Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

Marcus Garvey on Haile Selassie I

1 - 1011
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Joseph I Sent: 2/29/2016 6:42:57 PM

What do the ones and ones think about what Garvey said here?

Editorial by Marcus Garvey in the Black Man - London, March/April 1937

When the facts of history are written Haile Selassie of Abyssinia will go down as a great coward who ran away from his country to save his skin and left the millions of his countrymen to struggle through a terrible war that he brought upon them because of his political ignorance and his racial disloyalty.
It is a pity that a man of the limited intellectual caliber and weak political character like Haile Selassie became Emperor of Abyssinia at so crucial a time in the political history of the world. Unfortunately, Abyssinia lost the controlling influence of a political personality of patriotic racial character like the late Menelik, whose loyalty to his race and devotion to his country excelled all his other qualities, to the extent that he was able to use that very strength to continuously safeguard the interests of the Ethiopian Empire. What he did so well to preserve, a cringing, white slave hero worshipper, visionless and disloyal to his country, threw away. This is the impression the serious minded political student forms of the conduct of the ex-Emperor of Abyssinia.

Every Negro who is proud of his race must be ashamed of the way in which Haile Selassie surrendered himself to the white wolves of Europe. These statements may be considered very severe, and in fact, they are. We could have been otherwise apologetic and sympathetic, but that would have been only if we were dealing with a Coptic Priest or a Religious Monk and not a[n] Emperor who held and presided over the political trust of twelve million people of his own country, and the political destiny of the entire Negro race. This little misguided Emperor could not realize that he held in his hands the political trust of the hundreds of millions of Negroes of the world, men and women, who were looking up toward the firm establishment of political sovereignty, and that Ethiopia, like Liberia and Haiti were to them prizes of glory to be perpetuated and strengthened in the maintenance of the dignity of that black race that other men have claimed to be incompetent, inferior and unworthy, which every black man must disprove.

When the war started in Abyssinia all Negro nationalists looked with hope to Haile Selassie. They spoke for him, they prayed for him, they sung for him, they did everything to hold up his hands, as Aaron did for Moses; but whilst the Negro peoples of the world were praying for the success of Abyssinia this little Emperor was undermining the fabric of his own kingdom by playing the fool with white men, having them advising him[,] having them telling him what to do, how to surrender, how to call off the successful thrusts of his Rases against the Italian invaders. Yes, they were telling him how to prepare his flight, and like an imbecilic child he followed every advice and then ultimately ran away from his country to England, leaving his people to be massacred by the Italians, and leaving the serious white world to laugh at every Negro and repeat the charge and snare - "he is incompetent," "we told you so." Indeed Haile Selassie has proved the incompetence of the Negro for political authority, but thank God there are Negroes who realize that Haile Selassie did not represent the truest qualities of the Negro race. How could he, when he wanted to play white? how could he, when he surrounded himself with white influence? how could he, when in a modem world, and in a progressive civilization, he preferred a slave State of black men than a free democratic country where the black citizens could rise to the same opportunities as white citizens in their democracies?

The truth must be told so that the white world will realize that it was not the pride of the Negro that surrendered in Abyssinia. It was the disloyalty of a single man who was too silly to take pride in his race, who played such a game as to disgrace the political integrity of a noble people. The Negroes of Abyssinia and of the world are satisfied however that Abyssinia was not conquered by Italy and the European forces of Mussolini. Abyssinia was only conquered by the black levies of Italy. The Askaris have really been the victors in Abyssinia. [Rodolfo] Graziani only marched into Addis Ababa after he had made sure of the advanced guard of the Askaris. Every battle that the Italians won in Abyssinia resulted from the advanced charge of the Askaris. It was black men fighting black men, and this was made possible in Abyssinia because the regime of Haile Selassie had given a bad taste to the mouth, not only of the blacks of Abyssinia but of those of the surrounding territories. They felt that they had a cause against the Amharic white loving Emperor who liked to chain and flog black men, and whose brutality to them gave Mussolini the cause to fool the world that he was bestowing a blessing upon the people of Abyssinia by freeing them.

It was a piece of impertinence to suggest that black men should be held as slaves. We must admit that we glorified Haile Selassie when the war started, fought his battles to win international support, but we ever felt deep down in our hearts that he was a slave master. We had hoped that if Abyssinia had won that we would have forced the Government of Abyssinia to free the black whom they held as slaves. We would have preferred this than seeing the country taken by Mussolini or any European power; but now that the country is temporarily lost and the Emperor has cowardly exiled himself, the truth must be told.

