Coração das Trevas - Desmistificando o Continente Africano

[Compson]

Os Estados Unidos possuíam uma colônia na África; a Libéria, só que muito tarde, mas eram uma potência em ascensão e tinham passado recentemente por uma guerra civil (1861-1865) relacionada com a abolição da escravatura naquele país; a Grã-Bretanha tinha-a abolido no seu império em 1834.

Isso aqui me levou a um negócio meio bizarro, que tem um pouco a ver com o objetivo deste tópico de mostrar como as representações sobre a África na cultura ocidental são chapadas.

A Libéria teve uma origem sui generis, bem à americana. Uma espécie de ONG, fundada por brancos evidentemente, a American Colonization Society, queria mandar os negros de volta para a África, alegando que eles nunca poderiam se integrar à sociedade americana e que isso seria o melhor para eles. Ao que parece, os caras compraram e anexaram áreas do que hoje é a Libéria e começaram a mandar negros para lá, sempre com alguns brancos para liderar, é claro. Além do preconceito sobre a impossibilidade de integração, tem outro relacionado a achar que negro = África, como se bastasse devolvê-los a qualquer lugar do continente, sem se preocupar com sua origem, cultura, nacionalidade...

Também parece haver um certo projeto imperalista dos americanos, que acabou sendo abortado, talvez por causa da vitória do Norte na Guerra da Secessão e por eles terem descoberto que no México seria muito mais fácil.

In 1822, the American Colonization Society (A.C.S.), working to "repatriate" black Americans to greater freedom in Africa, established Liberia[12] as a place to send people who were formerly enslaved.[5][13] This movement of black people by the A.C.S. had broad support nationwide among white people in the United States, including politicians such as Henry Clay and James Monroe. They believed this was preferable to emancipation of slaves in the United States. Clay said, because of "unconquerable prejudice resulting from their color, they never could amalgamate with the free whites of this country. It was desirable, therefore, as it respected them, and the residue of the population of the country, to drain them off."[14] The institution of slavery in the U.S. had grown, reaching almost four million slaves by the mid 19th century.[15] Some free African Americans chose to emigrate to Liberia.[16] The immigrants became known as Americo-Liberians, and about 5% of present-day Liberians trace their ancestry to them. On July 26, 1847, Americo-Liberian settlers declared the independence of the Republic of Liberia.[17][18]

Jehudi Ashmun, an early leader of the ACS colony, envisioned an American empire in Africa. During 1825 and 1826, Ashmun took steps to lease, annex, or buy tribal lands along the coast and along major rivers leading inland. Like his predecessor Lt. Robert Stockton, who in 1821 established the site for Monrovia by "persuading" a local chief referred to as "King Peter" to sell Cape Montserado (or Mesurado) by pointing a pistol at his head, Ashmun was prepared to use force to extend the colony's territory. His aggressive actions quickly increased Liberia's power over its neighbors. In a treaty of May 1825, King Peter and other native kings agreed to sell land to Ashmun in return for 500 bars of tobacco, three barrels of rum, five casks of powder, five umbrellas, ten iron posts, and ten pairs of shoes, among other items. (The treaty is included in papers of the ACS in the U.S. Library of Congress.)

Com um PIB per capita de pouco mais de 200 dólares, o país aparece sempre nos últimos lugares dos rankings mundias. A expectativa de vida geral é de pouco mais de 41 anos, a mortalidade infantil é superior a 130 por mil e a subnutrição chega a 38% da população.

É, os gringos não foderam a Áfria em extensão territorial, mas, no pequeno espaço e curto período em que atuaram, o fizeram com grande eficiência.

Por outro lado, a Libéria teve George Weah, que foi melhor que qualquer jogador americano, ever!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_C ... on_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

[O Pastor]

Bela contribuição ao tópico, do camarada Compson.

A Libéria é formada por mais de 16 etnias, mais os descendentes de ex-escravos estadunidenses. Esses ex-escravos acabaram formanado a elite economica e intelectual do país, entrando em choque com os outros povos já existentes. A capital se chama Monrovia, por causa do presidente americano James Monroe. Este país tem uma das mais antigas universidades da África, a Universidade da Libéria fundada em 1862.

O caminho político seguido pelos liberianos foi o da democracia, aos moldes que existia nos EUA. Foi o primeiro país da África a se tornar independente em 1847.

[O Pastor]

Vou colocar agora um tema mais atual e saber o que os senhores pensam a respeito.

O tema atual é o Zimbabwe. País da região sul, faz fronteira com a África do Sul e ficou famoso no Brasil por causa do amistoso que a Seleção fez por lá, antes da Copa.

Acontece que o Zimbabwe é uma ditadura que já dura mais de 25 anos. Até aí nada demais, ainda mais se tratando de um país africano. Mas há um problema.

Historicamente, o Zimbabwe sofreu uma importante colonização britânica, capitaneada pelo explorador Cecil Rhodes, que deu inclusive o nome ocidentalizado ao país, Rodésia. Esses britânicos trataram logo de ocupar as melhores terras e dominar a política. Este processo durou até 1980, quando a independencia do país foi reconhecida internacionalmente e deu-se as primeiras eleções livres para todos os cidadãos, não apenas os brancos.

Alguns anos depois, Robert Mugabe já primeiro-ministro socialista, inicia uma perseguição à influência dos brancos na política e economia no país. Primeiro, vai retirando os brancos da política e depois, pouco a pouco, começa a expulsar os fazendeiros de suas terras com a promessa de redistribuí-las a fazendeiros negros. Na verdade, inicia-se gradualmente um estado de perseguição aos brancos, onde a polícia vai virando as costas aos saques e crimes cometidos contra essa população.

O interessante deste caso é que Mugabe é um ditador com os defeitos e virtudes de todos os ditadores. Seu governo vem sendo desastroso nos ultimos anos, em especial, levando o país a experimentar uma das maiores inflações do mundo. Com a política de expulsar os fazendeiros brancos, elem fez com que a agricultura praticamente parasse, pois os novos senhoriso das terras, se quer são agricultores, muitos são de fato, bandidos. Então, fica um caso curioso de um reforma agrária que era necessária, pois a minoria branca detinha a maioria das terras cultiváveis. Mas acontece que ela foi feita de maneira desastrosa.

