Black History Month: The Lesson We have Missed

We are now in the middle of celebrating another Black History Month, and again the failures and achievements of the black struggle are discussed and debated in almost all arenas. These debates are waged between people some describe as Traditionalists, Fence-Sitters and Dissenters. However, despite these debates and the category one may be placed in, have we neglected an important lesson that for years has been staring us in the face? I believe we have.

 One aspect of the black experience that is certain to capture the center of these discussions is the black religion, or more correctly, the black church. One is certain to hear the statement, “Religion has always been a part of Black life in both Africa and the U.S” (Karenga, 1993), made constantly. This statement is something of a mantra used by many people of color as they defend the continuing need for religion as a viable institution in the Black community. Indeed, as one looks back through antiquity, the many uncertainties that plagued our ancestors explained why God and what became known as religion may have been needed. Thus, in this context, God and religion seem, as supported by a huge body of evidence, to have been created by early humans in an attempt to calm their fears.

The statement that religion has always been a part of the black experience both personally and collectively is indeed a true one. Not only to black life in Africa and the United States, but also to black life in Central and South America and the Caribbean.

In this essay, however, I am not interested in religion as a personal influence. I believe that every individual has his or her right to worship whomever or whatever he or she wants, and for their rights I will certainly defend. My concern here lies in religion as an institution, around which people collectively form their identity. This I believe is harmful to the collective harmony of a society, since a society may not be homogenous in all respects.

Nowhere else has a people’s identity been more tied to religion than in the black world?  In the United States, for example, “92% of African Americans identified themselves as Christians” – (Hutchinson, 2011). Of course, there are the Afro-centrists who identify with the many Traditional African Religions, the black Islamists, i.e. the Nation of Islam, the Moorish Science Temple, etc. This level of religious adherents is also true for the Caribbean region. Grenada’s population is identified as being 98% Christian, for example.  In the black world, theism can be found in all forms, and not accepting one sadly places an individual in the absurd category of race traitor.

Moreover, apart from arguing that religion has always been a part of the black experience, another reason given for its continuing need is its claimed use as a tool against oppression. From the African continent to the Americas our ancestors engaged in struggles against the European colonizers, and in their struggles, religion certainly played a role. In Haiti, for instance, the Vodoun religion played a significant part in the Haitians’ struggle for freedom. The Black Church in the United States also played a significant role in the struggles of African Americans against white discrimination. Here, however, is what I think is worthy to note, neither religion itself nor its God/gods or deities were responsible for the success in these human struggles. Instead, these religions simple provided a safe space and community from which revolutionaries were protected as they carryout their work. The fact is, “It was the human being who did the work,” (Lewis, 2012). 

With this understanding, I believe that throughout the continuing struggle for black liberation, self-identity, sociopolitical and socioeconomic equality, we, the black population, has missed a noteworthy lesson. This lesson, despite being virtually ignored, has been significant to the success of the black struggle.

To elucidate what I am talking about here, I am pointing to the Marcus Garvey Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), as a case in point. The UNIA I believe presents us with an obvious, and maybe the best, picture of my argument. No, I am not asking that we create today a UNIA type organization. There is I believe no real benefit to racially homogeneous type organization in a multicultural world. We are living in a global village, where we are interconnected in diverse ways. However, I am arguing that there is an intrinsic feature to the movement that allowed it to achieve the successes it did; the largest mass movement in African history. Indeed, “the Universal Negro Improvement Association was the greatest and strongest movement ever started among Negroes” (UCLA African Studies Center).

