Cyril Lionel Robert James was a scholarly critic of colonialism and European imperialism; a pioneer of cultural studies now institutionalized in Western academies; a Pan-African revolutionary, and a Trotskyite theoretician. Born in Trinidad in 1901 James later became a schoolmaster and a mentor to the country’s first Prime Minister, the late Dr. Eric Williams. A History of Pan-African Revolt stands as a concise group of case studies chronologically arranged documenting notable black resistance and uprisings around the world, covering a tightly compressed, yet dense time frame of 180 years—the linchpin being the Haitian Revolution, all the way to the tumultuous postcolonial period. The author’s direct writing style and his astute awareness of international politics betrays his erudition. The prose is detached, though simultaneously embodies the fiery yearnings of a black revolutionary who adroitly chooses to remain tactful without ever giving in to affectivity. In general, the book is masterfully succinct and superbly crafted allowing James to cut straight to the chase, evading an unnecessarily broad-sweeping historicism that can get bogged down in behind-the-scene dynamics, minutiae, and obscure personalities. Another strength of the book lies in its ability to connect seemingly disparate events and piece them together like a jigsaw puzzle into a coherent, tangible explanation. For instance at the opening of the book with its discussion of the Haiti Revolution, C.L.R. James records the factors that contributed to the decline and eventual abandonment of slave labour, writing “[t]he British West Indian colonies were in comparison poor, and with the loss of America, were of diminished importance. The monopoly of the West Indian sugar planters galled the rising industrial bourgeoisie, potential free traders. Adam Smith and Arthur Young, economists of the coming industrial age, condemned the expensiveness of slave labor. India offered the example of a country where the laborer cost only a penny a day, did not have to be bought, and did not brand his master as a slave-owner (James 2012: 39). James’s methodology is not one characteristic of a “Marxist” theoretician, but a military strategist who bluntly pinpoints the fissures and weaknesses of black revolutionary movements from their inception to their subsequent gestation. From this standpoint, it is similar to the aims of the sociologist Chancellor Williams' book The Destruction of Black Civilization (1971), which identifies the precise cultural, economic and political factors responsible for the fall of formidable African empires, kingdoms, and states. Close attention is paid to the nature of the alliances formed by rebel leaders, the cause for their agitation, the role of religion in inciting rebellions and the disastrous roles both mechanical technology and geography played in precipitating successful counterinsurgencies on the part of the colonial authorities. A revealing analysis appears in Chapter 2 “The Old United States” where James gives a short account of a foiled 1795 Louisiana revolt that came about in part due to the humanitarianism of the rebellious slaves who saw Frenchmen, Methodists, Quakers and poor whites as co-equal fellow humans, instead of enemies. As a consequence, the rebel leader “Gabriel was captured, tried and executed. It is not known how many Negroes were concerned, but the numbers suggested varied between 2,000 and 10,000 (James 2012: 53).
Ironically though, despite the term “Pan-African” in the book’s title, the author only uses it once in the epilogue to the 1969 edition. This raises serious questions about the decision to alter the original name “A History of Negro Revolt” as it had been published in 1938, the socio-historical circumstances that influenced that change and lastly the very meaning of the term, now loosely used to designate someone dedicated to the notion “Africa for the Africans” with a noticeable capitalist orientation. To the contrary, Pan-Africanism has a historical specificity in the context of the epilogue, the book’s last chapter written to review all the major black revolutionary uprisings covering the period 1939-1969. James quite plainly in the third paragraph states, ‘I wish my readers to understand the history of Pan-African Revolt during the last thirty years” (James 2012: 108). Throughout the text, he uses the following terms interchangeably to designate blacks: coloured, negro, black and African. In opting for the word “Pan-African” the publishers chose to collectivize black resistance around the world, despite the fact that the movements in question were for the most part not internationally oriented, but locally confined and isolated from one another with distinct causes and aims. Any truly Pan-African movement in earnest can only be pinpointed at the turn of the twentieth century beginning in the year 1900 when Henry Sylvester Williams a Trinidadian barrister organized the first ever Pan-African Congress in Britain. The historian’s job is to approach history and its reconstruction on a specific basis, placing emphasis on context and the probability of an event’s unfolding using concrete evidence, especially documentary records. By resorting to a collectivist label, Pan-African throws all matters black in the spirit of insurrection under one, nebulous category that lacks distinctiveness and specificity. Correctly, Pan-Africanism is an organized mass revolutionary movement spurred by the precepts of socialism that has at its aim, opposition against and the destruction of colonialism, imperialism and racism so as to allow self-determination and independence amongst all blacks around the world. Ideologically, Pan-Africanism stood in defiance against the capitalist West, which had historically used capitalism to expropriate labor, land, and vast natural resources from Africans on the continent, North, Central and South America, as well as the West Indies. Hence, I am skeptical about the employment of the term in the title, but also its mis-use and abuse amongst African-Americans in the United States.