É a idéia de vc querer dar o troco nos europeus, pelo que eles fizeram com os negros ao longo dos séculos. Mas será que é justo?? Expulsar familias que ocupam aquela terra a gerações?? Mas não foi o mesmo que os brancos fizeram com os negros quando Cecil Rhodes ali chegou?? O Zimbabwe seria um caso paradoxal de nossa era, se a população negra estivesse de fato ganhando com essa inversão de poder. Mas não está. Mugabe é corrupto e de fato, ninguém está ganhando com suas políticas.

Robert Mugabe closes in on last white farmers

FOR Ray Finaughty, the dream of farming Africa’s rich soil has ended as the campaign to drive Zimbabwe’s white farmers from their land enters its final stage.

One by one the last white farmers are being beaten into submission. Four more had their farms seized by marauding gangs last week.

“They do not want us whites,” one farmer said.

Finaughty, 43, will never forget how his world came crashing down. One moment at his Manda farm there was stillness. Then came a burst of noise and confusion. A screaming, drunken mob hammered at the gates.

It was the climax of a two-year eviction campaign against him. He had fought step by step in the courts. Their judgments in his favour were all ignored. With no respect for the rule of law in Zimbabwe, he finally lost the battle.

Armed with spears and sticks, a mob threatened him and his wife, Loraine, by driving a tractor against the gate of their home. “We’re going to kill you,” they said. The family were given 10 minutes to pack their life’s belongings.

It was not the first attack that Finaughty had weathered. In one savage beating his attackers suggested breaking his legs as he lay injured in a field. “Leave him. He’s dead,” he heard one of them say.

Finaughty crawled away and saved himself. He had four broken ribs and concussion.

Another time, acting in self-defence, he had to shoot dead an armed robber who broke into his farmhouse. The police were sympathetic and took no action. But they treated the seizure of his farm differently.

“This is political. It’s a hot potato. We can’t get involved,” said Vengisai, the chief inspector, when Finaughty contacted his office.

So the Finaughty family drove away from the farm they loved. Soon, they believe, much of the land they had cultivated will be derelict.

Behind them they have left 90 loyal workers and their families, some 400 people in all. They have been forced to abandon 6,000 chickens, 190 head of cattle and a valuable tobacco crop, all of which could be lost.

“You have to take it on the chin and walk away,” Finaughty said in Harare last week. “That’s the bottom line.”

Finaughty was born in Zimbabwe and is proud that his great-grandfather was one of its first white settlers.

He bought Manda, east of Harare, in 1994 and made it into a successful enterprise. He did everything he could to comply with President Robert Mugabe’s chaotic land reform programme. In 2001 he accepted giving up three-quarters of Manda, which was sub-divided into 86 plots for black Zimbabweans with whom he peacefully coexisted.

“I don’t play politics. I believe we whites are in Africa as visitors,” he said.

Afterwards he kept his head down and stayed on what remained of his farm, more than 1,600 acres, which have now been violently taken away from him.

The culprit is Winnie Mushipe, a top official of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. But behind her is believed to be Didymus Mutasa, one of Mugabe’s old guard.

Two years ago Mushipe was controversially allocated the farm by Mutasa, then the lands minister. A former head of the state intelligence service, Mutasa has been a notorious supporter of Mugabe’s campaign to run the rest of the whites off their farms.

Mushipe had no legal right to seize the farm. She had followed no legal procedures.

The Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) accuses Mutasa of orchestrating some of the worst of the latest farm invasions. He owns more than 10 farms in the area.

“An evil bastard,” is how one evicted farmer described him after Gavin Woest, another white farmer, was allegedly threatened with death and told he had just minutes to leave his farm, which Mutasa’s wife coveted.

Mutasa was unrepentant. “These white people create stories,” he said. “I have not gone to America or Britain for land. I get my land in Zimbabwe, which is my country. What’s wrong with that?”

Since 2000 some 4,200 white farmers have been driven from their land and at least 18 have been murdered; Don Stewart, the last to die, was strangled and burnt to death in his farmhouse in December.

Of the 300 still farming, more than half have been served with official eviction notices. In another blow, Zimbabwe’s High Court last week rejected a South African regional court ruling, which the government was meant to follow, that the land seizures were racist and illegal and white farmers should be allowed to return to their land.

“Enforcement of that judgment would be fundamentally contrary to the public policy of this country,” said the judge.

“Without a doubt the agenda has always been to get rid of us whites. They do not want us,” responded Deon Theron, the CFU president.

He had hoped that the unity government would oppose the new wave of seizures. Since becoming prime minister in the unity government, Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has dismissed the seizures as “isolated incidents”.

“They [the MDC] cannot be seen to be supporting white farmers. They are still caught up with that, instead of saying what is right is right and wrong is wrong,” Theron said.

“This is happening at a time when we need investors to revive the economy. But no investors want to put their money in a country that has no respect for property rights or the rule of law.”

As he spoke, the telephone rang in his office with news of another invasion, this one of a farm belonging to Rudolf Du Toit, a neighbour of Finaughty.

A drunken mob was scaling his security fence. Du Toit, 69, fired shots in the air to keep them out. They told him that he was leaving “dead or alive”.

In the end he left alive, with just a suitcase of clothes.

“By the next election there will not be one white farmer on the land,” said Thomas Beattie, 67, a veteran farmer who was driven off his farm in November, even though he was once a Zanu-PF supporter.

“It is nothing less than ethnic cleansing.”

Photos expose regime’s diamond grab

This is the first picture proving that Robert Mugabe’s military still controls a fabulously valuable diamond field, despite the government giving an international undertaking that the occupation has ended.

The picture and others show a camp for soldiers and an airfield under construction at Marange in the east of the country. The 6,500ft runway is for military transport planes and appears to have a fortified control tower.

“It is clearly a military airfield and obviously not for diamonds or for bringing in mining equipment,” said one defence expert. “It seems to be a base camp to make the diamond field impregnable.”

The military massacred more than 200 people when it took over Marange in 2008 as its riches became apparent. The government had seized the field from a British-registered mining company, African Consolidated Resources, which had discovered the diamonds.

Last year, after documenting “unacceptable violence against civilians”, including forced labour, torture and beatings by soldiers, the Kimberley Process — the international body that regulates trade in rough diamonds to ensure they do not fund conflict — came under pressure to ban all Zimbabwe diamond sales.