Even though Marcus Garvey was, to all accounts, a religious (Christian) man, and placed his liberation philosophy within a god-based theistic framework, adopting the motto "One God! One Aim! One Destiny!” the movement itself embodied a feature of secularism. In that I mean, Marcus Garvey, unlike the leaders of the many black movements that followed, did not promote his movement as a religion. Marcus Garvey is recorded as saying that he had “no time to teach religion” (UCLA African Studies Center). In fact, the defeat of the UNIA’s Muslims members in 1922 and its Christians members in 1924 from trying to make Islam and Christianity the official religions of the movement speaks to the intent of building a movement that embodied a secular characteristic. Despite Garvey’s assertion that black people should view God as being black, the UNIA members did not have to drop their religion to become a member. As Garvey said, “our God has no color, yet it is human to see everything through one’s own spectacles,” (Garvey, 1986).

There is no doubt that the massive growth and success of the UNIA, despite how short lived it may have been, was a result of its secular nature. If one surveys the black experience after the UNIA, we will notice that all the liberation movements that followed, failed to eclipse the UNIA although possessing almost the very same philosophy and goals; for example, Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam (NOI), Noble Drew Ali and the Moorish Science Temple of America, Dr. Malachi Z York El and the Nuwaubian nation, and even the Black Churches that feature Liberation Theology as their manifesto. The problem here is certainly religion/theism as an identity for the community.

As I have mention before, we are a diverse group of people. This truth cannot be denied. Thus, designing a community/society with a specific religious ideology as its identity, be it Euro-centric or Afro-centric is unhealthy for us and the world in general. Indeed, many of us are believers, but some of us are not. Some of us are heterosexuals; some of us are not, and list of diversities goes on. We are certainly “at the crossroads of freedom and equality.” As a result, I ask that as we reminisce on our pass struggles, achievements, and debate on how we should move forward, remember that an unprejudiced society that embraces and accommodates all human beings, regardless of sexual orientation, religious belief, non-belief, color, sex, etc, is most certainly the best recipe for success, and only a secular humanist society can, I believe, accommodate such a vision. This, I believe, is the lesson we have missed.

Happy Black History Month!   

Questions Are Not Welcome

I was in a conversation with some of my friends last week, and I was told to remember that the “devil was very knowledgeable.” I was taken aback by this statement as I had no idea what the devil having knowledge had to do with the conversation at hand. As a skeptical person, however, I was curious. How did they know this statement to be true? But understanding that my friends are believers, and were only reiterating their religious beliefs as opposed to stating objective truth, I was more so interested in understanding why did they make this statement, in the first place. Interestingly, and with some level of expectation, my inquiry into the meaning of the statement was not met. As a result, I decided to present an explanation, on this forum, as to what I understand this statement to mean, and why I believe my friends opt for its use.

This proclamation, as I have experienced, seems to be no stranger to the Grenadian thought process. It is an assertion that will most likely raise its ugly head during most discussions on religion and faith. It is normally thrown around with no explanation, which seems to be a tactic used for psychological effect. Of course, the assumption is that the participants, in the conversation, are or were believers and understand the meaning and context.

But, is there a specific time in a discussion one can expect this declaration to surface? The answer is yes. In my experiences, it will suddenly come up when one begins asking probing questions into the religious beliefs of the believers. That's the time when the believers find it difficult to demonstrate their claims to be true, and for this reason, I conclude that the proclamation is designed to do these things:

1. To guilt the person asking the questions into thinking that he or she is somehow morphing into an agent of the devil.
2. It is used in hope to ignite fear into the person asking the probing questions to stop questioning.

The first point is very important because through it the second point can be achieved.. Of course, the assumption here is not that the person is literally becoming the devil. Instead, the belief is that the person, by questioning the belief, he or she is displaying, characteristics normative to the devil’s. This is a concept that appears to have been derived from the Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity & Islam – mythic stories. Not unlike where the reasoning behind the concept of “original sin” came from. Eve convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple.