The future freedom of Abyssinia must be built upon the highest principles of democracy. That is why it is preferable for the Abyssinian Negroes and the Negroes of the world to work for the restoration and freedom of the country without the assistance of Haile Selassie, because at best he is but a slave master. The Negroes of the Western World whose forefathers suffered for three hundred years under the terrors of slavery ought to be able to appreciate what freedom means. Surely they cannot feel justified in supporting any system that would hold their brothers in slavery in another country whilst they are enjoying the benefits of freedom elsewhere. The Africans who are free can also appreciate the position of slaves in Abyssinia. What right has the Emperor to keep slaves when all the democratic sections of the world were free, when men had the right to live, to develop, to expand, to enjoy all the benefits of human liberty[?]
The Emperor who has been exiled in Europe must have seen the civilization of Europe. In England where he lives he sees that men are not flogged and chained and kicked because of their colour or because of their condition, but where true human liberty guarantees to every man the happiest pursuit he can bring to himself. It has been reported that he is leaving England for Syria, where a large number of Abyssinian refugees are living. There is an interpretation that the decision to leave England and to live among "his people?" in Syria is to perpetuate his divine majesty in the presence of that king worship that he doesn't get in England, where men look at others as equals and not as masters by divine right. In truth, the Emperor is out of place in democratic England. He wants to be once more in the environment of the feudal Monarch who looks down upon his slaves and serfs with contempt. Except he changes the attitude of thinking himself better than the Negro who constitutes the larger number of Ethiopia and profit by the experience he has gained, he should not be a fit person to be in authority in the very country in which he was born. After all, Haile Selassie is just an ordinary man like any other human being. What right has he to hold men as slaves? It is only the misfortune of the slaves that causes him to be a slave master. Negroes who have the dignity of their race at heart resent the impertinence of anyone holding the blacks as slaves. Haile Selassie ought to realize this and abolish his foolish dream of being an Emperor of slaves and serfs and try to be an Emperor of noble men, and for him to be that he must himself be the noblest of them all. He hasn't proved his nobility in the war between Italy and Abyssinia. Ras Desta proved to be the Lord, the Nobleman of Ethiopia whilst Haile Selassie proved a cringing coward!

Messenger: Voodooruuts Sent: 2/29/2016 7:17:47 PM

Garvey is a man like every other man is a man, with their own opinions and thoughts.
Those were devine words meaning he spoke honestly how he felt, no lying or sugar coating.
You and I today may not be fully able to overs Garvey's stance on that in that era.
A one who wasnt apart of or doenst descend from that struggle or similar wouldnt relate to Garvey's possition on it. A ones who "christianized" Rasta view of the Emperor may not either.

Messenger: Voodooruuts Sent: 2/29/2016 7:41:48 PM

Had I been around in dem times I too more than likely woulda had similar thoughts about the situation especially as time went on.

Messenger: RastaGoddess Sent: 2/29/2016 8:08:32 PM

Garvey had his opinions.

That doesn't deter InI from giving him the honor and RAspect deserved as an Afrikan Warrior, Revolutionary and Pan Afrikanist.

W.E.B Dubois also spoke badly of Garvey, until later in life, when he moved to Ghana and recanted his position.

In the end, InI are steadfast and focused on ONE GOAL, ONE DESTINY, ONE AIM.


Regardless of difference of opinions.

Messenger: Ark I Sent: 2/29/2016 8:12:33 PM

Here is a reasoning I made before about this:

One thing a bredren of mine told I was that he thinks that Marcus wanted Selassie I to call on him to gather up his people to help fight the Italians. And when Selassie I went to England instead, Marcus wasn't happy about that. My bredren said this was just what he thought about the situation.

If that was the case, then it still makes sense to I that Selassie I went to England because He needed an army that had weapons comparable to the weapons that Italy had, and that if he went to Garvey, then he wouldn't have access to the weapons required because no country was selling weapons to Ethiopia, but they were still selling to Italy. The war may still have been able to be won with the help of Garvey, but too many people would have died in the process.

Here is a reasoning I made on another forum about this.

That thing written by Marcus was written before the war was over, so he didn't Iverstand what Selassie I was doing. If Selassie I didn't leave and gather the armies to fight Mussolini, Ethiopia would be an Italian colony. And also, Garvey was basing his opinions on Babylon propaganda, that is where he got his "information" about Selassie I.