It relented after an assurance from Obert Mpofu, the mines minister, that soldiers and police had withdrawn and Zimbabwe would comply with regulations to exploit the field responsibly.

The pictures, taken a few days ago, show Zimbabwe to be in non-compliance and are likely to revive calls for a ban.

The Marange diamonds, worth tens of billions of dollars, are Zimbabwe’s most valuable asset. If exploited honestly they could transform its broken economy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 009620.ece

[ external image ]
Fazendeiros brancos sofrem no Zimbabwe.

[Tricampeão]

Porra, Pastor, você abandona o Congo antes de chegar na narrativa do que os gringos filhos da puta fizeram lá.
Fala pelo menos do assassinato do Lumumba.

[O Pastor]

Porra, Pastor, você abandona o Congo antes de chegar na narrativa do que os gringos filhos da puta fizeram lá.
Fala pelo menos do assassinato do Lumumba.

Esse Tricampeão é louquinho...

Tranquilo, vou retomar o Congo. Não esqueci.

Mas há muito para dizer sobre a África, há tanta, tanta coisa interessante acontecendo, que me perco.

Depois do Congresso de Berlim, farei uma retomada do Congo a partir da Primeira Guerra Mundial e os seus efeitos e como as discussões de paz do Tratado de Versalhes trataram a questão africana. Muito interessante mesmo...não percam!!

[O Pastor]

Retomando os trabalhos, vamos falar sobre o que significou a Primeira Grande Guerra para a África e como ela foi decisivamente afetada. Anteriormente, vimos como as peripécias do rei Leopoldo II, da Bélgica, mais o "Congresso de Berlim" ajudariam a moldar o mapa artificial do continente africano. E como essas fronteiras permanecem vivas até hoje. Os europeus na ansia de fazer valer seus poderes, alimentaram rivalidades, criaram uma série de ressentimentos que ainda hoje são a causa da maioria das guerras civis e fome, que vemos acontecer.

Em 1914 a Europa vivia seu apogeu de dominação sobre o mundo. Mais de 80% das aplicações internacionais eram de origem européia e mais de 65% das exportações eram de seus produtos industriais. Inúmeras descobertas científicas permitiam um salto tecnológico nunca antes experimentado pela humanidade. A expansão do capitalismo, relativamente falando, só alcançaria paralelos no final do século XX.

No entanto, apesar de sua civilização brilhar como nunca antes, os europeus viviam contradições sobre questões antigas, que não se resolveram. No campo político, apenas 3 países eram repúblicas e mesmo assim, apenas a França era uma república liberal. A monarquia predominava, e entre as nações mais importantes, apenas a Inglaterra era uma monarquia moderna. Os demais países tais como a Alemanha, Itália, Áustria-Hungria e Rússia, eram monarquias absolutistas e autoritárias. Havia ainda nos países mais industrializados os inevitáveis choques entre a burguesia e o operariado. E nos países onde a nobreza imperava, o choque era entre os agricultores cada vez mais pobres e os príncipes sequiosos de mais e mais poder. Todo esse jogo de interesses resultava numa pressão cada vez maior sobre os governos centrais na busca de mais terras, mercados e colônias para resolverem seus problemas.

A Alemanha que havia sido unificada tardiamente, já possuía uma indústria que começava a ultrapassar a inglesa. Mas os alemães não tinham um mercado ultramarino do tamanho do britânico e nem colônias o suficiente para buscar matérias-primas, essenciais para sua indústria. O interesse alemão, somado a beligerância de sua elite militar, começava a causar mal-estar com a França, Inglaterra e Rússia.

Naquele momento histórico apenas 3 nações africanas eram livres: a Libéria, que tinha sua independência formal desde de o meio do século XIX, mas era ligada aos E.U.A; a África do Sul que havia se libertado recentemente do julgo britânico; e a Etiópia, cuja história remontava ao Egito Antigo e que havia humilhado os italianos recentemente, quando eles tentaram invadir seu território. As demais nações estavam totalmente controladas pelos europeus, que ainda mantinham as fronteiras “fictícias” estabelecidas pelo “Congresso de Berlim”.

Quando de sua explosão, a Grande Guerra na África foi baseada, sobretudo, em guerrilhas, que envolveram grande parte da população africana. Em especial á África Orientale a região do Congo, foi onde mais se sentiu os efeitos da guerra.

East African Campaign (World War I)

The East African Campaign was a series of battles and guerrilla actions which started in German East Africa and ultimately impacted portions of Mozambique, Northern Rhodesia, British East Africa, Uganda, and the Belgian Congo. The campaign was effectively ended in November 1917.[9] However, the Germans entered Portuguese East Africa and continued the campaign living off Portuguese supplies.

The strategy of the German colonial forces, led by Lieutenant Colonel (later Generalmajor) Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck, was to drain and divert forces from the Western Front to Africa. His strategy failed to achieve these results after 1916, as mainly Indian and South African forces, which were not deployable to Europe due to colonial policies, took up the remainder of the campaign.[10][11] Nevertheless, the Germans fought the duration of World War I. The Germans received word of the armistice on 14 November 1918 at 7:30 a.m. Both sides waited for confirmation, and the Germans formally surrendered on 25 November. German East Africa ultimately became two League of Nations Class B Mandates, Tanganyika Territory of the United Kingdom and Ruanda-Urundi of Belgium, while the Kionga Triangle became a mandate of Portugal.

Background

German East Africa (comprising Burundi, Rwanda, and the mainland part of modern-day Tanzania) was a large territory with complex geography, including parts of the extensive Great Rift Valley, Lake Tanganyika and Lake Victoria. It varied from the mountainous, well-watered and fertile north-west, to the drier and sandy or rocky center, with wildlife-rich grasslands in the north-east and vast areas of uninhabited forest in the south-east. Its coast, inhabited by the Swahili people and Arab traders, dominated trade with Central Africa in conjunction with British-controlled Zanzibar and the coasts of modern-day Kenya and Mozambique.
At the start of the Great War, Governor Heinrich Schnee of German East Africa ordered that no hostile action was to be taken.[12] To the north, Governor Sir Henry Conway Belfield of British East Africa stated that he and "this colony had no interest in the present war."[13] The colonial governors, who often met in prewar years, had discussed these matters and wished to adhere to the Congo Act of 1885, which called for overseas possessions to remain neutral in the event of a European war.[14] And, neither colony had many troops.

