Careless and Worthless: Please do not argue that slavery was good for me.

Last weekend, a Jamaican columnist, Michael Wignall, wrote an article in The Observer newspaper entitled, "Slavery was good for the black man" (see report). I tend to shy away from terms like disgusting when I refer to people's opinions, but this article warrants that term. It is riddled with so much ignorance as to be mind-boggling. It has such a reverence for Europe and things European that I had to wonder if it was really the work of some European racist group. I am not going to conduct a deep analysis of the contents of the article, but repeat one of the aspects that I find warrant the term disgust:

"When the Europeans went to Africa to buy slaves, what did they find? They found a society and people vastly inferior to theirs. While the Europeans had emerged from their feudal practices, our ancestors in Africa, for the most part, had not developed for many centuries. We did not understand the concept of nation or government. Science and technology (and innovations in these areas) were non-existent in black Africa of the 15th and 16th centuries. Indeed, as a people, we had no sense of self-identity. In many respects, we were uncivilised. Slavery was our most important contact with modernity."

The newspaper printed one rebuttal, a reasoned and informed letter from Dr. Marcia Sutherland, of New York's University of Albany, entitled "Africa is the cradle of humanity. Dingwall needs to learn history" (see link). This, at least, corrected some of the glaring numbskullery of the Dingwall article. One extract from her response says most of what is needed:

"Africans have made great contributions to the earth's history in the last two billion years. Africans illuminated the ancient world for thousands of years along the Nile from its Ugandan sources to its Mediterranean delta. Africans navigated the great waterways of the world long before Columbus. Africans were familiar with literature, art, philosophy, science and mathematics for centuries before their contact with the West and with other peoples."

A host of Internet commentary has flowed over the past week, virtually all of it condemning Dingwall's piece and his lack of knowledge about Africa's history, geography, scientific, social and economic relevance. A search for "Dingwall" and "Jamaica" will lead you to most of them.

What has really troubled me since I came across the Dingwall article, which got some choice commentary from one of the radio programs in Jamaica, is to wonder about a newspaper's role and objectives, and in particular why the Observer printed the article. Most respected newspapers are normally very circumspect when it comes to publishing opinions that are patently based on lots of falsehoods, especially if they are also likely to find a hostile and negative reaction from many of its readers. Of course, newspapers will take on something sensational because it will raise circulation. That said, I was amazed that the Observer appeared to run this column without commentary. (I read the material online so did not see a print version, but a search of the electronic version of the paper turned up no results indicating that the newspaper made any comment.) So, the paper has in some sense given the article its endorsement and left it to others to object. Why would they do that? I have no answer, but have some uncomfortable suspicions. I will ponder that question for a long time.

I am not a history scholar, as far as Africa is concerned. However, I have lived and worked on the continent, and had the chance to discuss with different Africans aspects of their own culture and history--much of this has been passed down through oral and some written forms for centuries and is well known and understood in the various areas. I always impress on people that the continent is not a homogeneous mass, and has an enormous range of geography, and also has history, social and economic characteristics that is not well known outside the continent. From the north (Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt), through the east (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania), the centre (Congo), south (South Africa, Swaziland), and west (Ghana, Mali, Senegal, Nigeria, Guinea), Africa has for centuries had a significant place in world development. The continent went through huge social, political and economic interventions when Europeans decided to take hold of lands and people, and to deal with them as their own property, and rarely on favourable terms, even carving up the lands into new administrative and political units that did not respect centuries old divisions, and consequently set up centuries of struggle and discord.

A dingbat is term used for a nitwit. Mr. Dingwall would on a nice day fit the term dingbat. I hope that he takes the time to learn about his subject matter before he dares put his words out to the public again. The Observer should hang its head in shame for giving space to such an article, and ignorance is no defence. If its management and editors do not understand the problem then perhaps they should reconsider if they are really running a serious newspaper.

One people?

My eldest daughter is on one of her periodic visits to Jamaica; the last time she was there was four years ago. She's now of age so can do as she wishes; she's still a student so very little free money is flowing into her pockets and trips like this "have to be paid for" by one or other parental unit. Her visit allows me to focus on a few points that cross over the region but are raging a little in Barbados, if I read the papers correctly from my temporary Jamaican outpost.

My first wife was/is a white Englishwoman. I am black. My daughter is clearly biracial. Her skin colour could be described as very red, in Caribbean terms: very pale but with a hue that indicates there is black blood in the genes. She has ginger hair. She identifies with both of her parents' origins, but is also a product of north America's white suburbs, having lived there for most of her 20-plus years. But she loves to visit England and Jamaica and try to boost those parts of her culture. She does not shirk the black side of her genes, but often has to walk in that strange world of "otherness", as she puts it, because people want to label her as "black" or "white". I thought of her straddling that line when I read some recent commentary concerning Emancipation celebrations.

The origins of the current discussion appear to be words used by Barbados' Minister of Culture, Steve Blackett, to articulate an interesting thesis: Emancipation celebrations in Barbados are for everyone, not simply people of colour (see Nation report): "Sometimes we forget that our two major ethnic groups – Africans and British – first arrived on the same ship." [I'm not going to tell the Minister that African and British are not ethnic groups.] I would not have chosen to use those words as the basis for putting race and colour on a different footing for the celebrations, including Crop Over. His words give the impression that there was some original degree of equal status for blacks and whites in Barbados (which is what I think he is focussing on), and for that impression he is understandably being taken to task.