All the things that Selassie I did, both nationally and internationally was to rise up Ethiopia and the Ethiopian people and to prevent Ethiopia from being conquored and taken over by another country (like many African countries were at that time). And when Haile Selassie I ruled Ethiopia, Ethiopia was prosperous and the standard of living continually increased. Even after Mussolini caused so much destruction, Selassie still managed to rise up Ethiopia and the Ethiopian people. And Since Selassie I left Ethiopia, things became worse then they were during Selassie I's rule.

And about the slavery. In 1923, 7 years before Selassie was coronated as Emperor, 5 years before he became King of Ethiopia, Selassie I worked with the Empress Zauditu and abolished slavery.

Here is a reasoning I made before about that article:
RasTafarI didn't fight and run away, He went to gather armies to help Ethiopia defeat Mussolini. He knew that the weapons that Ethiopia had couldn't compete with the more modern weapons the aggressor had, especially considering how wicked the people behind these weapons were. They used poison to kill many people, and didn't have any consideration for Life. So Selassie I Itinued the fight and accomplished what he set out to do. He gathered the armies to defeat Mussolini. Garvey said some things against Selassie I because he didn't Iverstand the purpose of everything that Selassie I did. He didn't Iverstand that Selassie I was gathering armies to fight against Mussolini. And Selassie I accomplished his goal and defeated Mussolini. Selassie I didn't come to bow, but to conquer.

I have learned many things from Garvey's words, but just because I agree with many things, doesn't mean I agree with everything. Only fools agree with everything a person says, especially if it is not justified within themself.

RasTafarI, Haile Selassie I taught I and I

To be neutral is to be impartial, impartial to judge actions and policies objectively, as we see them either contributing to or detracting from the resolution of the world's problems, the preservation of peace and the improvement of the general level of man's living conditions. Thus, we may find ourselves now opposing, now supporting. now voting with, now voting against, first the East, next the West. It is the worth of the policies themselves, and not their source or sponsor, which determines the position of one who is truly neutral.

This, We maintain, is the essence of non-alignment. Those who would righteously denounce one side on every major problem or issue while reserving nothing but praise for the other cannot claim to be non-aligned, nor can those whose policies are shaped for them elsewhere and who wait patiently to be instructed whether they are to be for or against be called uncommitted.

Haile Selassie I


Messenger: Voodooruuts Sent: 2/29/2016 9:22:04 PM

I wouldnt say it was babylon propaganda information he had only because there where blacks from the west in Abyssinia from HIM Menelek II times. Blacks associated with Garvey were living in Ethiopia deh who had first hand knowlegde of things on the grounds of Abyssinia. As d I stated tho the war hadnt ended and Garvey and others werent on the inside of what the Emperor was doing, they reacted just and right for the times they were in at the time of their reactions.

Messenger: Ark I Sent: 2/29/2016 11:18:19 PM

Yes I, not all of his information about things happening in Ethiopia was from Babylon, but during the war, most of the information would have been from newspapers and other similar sources.

Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 3/1/2016 12:39:13 AM

From I man studys, I find Garvey was wondering why The King did not go into Exile with the Garvey and his UNIA. He may have not overstood The Kings reasons for going to Bath England. (in harmony with what Ark Is brethren says)
The King went to England and HIM knew that the Emblem of Englands Army was the Same as Ethiopias Army: St. Greagory Slaying the Dragon. So them joined together. King Selassie was well welcomed and respected during exile stay in Bath England. Still some African Americans volunteered and went to war in Ethiopia while other African Americans vandalized Italian shops in New York City .( King says not to pledge allegiance to any nation but rather, to our fellow men in the human community) Remember Garvey as Prophet preparing the way of the Lord Haile Selassie prepares us but the way of The King is guided by JAH. what is foolishness to mans vision is wise to JAHs insight

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 3/1/2016 8:01:44 AM

Jamaicans, among other africans were getting up taking flight and going to ethiopia prepared to fight to the death in the name of Ethiopia.

Garvey was living in England as he had been forcibly deported from the US (possibly the first jamaican deportee?)

His perspective at the time is reasonable. And only comes from a true sense of Ethiopianism - Garvey was a self admitting Ethiopianist! He was questioning His Majestys loyality and livication to Ethiopia and the black race, given the strange circumstaces at the time......he didnt just 'not like him'

Ask yourself the likelihood on Garveys perspective changing once the war was over and the idea of Shashemane became a reality for repatriation with HIM back on his throne

Messenger: RastaGoddess Sent: 3/1/2016 8:09:59 AM

"Ask yourself the likelihood on Garveys perspective changing once the war was over and the idea of Shashemane became a reality for repatriation - a goal Garvey and His Majesty obviously had in common"


1 - 1011

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I