Campaign history
Beginning, 1914–1915

In East Africa, the Congo Act was first broken by the British.[15] On 5 August 1914, troops from the Uganda protectorate assaulted German river outposts near Lake Victoria, and on 8 August a direct naval attack commenced when the British warships HMS Astraea and Pegasus bombarded Dar es Salaam from several miles offshore.[16] In response, the commander of the German forces in East Africa, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck, bypassed Governor Schnee, nominally his superior, and began to organize his troops for battle. At the time, the German Schutztruppe in East Africa consisted of 260 Germans of all ranks and 2,472 Askari,[17] and was approximately numerically equal with the two battalions of the King's African Rifles (KAR) based in the British East African colonies.[12]

On 15 August, German Askari forces stationed in the Neu-Moshi region engaged in their first offensive of the campaign. Taveta on the British side of Kilimanjaro fell to 300 askaris of two field companies with the British firing a token volley and retiring in good order.[18] In September, the Germans began to stage raids deeper into British East Africa and Uganda. A tiny German navy on Lake Victoria existed in the form of a "pom-pom"-armed tug boat, causing minor damage but a great deal of news. The British then mounted guns on two lake steamers, trapped the tug, which was scuttled, was later raised (the gun used elsewhere) and continued to serve German interests as an unarmed transport. With the tug’s "teeth removed, British command of Lake Victoria was no longer in dispute."[19]
In an effort to solve the raiding nuisance and to capture the entire northern, white settler region of the German colony, the British command devised a two-pronged plan. The British Indian Expeditionary Force "B" of 8,000 troops in two brigades would carry out an amphibious landing at Tanga on 2 November 1914 to capture the city and thereby control the Indian Ocean terminus of the Usambara Railway (see Battle of Tanga). In the Kilimanjaro area, the Force "C" of 4,000 men in one brigade would advance from British East Africa on Neu-Moshi on 3 November 1914 to the western terminus of the railroad (see Battle of Kilimanjaro). After capturing Tanga, Force "B" would rapidly move north-west, join Force "C" and mop up what remained of the broken German forces. Although outnumbered 8:1 at Tanga and 4:1 at Longido, the Schutztruppe under Lettow-Vorbeck prevailed. According to the British Official History of the War the events are described as one of "the most notable failures in British military history."[20]

[edit] Naval war

The German naval command had just one major warship in the Indian Ocean when war was declared, the light cruiser SMS Königsberg. After limited opportunities for commerce raiding, Königsberg sank the cruiser HMS Pegasus in Zanzibar harbour and then retired into the Rufiji River delta. After being cornered by warships of the British Cape squadron, including an old battleship, two shallow-draught monitors with 6 in (150 mm) guns were brought from England that demolished the cruiser on 11 July 1915. The surviving crew of Königsberg and her 4.1 in (100 mm) main battery guns were taken over by the Schutztruppe.[21] The British salvaged and used six 4 in (100 mm) from the sunken Pegasus, the so-called 'Peggy guns'.[22]
Lake Tanganyika expedition
In 1915, two British motorboats, HMS Mimi and Toutou were transported by land to the British shore of Lake Tanganyika. They captured the German ship Kingani, renaming it HMS Fifi, and with two Belgian ships under the command of Commander Geoffrey Spicer-Simson, attacked and sunk the German ship Hedwig von Wissmann in a bid to secure the lake as the strategic key to the western part of the German colony. The Graf von Götzen was the only German ship to survive. Lettow-Vorbeck then had its Königsberg gun removed and sent by rail to the main fighting front.[23] The ship was scuttled after a floatplane bombing attack by the Belgians on Kigoma and before advancing Belgian colonial troops could capture it. It was later refloated and used by the British[24] and is still in service today plying the lake under the Tanzanian flag.

[edit] British Empire reinforcements, 1916

General Horace Smith-Dorrien was assigned with orders to find and fight the Schutztruppe, but he contracted pneumonia during the voyage to South Africa which prevented him from taking command. In 1916, General J.C. Smuts was given the task of defeating Lettow-Vorbeck. Smuts had a large army (for the area), some 13,000 South Africans including Boers, British, and Rhodesians as well as 7,000 Indian and African troops. In addition, not under his direct command but fighting on the Allied side, was a Belgian force and a larger but ineffective group of Portuguese military units based in Mozambique. A large Carrier Corps of African porters under British command carried supplies for Smuts' army into the interior. Despite all these troops from different allies, it was essentially a South African operation of the British Empire under Smuts' control. During the previous year, Lettow-Vorbeck had also gained personnel and his army was now 1,800 Germans and some 12,000 Askaris.

Smuts' army attacked from several directions, the main attack was from the north out of British East Africa, while substantial forces from the Belgian Congo advanced from the west in two columns, over Lake Victoria and into the Rift Valley. Another contingent advanced over Lake Nyasa (Lake Malawi) from the south-east. All these forces failed to capture Lettow-Vorbeck and they all suffered from disease along the march. One unit, 9th South African Infantry, started with 1,135 men in February, and by October its strength was reduced to 116 fit troops, without doing much fighting at all.[25] However, the Germans nearly always retreated from the larger British troop concentrations and by September 1916, the German Central Railway from the coast at Dar es Salaam to Ujiji was fully under British control.

With Lettow-Vorbeck's forces now confined to the southern part of German East Africa, Smuts began to withdraw his South African, Rhodesian and Indian troops and replaced them with askaris of the King's African Rifles. By the start of 1917, more than half the British Army in the theatre was composed of Africans, and by the end of the war, it was nearly all African troops. Smuts himself left the area in January 1917 to join the Imperial War Cabinet at London.

[edit] Belgian-Congolese participation

Belgian-Congolese participation in the campaign was sizeable—for the logistics alone some 260,000 carriers were mobilized, not counting troops.
The colonial armed forces of the Belgian Congo, 'Force Publique', started their campaign on 18 April 1916 under the command of General Charles Tombeur, Colonel Molitor and Colonel Olsen. They captured Kigali on 6 May. The German askaris in Burundi fought well, but had to give way to the numerical superiority of Force Publique. By 6 June, Burundi as well as Rwanda was effectively occupied.
Force Publique and the British Lake Force then started a thrust to capture Tabora, an administrative center of central German East Africa. They marched into German territory in three columns and took Biharamuro, Mwanza, Karema, Kigoma and Ujiji. After several days of heavy fighting, they secured Tabora. To forestall Belgian claims on the German colony, Smuts ordered their forces back to Congo, leaving them as occupiers only in Rwanda and Burundi. But the British were obliged to recall Belgian-Congolese troops to help for a second time in 1917, and after this event the two allies coordinated campaign plans.

