors and stewardship was VITAL in the construction and the disemminatino of Ideas.

I don't think this is any different in the west Indies than it is anywhere else.

And when you look to the situation of the Afrikan in America what I see is a situation where the very same fight was waged but there is just less information about it.

I mean- look at what they tried to do with Reverend Turner with William Styron's book! If brothers like Dr. Clarke had not responded (and still, how many read the response book?) what would have become of the man's leagacy?

*eh*


But I'm ranting.

If you ask me why Ethiopianism and Pan Africanism was so strong- I think you have to understand the Nature of Slavery in the Indies.

In the states it was more profitable to breed slaves. Not so in the Indies. They simply worked us to death over there. Not many slaves lasted more than 6 years. some lasted as long as 13. What this meant was that new additions of Afrikan slaves from the continent were added periodically.

Afrikan values where kept in tune by groups in colonies like Jamaica b y groups such as the Comorantees, Cimarrons, Ashanti, Marooons.


You have to understand that the numbers and the resources were also different in the WI. Mulattoes were put in positions of relative power, and allowed to be lawyers, journalists, skilled workers etc...

so u gotta see that these things combined meant a different reality.


Sure u had some black slave holders in the US, sure there was a black elite- but not like the WI.


But that don't mean that the leaders here are any different than WI leaders. Our leaders just aint get killed or jailed like: Medgar Evers, MLK, Brother Shabazz.

There had to be a different TYPE of movement here in many regards due to that shit.

My Future father in law told me that they planned for folk getting killed or Jailed. It was part of the deal. He said " Nothing happened til someone got killed". They would actually have to plan for this to happen cus it was inevitable.

The dominance of the European agenda here was so powerful in bashing the Afrikan spirit.

And still, we rise.

I could ramble on and on. It's mad late.

I can't believe I missed this convo. Most likey my computer will be out in the morning again so...*shrugs*






Rules to post by (Break them, get deleted): http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

<<<<----Sam Sharpe. 3rd World people, remember where ya coming from!