Black Star: African American Activism in the International Political Economy

Conclusion

Conclusion The diaspora concept has been used successfully in cultural and historical research. One purpose of this study has been to determine if the diaspora concept is applicable in political economy studies of transnational politics, particularly by African diaspora activists. Gabriel Sheffer et al., J. A. Armstrong, and Ron Walters have looked at its applicability to political science .1 The study edited by Sheffer included a useful political science definition of a diaspora and structural inputs for the development of a workable paradigm. Diaspora networks, according to Sheffer and Walters, can influence international politics. Though many of the findings demonstrating the applicability of the concept to political science studies are instructive, it has not been incorporated into the approaches used in the political science discipline . This rejection may be due in part to the variability in the characteristics and capabilities of these networks; diasporas can be categorized into at least two types. A classic diaspora is firmly established in most of its host countries . This type of network was created in ancient and medieval eras, and over centuries, émigrés honed skills and political acumen useful to keeping their diasporas alive. These émigrés had saleable skills wanted in the host countries that were developing into modern states; they created institutions that connected them to government officials and to the economy. These amenable ties helped the classic diaspora to acquire some wealth and form mutually beneficial relationships with host governments. In such an atmosphere, the diaspora can nourish its own community and culture, and it can divert resources and time to the homeland and to sister diaspora communities. The émigrés of liminal diasporas, on the other hand, were formed in modern times, usually during the colonial era. These émigrés may have skills beyond manual labor but not ones in demand in industrialized countries. Or they may be culturally or racially incompatible with the ethnic groups of the host countries. Under these conditions, they do not acquire sufficient wealth or form mutually beneficial relations with the host countries. They are therefore marginalized in economic and political relations. Another concern with the liminal diaspora concept may be that the fragile links and activities in these networks are so subtle that political scientists dismiss the triad network of diaspora, host, and homeland as irrelevant to international political economy issues. For instance, the intricate connections of black activists across countries seem to remain beyond the detection of students of international political economy and other political scientists. Sheffer’s doubt about the actuality of an African diaspora makes this point. One reason may be the ephemeral character of liminal diasporas’ political activity, possibly due to scarce resources that temper their ability to sustain political activity. It also has been suggested that the lack of direct cultural linkages limit the African diaspora’s possibilities. Yet through Edmondson’s work, we know that members of the African diaspora have served as effective lobbyists for Africa and were involved in the liberation movements of African states. Many of Sheffer’s conclusions are persuasive, however, and they proved useful in helping me build a model for empirical study of transnational politics of black activists distributed throughout the black Atlantic. To minimize the obstacles to discerning diaspora political activity, I modified the model by conjoining it with an institutionalist political economy approach. This modification allowed me to probe all institutions used in activism looking for the political and economic strategies and resources employed. As such, it becomes a model that strengthens Sheffer’s, magnifying what might seem to be peripheral political and economic activity for examination. The political economy approach as demonstrated by Woo-Cumings helped me identify the motivations behind the choices and reactions of the actors.2 This is because the political economy itself formed the circumstances that the actors had to consider in pursuit of their goals. The Black Star Line was possible because of the transformation of the American economy from agrarian to industrial. Black people from the American South and the Caribbean earned considerably more than had been possible in earlier economic eras. Some had cash income for the first time. A significant number among them 178 . conclusion chose to use some of their newfound income to invest in a better economic future for the race. This goal underscores a key motivating factor for activism within the diaspora: its concerns with survival of the race. I decided that a case study...