[edit] Last years, 1917–1918

Despite continued efforts to capture or destroy Lettow-Vorbeck's army, the British failed to end German resistance. First, Major General Reginald Hoskins (of the KAR) took over, then another South African, Major General J.L. van Deventer was assigned command. Van Deventer then launched a major offensive in July 1917. The Germans’ tactical skill could delay but it could not halt; by early autumn they were pushed 100 mi (160 km) south.[26] They were still able to tie down large British forces and even defeat them on occasion. In mid-October 1917, Lettow-Vorbeck fought a pivotal and costly battle at Mahiwa, the Schutztruppe's last stand in defense of their colony, where they lost 519 men killed, wounded or missing and the British Nigerian brigade 2,700 killed, wounded or missing.[27] After the news of the battle reached Germany, Lettow-Vorbeck was promoted to Generalmajor.[28]
In early November 1917, the German High Command made an attempt to deliver much-needed supplies to Lettow-Vorbeck by air from Germany. The naval dirigible L.59 traveled over 4,200 mi (6,800 km) in 95 hours, but in the end the mission failed when the airship received an "abort" message over the radio from the German admiralty.[29]

British units were closing in on the Schutztruppe and on 23 November 1917, Lettow-Vorbeck crossed south into Portuguese Mozambique to gain supplies by capturing Portuguese garrisons. By leaving German East Africa, he no longer had to defer to the civil authority of Governor Schnee. With his caravans of troops, carriers, wives and children, he marched through Mozambique for the next nine months, avoiding capture, but unable to gain much strength. Lettow-Vorbeck's army was divided into three groups on the march. He eventually learned that he had lost a thousand-man detachment under Hauptmann Theodor Tafel, who was forced to surrender, being out of food and ammunition.[30]

The army then reentered German East Africa and crossed into Northern Rhodesia in August 1918. On 13 November 1918, two days after the Armistice was signed in France, the German Army took and occupied its last town, Kasama, which had been evacuated by the British. The next day at the Chambezi River, Lettow-Vorbeck was handed a telegram announcing the signing of the armistice and he agreed to a cease-fire: the 'Von Lettow-Vorbeck Memorial' marks the spot in present-day Zambia. As requested, he marched his undefeated army to Abercorn and formally surrendered there on 23 November 1918.[31]

[edit] Assessments

• In this campaign, disease killed or incapacitated 30 men for every man killed in battle on the British side.[32]

• In one capacity or another, nearly 400,000 Allied soldiers, sailors, merchant marine crews, builders, bureaucrats, and support personnel participated in the East Africa campaign. They were assisted in the field by an additional 600,000 African bearers. The Allies employed nearly 1 million people in their fruitless pursuit of Lettow-Vorbeck and his handful of warriors.[33]

• Lettow-Vorbeck was cut off from home. He could entertain no hope of a decisive victory. His aim was purely to keep the British on the stretch as much as possible for as long as possible and to make them expend the largest possible resources in men, in shipping, and in supplies. He failed to divert Allied manpower from Europe after 1916. Indian and South African forces, which were not deployable to Europe, took up most of the fighting instead. In 1917-1918 some shipping was diverted to the African theatre, but not enough to inflict difficulties on the Allied fleets.[9]

• In retrospect, the East African campaign came to look like a 'sideshow' of the First World War. As memory focused on the vast slaughter of the Western Front, the Indians, Africans and British who had borne the pains of that 'poisonous country' were all but forgotten. Even today, it is only possible to give approximations of the total fatalities. The British Commonwealth forces lost over 10,000 men, ⅔ of them from disease. German losses were about 2,000. But the black people of East Africa suffered far more as carriers who died from disease, exhaustion and military action. One modern estimate is 100,000 dead on all sides. Black civilians also suffered dreadfully. War devastated many localities, bringing hunger, disease and death in its train. Thousands of Africans perished in the outbreak of influenza that swept over their continent at the end of the war.

• An unknown Belgian missionary in Congo wrote about the Congolese community as a society where "the father is at the front, the mother mills grains for the soldiers, while the children are carrying the food to the front." No Congolese colonial troops fought in Europe, but the people of the Congo also paid a high price in the Great War.

[O Pastor]

O artigo abaixo fala um pouco mais dos efeitos da Primeira Guerra na África.

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays ... acific.htm

Comparing the effects of WWI on
Africa, Latin America and the Pacific Islands

While World War I is thought to have most greatly affected Germany and the surrounding European countries, it did in fact, damage other areas nearly as much. Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific Islands all suffered from the first great World War.
The First World War did not only cause negative effects. Africa, one nation that was very war torn, did benefit in small ways from the war in terms of relationships with other countries. “World War I gave rise to a crucial change in the relationship between Africa and Europe.” Although, through this war, England and Africa had a closer knit relationship, the devastation which the war caused was to a much greater scale than the progress. After the war, more than 2 million Africans had been slain, often in the process of making sacrifices for the British troops. Eastern Africa, losing the most men in battle, at 100,000 dead, was just as horrible as the death toll of 65,000 in French North Africa and West Africa. Following the end of the war, approximately 2% of the African population died in an influenza outbreak.

According to an African American historical society, “World War I had a general negative influence on the trade and development of Africa”. This statement is true, considering the fact that the price of all commodities went up in Africa following the war, the economy stalled, and the poverty rate became worse than ever. The Pan African Congress stated that “The shabby treatment of African and Caribbean people in Britain prompted a large number to return home, disaffected, but also politicized and radicalized.” The Great War caused trading to cease with many countries, including Germany, one of Africa’s main trading partners at the time. Though many missionaries and campaigns for Christianity had been prospering prior to WWI, persecution began to take place after the war. Congo, one of the strongest Christian nations in Africa before the war, became a hunted, persecuted church, though it was still strong in Christ. The Church of Africa, though it didn’t benefit from the war, became stronger in the strength of the Holy Spirit through trial and suffering.