According to the myth, the devil, known as Haylal (The Cresent/Lucifer) bar Shakhar (Dawn/Morning) – Lucifer Son of the Dawn/Morning – aka Sammay’el (Samuel), was one of the many heavenly angels. He had possessed great levels of knowledge, and because of his vast intellect, he rose to number three in his order, behind Angel Miyka’el (Michael) and Angel Gabriy’el (Gabriel). As a result of acquiring such great knowledge, his ego also bloomed. He became arrogant and wanted to rule the spiritual (Heaven) and earthly realms, and even going as far as to question the authenticity of God (El) himself. According to the myth, Samuel made claims that the existence of a supreme ruler of heaven and earth was a fabrication made up by the top angels to keep their control. With that, he was evicted from heaven, but not before corrupting 200 other angels, who were also cast out with him. Hence the name Sammay’el, which means “poison those of El”.  Another name he was given because of his rebellious nature was Ibliys, which means “rebellious one.” 

This story is without a doubt mythology, which seems to have entered the Judaic (and thus Christianity and Islam) narrative from the ancient Canaanite myth, which tells of a minor god Haylal (Halel) trying to dethrone the supreme god El. Indeed, this story shows that the devil became such not only because of his challenge to ruler, but became of his skepticism and his decision to challenge the status quo. Hence the connection between knowledge and the devil. The smarter you get, the closer to the devil you become because you are more likely to start asking questionings.

This mythical story no doubt also influenced the theology set in motion by  people like Thomas Aquinas, for instance. These are the stories from which their theologies are based. Aquinas argued for the assent to God via faith only. He argued that faith supersedes human reasoning and intellect. Why, because you can become like the devil by employing the intellect and reason. In other words you will be following your own reasoning and not God's will. Aquinas argued that faith (blind faith) is better than reason, and asserted that blind faith – Christian faith – which is to be accepted without question, is a far more virtuous action, than using the intellect or reason. Thus, apart from these two points mentioned above, it is safe to say that another goal of this declaration, which I believe is not deliberate, is its ability to kill intellectual curiosity, and herein my concerns rest.

In looking at Aquinas’ discussion of the ethics of belief, George H. Smith writes that “by attributing unbelief (which is a position attributed to the use of reason and intellect) to a sinful will, Aquinas stacked the cards against reason by assigning to faith a superior moral status.” (Smith, 2000)

“To believe requires choice – an act of will – so to believe in God requires the voluntary assent of faith (blind faith), which is a meritorious act. Christian belief is praise worthy because it requires that we give our voluntary assent to doctrines that we cannot prove and, in some case, that we cannot even comprehend”. (Smith, 2000)

I certainly do not believe my friends were saying that I should kill my intellectual inquisitiveness. I suspect that they too use reason in other aspects of their lives. However, what they were certainly telling me is that when it comes to God, I should blindly accept their position. However, despite their naiveté, by making this declaration, they are unknowingly supporting, and promoting a view that can, and certainly does quell intellectual curiosity.

The statement may have had no effect on me. Imagine, however, the psychological effects on young Grenadians – most who are likely to be from the Christian faith themselves. Young people whose psyches have already been trapped by religious dogmatic teachings of fair. The fear of becoming like the devil. The fear of being thrown into hell by a all powerful God, for asking some lousy questions. How can these young people exercise their natural reasoning, and intellectual abilities in such an atmosphere where bogeymen runs rampant? This fear of questioning, despite being placed in a religious context, will no doubt overlap into all other aspects of their lives, and as a former teacher, the hesitation and/or fear exhibited by many of our students to ask questions, I believe, has a direct relation to this irrational thought process.

No doubt, the Hayal story above, despite being a myth, may speak some truth to reality. In that I mean, some people's egos become enlarged as their education level grows. They become full with pride; our political systems seems to be populated with such individuals. However, we should encourage our people to question any and everything. Not blindly succumb to accepted norms. Questioning is one of the most important steps we can take in our endeavor to acquire knowledge, and in doing so, religion should not be guarded from being placed on the witness stand. Moreover, remember that equating the acquiring of knowledge with that of being evil is an absurd and dangerous declaration that kills the mind. This is an action that will, no doubt, encourage the growth of irrational thinking. Something we don’t need.