Contrary to the popular belief that the movement was born “in the womb of Africa” it was conceptualized in its formal, organized form in the Diaspora, specifically by three Trinidadians: H. Williams, C.L.R. James, and George Padmore, his childhood friend, who later guided and advised Ghana’s first Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972). It is safe to say that without the leadership and vision of Henry Sylvester Williams, the Organization of African Unity established on May 25, 1963 in Ethiopia and the African Union, which later followed would not have materialized as it did. Notwithstanding his paramount importance, Williams is but a faint memory, mentioned sparingly in obscure academic publications and largely unknown in his country of birth. As the Hungarian researcher Marika Sherwood rightfully puts it, “he has been heretofore virtually written out of history….” All the more is the pity.
Once the term transplanted itself in North America and found a willing, attentive audience in the civil rights activists and black nationalists of the 1960s and 1970s, the original meaning of the term got displaced and repurposed to suit the aims, desires and cultural character of the American black struggle. Unsurprisingly, the first thing to change in James text was the title to engender the revolutionary fervor and zeitgeist of the Civil Movement, together with that of Black Power. Around this period the word negro gained social disfavor amongst the black population and quickly fell into disuse. Malcolm X had popularized the term “black,” which historically had been deemed offensive in association with idea of evil, corruption, the absence of light, and ugliness. It is interesting to note that in Chinese culture, black represents wealth and power. In retrospect the name change from The History of Negro Revolt to The History of Pan-African Revolt is a sharp indicator of deep insecurity and malaise blacks in America feel toward their racial identity. Present day, Pan-Africanism, insofar as an abstract philosophy, has taken a rightward turn in the attempt to reconcile capitalism with left-wing, revolutionary organization, or in other respects, connotative of grand opportunism personified by red, black and green hustlers who speak abstractly about a supposed return to the mother continent, without having a concrete, viable plan, a final destination, much less a genuine affinity with African cultures on the continent. C.L.R James in chapter 5 actually criticizes Marcus Garvey for exploiting the infantile mentality of blacks in America. When assessing the goal of Marcus Garvey’s “Back to Africa” program, the author candidly opines, “it was pitiable rubbish, but the Negroes wanted a leader and they took the first that was offered them. Furthermore, desperate men often hear, not the actual words of an orator but their own thoughts” (James 2012: 92). Furthermore, James observes that Garvey exploited the post-war economic boom when black soldiers who had fought valiantly in World War Two returned home with money. Many followers naively sold their valuable possessions to bankroll the Garvey movement through the Universal Negro Improvement Association (U.N.I.A). Thus, it is easy to see where the self-anointed Garveyite, “Prince of Pan-Africanism” Umar Johnson got his hustling cues from and the apple has not fallen far from the tree. Quite tellingly, he never once talks about the Trinidadian progenitors of Pan-Africanism, reserving all the credits to W.E.B. duBois who was handed over the torch, after the passing of Henry Sylvester Williams. It is a great error of C.L.R. James to have made no passing reference or honorable mention of the movement’s progenitor and pioneer. Other noticeable omissions include his failure to acknowledge the significant Jewish support and funding of Civil Rights organizations, namely the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. While recognizing the limitations of the book at the outset, it is a great pity the author could not elaborate further on the Berbice slave uprising in Dutch Guyana (February 23, 1763-1764). It was an Ashanti rebellion led by a slave called Cuffy who defeated the Dutch, took control of the colony and astoundingly established if only briefly an Ashanti government away from Africa in the Americas. This took place well before the Haitian Revolution and it should in light of the abundant historical literature on the subject be given more acknowledgment. How ironic that such disregard for the unvarnished truth of history, the intentionality and spirit of Pan-Africanism is practiced carelessly by blacks themselves, not whites as assumed. In the epilogue, James's prognostication on a violent end to the Apartheid regime in South Africa proved to be false. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission established in 1996 helped facilitate the needed transition to "democracy." Political power was peacefully handed over to the African National Congress in 1994. Apart from that, a possible contradiction in C.L.R. James's argument is his understanding of the movement in Ghana for self-rule, which started off as an organized boycott on European imported goods. Since the boycott was organized by the local elites, specifically the chiefs, this movement does not qualify truly as a grassroots or working class movement. James in the text is insistent on black uprisings being in character mass movements directed from below and the inclusion of Ghana's situation without careful thought for his own position seems like a premature departure.
In closing the original portion of the book is the most informative as well as the most satisfying because the epilogue represents not the fully-evolved views of the author, but instead, his growing disillusionment with the ideals of Pan-Africanism following the rapid attainment of independence by many African states, in addition to the disconcerting unfamiliarity or abandonment of African systems and values exhibited by both nationalist leaders, who were educated in the West and their people. Although C.L.R. James pays homage to women revolutionaries, his entry on Harriet Tubman is given a cursory treatment. Never is it mentioned in the text that in addition to being a formidable spy for the Union army, Tubman also had advocated the rights of women, woman suffrage, and the equality of all people, regardless of ethnicity, gender or race (Cole 2016). Her military campaigns and activism thus cannot be deemed Pan-African, but cosmopolitan in political terms. Such noteworthy examples in the text do not serve to bolster the argumentative claims of the text; on the contrary, to undermine it, leaving the term Pan-Africanism devoid of any intrinsic objective meaning and hanging suspended in mid-air awaiting someone to fill in the void. Without a doubt, much work needs to go into rehabilitating Pan-Africanism and its overlooked formative history since overtime it has been bastardized, misconstrued to mean something it is not and applied to loosely. This much is clear. What remains to be seen is the initiative to reverse the present trend.