While Africa was losing hundreds of men daily, Latin America hesitated to take a side in the war, and decided to remain neutral for a time, as they saw the war as “none of their business”. Contrary to their belief, the Latin Americans were very much a part of the war process as they were accused of safe-harboring German ships while they were still declared neutral. During the war negotiation process, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico were the “Big Four” countries in South and Latin America. Though this world war may have had negative attributes, for Brazil, when they declared war, it “was a significant step in her rise to respectable status in world affairs and also heightened the sense of Nationalism in the huge, disjointed Republic.” Unlike Africa, the war that affected Latin America did not pay a toll on the lives of their people. Though the Latin Americans did lose many lives, it was hardly the devastating number that Africa had after the war. Also, Latin America did not suffer to the extremity of Africa, because they were at liberty to be neutral, unlike the continent of Africa, who was forced to enter the war field unprepared and unwillingly. The "Great War" did not have a large impact upon religion or the spread of Christianity in the countries of Latin America as it had in Africa.

According to the encyclopedia Britannica, “Some of the bitterest fighting of World War I occurred in the Pacific Islands.” Throughout the war there was “ethnic violence, government malfeasance, and endemic crime.” At the beginning of the war, countries such as Japan began to obtain small pacific islands without much resistance, as these island peoples were unable to defend themselves against the masses. Unlike both Africa and Latin America, the Pacific Islands didn’t have the forces or ability to be directly involved in the war. Felix Eugene Michael Hercules, who was quoted by Peter Fryer in his book Staying Power, said, “He (Caribbean and African man) fought with the white man to save the white man's home...and the war was won… Black men the entire world over are asking to-day: "What have we got? What are we going to get out of it all?”

World War I, cause of countless deaths; many of them innocent, affected not only Germany and the Jewish people, but many surrounding nations and nations round the world. The involvement of Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific Islands has often been overshadowed by Europe.

[O Pastor]

Depois da Grande Guerra, o mapa do mundo mudaria mais uma vez. Os países centrais cairiam um a um, frente a derrota alemã. Alemanha e Áustria-Hungria, seriam desmembradas e a Rússia experimentaria o socialismo. A monarquia cairia também na Turquia. Na África, a Alemanha perderia todas as suas colônias para França, Inglaterra, Bélgica e Portugal. O Tratado de Versalhes de 1919, imporia termos absurdos para os alemães que os deixariam numa crise moral e economica sem paralelos. Era o chamado “ovo da serpente” para o nascimento do regime nazista.
Para o povo africano, a guerra havia representado apenas mais fome e miséria. Os recursos africanos, tanto humanos quanto físicos, foram usados no limite, para ajudar no esforço de guerra. O lado positivo foi apenas a reconquista da consciencia pan-africanista que começava a aumentar.

African Americans - The league of nations and the pan-african congress

World War I shattered the balance of power in Europe and destroyed the Russian, German, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian empires. These state systems lost control of the diverse ethnic groups previously under their control. Subject nations and national minorities began demanding language rights, sovereignty, and democratic governments. When the Allies met in the Paris suburb of Versailles in 1919 to rebuild the world order, their agenda included the construction of nations in eastern Europe and the revitalization of the empires that remained. European debates on political autonomy and territoriality were the model for Asians and Africans seeking to bring their own interests to world attention.

The Pan-African Congress was an important vehicle for formulating and disseminating such demands. The association emerged from a 1900 London conference. Organized by a Trinidadian attorney resident in London and an African-American bishop, the congress brought together blacks from Britain and its colonies, the United States, and South Africa. The purpose was to discuss colonialism and racism and suggest strategies for reform. The association made little headway in its first twenty years, the zenith of European colonial domination of Africa. World War I provided an opportunity to renew its goals, however, and it planned a Paris conference that would convene simultaneously with the Versailles peace conference.

African-American leaders sought representation as observers at the peace conference and began discussing it before the war ended. Those most interested included the intellectual activist W. E. B. Du Bois, entrepreneur C. J. Walker, National Equal Rights League founder William Monroe Trotter, and activist Wells-Barnett. The Universal Negro Improvement Association, an international organization founded by Marcus Garvey, named delegates to the congress, including the labor leader A. Philip Randolph. Other interested organizations included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the National Race Congress. The thinking was that if representatives of black organizations were denied admission to the proceedings or audiences with principals, they could use the Pan-African Congress and their proximity to the peace talks to bring their issues to public attention.

President Woodrow Wilson led the U.S. delegation at Versailles. Wilson believed in international organization and saw the peace conference as an opportunity to put the United States permanently at the center of power in the global community. Like other Allied leaders, Wilson wished to maintain control over national minorities. He was, additionally, a committed segregationist who as president of Princeton University had excluded African-American students from dormitories, and as president of the United States had separated federal civil servants by race, placing black employees behind partitions.

The Wilson administration did not want minority observers or protesters in Europe. The State Department accordingly refused passports to most of the black Americans wishing to go to France. Those who managed to cross the Atlantic attended a Pan-African Congress composed of fifty-seven delegates who discussed, under the careful scrutiny of the French government, such issues as the status of defeated Germany's colonies and colonial reform. The more militant civil rights activists and nationalists were less interested in the Pan African Congress than in addressing the peace conference, the forum where decisions affecting the world's national minorities and subject peoples would be made. President Wilson was determined to prevent such initiatives. He refused to see either Trotter or a young Vietnamese leader, Nguyen That Thanh, later known as Ho Chi Minh. Wilson and British Prime Minister David Lloyd George prohibited the presence of delegates of colonized peoples and racial minorities at Versailles, but Du Bois succeeded in representing the NAACP at the first conference of the League of Nations in 1921.

[O Pastor]

Na verdade, todos concordaram que depois da Primeira GUerra e do Congresso Pan-Africano de 1920, melhores condições de vida deveria ser permitida aos africanos. Mas apesar da carnificia da Primeira Guerra, para os africanos pouca coisa mudava. O nacionalismo ainda imperava entre as nações européias e o senso de superioridade sobre o resto do mundo ainda era a regra. Alguns motins começavam a surgir nas colônias, mas ainda muito timidos.

Ficou claro que a idéia de que a Grande Guerra poria fim a todas as guerras, era errado. Ao termino, Inglaterra e França pensaram apenas em arrancar o maximo de espolio que pudessem da Alemanha. Os EStados Unidos finalmente alcançava o status de superpotencia. A Africa seguiu sob dominio europeu e viu a Etiopia ser invadida pela Italia fascista, num golpe de extrema covardia.

O pau ainda comeria por um longo tempo Congo e toda África |Sub-saariana. As mudanças mais profundas tomariam vez apenas no final da segunda guerra mundial.

The Pan-African Congresses, 1900-1945

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=perspective ... -1900-1945

In the nearly half century between 1900 and 1945 various political leaders and intellectuals from Europe, North America, and Africa met six times to discuss colonial control of Africa and develop strategies for eventual African political liberation. In the article that follows, historian Saheed Adejumobi describes the goals and objectives of these six Pan African Congresses and assesses their impact on Africa.

Pan-Africanist ideals emerged in the late nineteenth century in response to European colonization and exploitation of the African continent. Pan-Africanist philosophy held that slavery and colonialism depended on and encouraged negative, unfounded categorizations of the race, culture, and values of African people. These destructive beliefs in turn gave birth to intensified forms of racism, the likes of which Pan-Africanism sought to eliminate.

As a broader political concept, Pan-Africanism’s roots lie in the collective experiences of African descendants in the New World. Africa assumed greater significance for some blacks in the New World for two primary reasons. First, the increasing futility of their campaign for racial equality in the United States led some African Americans to demand voluntary repatriation to Africa. Next, for the first time the term Africans, which had often been used by racists as a derogatory description, became a source of pride for early black nationalists. Hence, through the conscious elevation of their African identity black activists in America and the rest of the world began to reclaim the rights previously denied them by Western societies.

In 1897, Henry Sylvester-Williams, a West Indian Barrister, formed the African Association in London to encourage Pan-African unity; especially throughout the British colonies. Sylvester-Williams, who had links with West African dignitaries, believed that Africans and those of African descent living in the Diaspora needed a forum to address their common problems. In 1900, Sylvester- Williams organized the first Pan-African meeting in collaboration with several black leaders representing various countries of the African Diaspora. For the first time, opponents of colonialism and racism gathered for an international meeting. The conference, held in London, attracted global attention, placing the word “Pan-African” in the lexicon of international affairs and making it part of the standard vocabulary of black intellectuals.

The initial meeting featured thirty delegates, mainly from England and the West Indies, but attracted only a few Africans and African Americans. Among them was black America’s leading intellectual, W. E. B. Du Bois, who was to become the torchbearer of subsequent Pan- African conferences, or congresses as they later came to be called. Conference participants read papers on a variety of topics, including the social, political, and economic conditions of blacks in the Diaspora; the importance of independent nations governed by people of African descent, such as Ethiopia, Haiti, and Liberia; the legacy of slavery and European imperialism; the role of Africa in world history; and the impact of Christianity on the African continent. Perhaps of even greater significance was the formation of two committees. One group, chaired by Du Bois, drafted an address “To the Nations of the World,” demanding moderate reforms for colonial Africa.
The address implored the United States and the imperial European nations to “acknowledge and protect the rights of people of African descent” and to respect the integrity and independence of “the free Negro States of Abyssinia, Liberia, Haiti, etc.” The address, signed by committee chairman Du Bois as well as its president Bishop Alexander Walters, its vice president Henry B. Brown, and its general secretary Sylvester-Williams, was published and sent to Queen Victoria of England. The second committee planned for the formation of a permanent Pan-African association in London with branches overseas. Despite these ambitious plans, the appeals of conference participants made little or no impression on the European imperial powers who controlled the political and economic destiny of Africa.

It was not until after World War I that Du Bois revived the Pan-African congresses. Following the war, European and American politicians gathered for a peace conference in Versailles, France. Du Bois, who attended the conference as a special representative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), appealed to President Woodrow Wilson. In a letter to Wilson, he urged the American government to initiate a comprehensive study of the treatment of black soldiers. Moreover, Du Bois expressed hope that the peace treaty would address “the future of Africa” and grant self-determination to the colonized peoples. President Wilson subsequently released a Fourteen Point memorandum, which suggested the formation a League of Nations and called for “an absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based on the principle that the interests of the population must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government.” Although historians have questioned the impact Du Bois’s request had on Wilson’s Fourteen Point memorandum, it was apparent that the loudest voice on behalf of oppressed blacks in the New World and colonized Africa belonged to the participants of the Pan-African Congress.
Galvanized by the gathering of world leaders and the discussion of colonial Africa’s future, Du Bois proposed the formation of a Pan-African Congress. In 1919, as the Versailles Peace treaty deliberations ran their course, Du Bois, with the support of Blaise Diagne, a member of the French Parliament from the West African colony of Senegal, and funding from African American civil rights and fraternal organizations such as the NAACP, the Elks, and the Masons, convened a Pan-African Congress in Paris. The Congress, attended by approximately sixty representatives from sixteen nations, protectorates, and colonies, however, was more “pan” than African since most of the delegates had little, if any, first-hand knowledge of the African continent. Prominent American attendees included black members of the NAACP such as John Hope, president of Morehouse College, and Addie W. Hunton, who had served with black troops in France under the auspices of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), as well as white NAACP members, such as the Columbia University professor Joel Spingarn, the socialist William English Walling, and the socialist muckraking author Charles Edward Russell. Among the other delegates from the United States were Roscoe Conklin Simmons, a well- known black orator; Rayford W. Logan, who had served with the U.S. Army in France; black women’s rights activist Ida Gibbs Hunt; and Dr. George Jackson, a black American missionary in the Congo.

Conference participants adopted a resolution calling for the drafting of a code of law “for the international protection of the natives of Africa.” Other demands called for direct supervision of colonies by the League of Nations to prevent economic exploitation by foreign nations; to abolish slavery and capital punishment of colonial subjects who worked on the plantations of European colonial powers in Africa, especially in the Belgian Congo; and to insist on colonial peoples’ right to education. Moreover, the gathering stressed the need for further congress meetings and suggested the creation of an international quarterly, the Black Review, which was to be published in several languages. ‘While congress attendees insisted that African natives should be allowed eventually to participate in their own government, they did not demand African self-determination. Despite the moderate nature of the demands, the European and American powers represented at the Versailles Peace Conference remained noncommittal.

The Pan-African Congress reconvened in London in August 1921 and a month later in Brussels. Both meetings featured representatives from the Americas, the Caribbean, Europe, and Africa who echoed earlier PanAfricanist reformist ideas, denouncing imperialism in Africa and racism in the United States. Moreover, the delegates demanded local self-government for colonial subjects and Du Bois stressed the need for increased interracial contacts between members of the black intelligentsia and those concerned about the political and economic status of colonial peoples.
In 1923, the Pan-African Congress met in two separate sessions in London and in Lisbon. Noted European intellectuals such as H. G. Wells and Harold Laski attended the London session. Several members of previous meetings participated in the deliberations that addressed the conditions of the African Diaspora as well as the global exploitation of black workers. While some scholars argue that the 1921 and 1923 congresses were effective only in keeping alive the idea of an oppressed people trying to abolish the yoke of discrimination, others claim that the international gatherings laid the foundation for the struggle that ultimately led to the political emancipation of the African continent.

Delegates reconvened for a fifth Pan-African Congress in New York in 1927. The congress featured 208 delegates from twenty-two American states and ten foreign countries. Africa, however, was represented only sparsely by delegates from the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Nigeria. The small number of African delegates was due in part to travel restrictions that the British and French colonial powers imposed on those interested in attending the congress, in an effort to inhibit further Pan-African gatherings. Most of the delegates were black Americans and many of them were women. The congress was primarily financed by Addie W. Hunton and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, an interracial organization that had been founded in 1919 by opponents of World War I. Similar to previous Pan- African congresses, participants discussed the status and conditions of black people throughout the world.
The financial crisis induced by the Great Depression and the military exigency generated by World War II necessitated the suspension of the Pan-African Congress for a period of eighteen years. In 1945, the organized movement was revived in Manchester, England. It is unclear whether Du Bois or George Padmore, a West Indian Marxist, provided the initiative for this meeting. Recognizing Du Bois’s historic contribution to the Pan-African movement, delegates named him president of the 1945 congress. The Manchester meeting marked a turning point in the history of the gatherings. For the first time representatives of political parties from Africa and the West Indies attended the meetings. Moreover, the conservative credo of the forum gave way to radical social, political, and economic demands. Congress participants unequivocally demanded an end to colonialism in Africa and urged colonial subjects to use strikes and boycotts to end the continent’s social, economic, and political exploitation by colonial powers.

While previous Pan-African congresses had been controlled largely by black middle-class British and American intellectuals who had emphasized the amelioration of colonial conditions, the Manchester meeting was dominated by delegates from Africa and Africans working or studying in Britain. The new leadership attracted the support of workers, trade unionists, and a growing radical sector of the African student population. With fewer African American participants, delegates consisted mainly of an emerging crop of African intellectual and political leaders, who soon won fame, notoriety, and power in their various colonized countries.

The final declaration of the 1945 congress urged colonial and subject peoples of the world to unite and assert their rights to reject those seeking to control their destinies. Congress participants encouraged colonized Africans to elect their own governments, arguing that the gain of political power for colonial and subject peoples was a necessary prerequisite for complete social, economic, and political emancipation. This politically assertive stance was supported by a new generation of African American activists such as the actor and singer Paul Robeson, the minister and politician Adam Clayton Powell, and the educator and political activist William A. Hunton Jr. who took an increasing interest in Africa.

While the Pan-African congresses lacked financial and political power, they helped to increase international awareness of racism and colonialism and laid the foundation for the political independence of African nations. African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria, and Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya were among several attendees of congresses who subsequently led their countries to political independence. In May 1963, the influence of these men helped galvanize the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), an association of independent African states and nationalist groups.

[O Pastor]

Dando sequencia ao "Coração das Trevas"...

Falando em pan-africanismo, vale uma releitura sobre Marcus Garvey. Fundamental para se entender a luta universal da diáspora negra.

Recomendo este livro: "The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey, Or, Africa for the Africans"

[ external image ]

Marcus Mosiah Garvey
(1887-1940) leader of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, first African-American leader in American history to organize masses of people in a political movement

Garvey was born in Jamaica and immigrated to Harlem in 1916 at the age of 28. In his homeland he had been an admirer of Booker T. Washington's philosophy of self-improvement for people of African descent and had formed the Jamaica Improvement Association. When he arrived in America his ideas expanded and he became a Black Nationalist. For him, Africa was the ancestral home and spiritual base for all people of African descent. His political goal was to take Africa back from European domination and build a free and United Black Africa. He advocated the Back-to-Africa Movement and organized a shipping company called the Black Star Line which was part of his program to conduct international trade between black Africans and the rest of the world in order to "uplift the race" and eventually return to Africa.

Garvey studied all of the literature he could find on African history and culture and decided to launch the Universal Negro Improvement Association with the goal of unifying "all the Negro peoples of the world into one great body and to establish a country and government absolutely on their own". The motto of the U.N.I.A. was "One God! One Aim! One Destiny." The Negro World was the U.N.I.A. weekly newspaper founded in 1918. It was published in French and Spanish as well as English. In it African history and heroes were glorified.

The ranks of the U.N.I.A. were comprised of African "nobility" - knights of the Nile, dukes of the Niger and Uganda; knights of Ethiopia, duchesses, etc. Garvey himself was the "Provisional President of Africa" and he and the members of his empire paraded in elaborate military uniforms. Harlem loved parades and street ceremonies, and the U.N.I.A. gave the grandest. During their annual conventions, thousands of delgates from all over the United States, the Caribbean, Central America and Africa marched up and down the streets of Harlem with their banners, uniforms and colorfully decorated cars. Garvey travelled throughout the United States speaking and meeting with African-American leaders. In the post World War I economic crisis and with racial discrimination, lynching and poor housing, the masses of Black people were ready for a leader who was aggressive and had a plan to "uplift the race". The U.N.I.A. grew quickly. By 1919 there were over 30 branches throughout the United States, the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa. Garvey claimed over a milllion people had joined his organization in 3 years.

In nine years Garvey built the largest mass movement of people of African descent in this country's history. It began to fail after he was convicted of mail fraud and was deported from the U.S. The Black Star Line failed because of purported mismanagement and lack of sufficient funds. However, the U.N.I.A. still survives today and Garvey left a legacy of racial pride and identification with a glorious African heritage for African Americans.
http://www.marcusgarvey.net/Information/history.htm

[Mistar Gaga]

Eu li esse livro há uns 10 anos. Ele pode ser encontrado no formato pocket book em bancas de revista por 15 reais.