During the original trans-Atlantic voyages we know that the black slaves were transported in intolerable and inhuman conditions and that as slaves that treatment continued for centuries, both at the hands of white masters. We also know that some of those white Europeans who came the the Caribbean as early settlers were people of wealth and status. Many of the other white Europeans who came to these islands on slave ships or by other means were to be overseers and merchants and obviously were not treated in any way as intolerably as the black slaves. Those white Europeans who were transported here as indentured labour had a status far superior to that of the black slave. So let's not run far with any idea that there was some equality at the outset or even for some very long time after. Since Emancipation, the inequalities could be reduced and to a large extent were, and continued to be reduced since Independence. In most Caribbean countries these inequalities are now greatly reduced, though not completely eliminated everywhere.

There is no question that Emancipation was about the monumental movement of the black man and woman from slavery to freedom in what was then the British Empire. As such, it should be a day of joy and celebration specifically based around that fact. That liberation of black people took place over 170 years ago.

But here's the rub in the modern-day Caribbean and even further afield in the UK, Canada and the USA. There are many people who can claim their origins in whole and in part from those original black slaves or from those early white settlers, or from a mixture of both at some stage since the 15th and 16th century. So it can be difficult to say that a certain group who may be identified as much paler than most of the rest don't have a place in the celebrations. Very few of the people I know in the region can claim to be wholly of black African or white European stock. Many are viewed as black and have some clear white European traces (paler skin, straighter hair, tinges of red or blond in their hair, traces of lightness in their eye colours, etc.) [As a Jamaican, I should extend the term "European" to include Lebanese and Chinese, and many will know the origins of most of our prime ministers being from families with mixed white and black origins, most famously the Manleys.] Even if they cannot trace their family roots back beyond 1834, many if not most of these people will identify strongly if not completely with the notion of Emancipation being a celebration of some of their black ancestors' liberation from slavery.

Those in the region who can claim that their heritage is 100 percent white European are few. That limitation in numbers does not make them insignificant because significant privileges that were there hundreds of years ago enabled the families concerned to gain wealth and status and power, and that is often still evident today. So, there may be Caribbean whites who represent part of some economic and perhaps social elite, and have that status because of some historical privileges. I would not wish to say how they should view Emancipation and its later celebrations. Depending on how far back their origins go, some may be the offspring of plantation owneres and remain embittered that the wealth that the plantations once had was destroyed by Emancipation, and despite other economic changes thing were never the same again. Some may have origins that are post-Emancipation (say some of the offsprings of indentured labour) and have fewer if any real economic or social privileges that were as a result of their colour. They may have no real historical basis for resenting Emancipation. They may see its celebration as something for black people but may also not see any problem in their celebrating too.

Would blacks welcome the inclusion of whites in Emancipation celebrations? I guess a lot depends on how those two groups have really co-existed. Jamaica's national motto "Out of many, one people" is to me closer to the truth as most people in this island feel it. Biracialism is a very evident fact in Jamaica as seems to give less ground on which to beat a black or white drum. But I wonder about Barbados. I see enough Bajans who clearly look biracial but I feel that racial divisions are still acute and there is no or little sense that people want to see black and white Bajans (however they are distinguished) as one.

Barbados' current prime minister, David Thompson (see picture), has clear biracial origins and they are well known. He may be viewed as a black man in Barbados and wherever he goes, but he is straddling that world of "otherness". He clearly sees himself as a Bajan and has had no problem identifying with Emancipation celebrations as a black man. His own origins may be one of the factors playing out in his urging Barbadians "to enhance their true African history and their 'true Barbadian culture'". The country's origins and history have been clearly multiracial.

When I watched the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics this morning, the notion of racial co-existence naturally came into my mind as I saw the 200 or so countries parade their various racial or colour differences, or lack of them. The Jamaican commentator tried to explain why the team from Kyrgystan looked the way they did--Asian features--but struggled as he could only say they "look Chinese or Japanese"; that covered most of Asia as he knew it and would do, no offence meant. I saw the Caribbean islands' teams parading. For the most part, dark-skinned, but with many white or lighter skin tones. Then I saw the UK and Canadian teams, mainly white but now sporting a good smattering of dark faces and different ethnic traits, and the commentator made references such as "including ... born in Mandeville, Jamaica ...". The Canadian team had notables groups within such as the band of Canadian Sikhs who were dressed in the red and white uniforms, and sported their red turbans. Racial and colour differences have started to merge in a good number of places where the British used to rule; a similar development has also become evident in France and elsewhere in Europe. I thought of the USA and its presidential candidate, Barack Obama, another biracial child, who may have to deal with convincing his white compatriots that he, a black man, can deal with their problems on non-racial lines.

It seems that in Barbados the bridge between racial difference has barely begun to be built. Perhaps there's something there that I don't understand, which runs deep but is barely under the surface--if those metaphors can be mixed.

Emancipation Day

All of us who are the descendants of African slaves in the former British Empire should remember August 1, as the day when our ancestors were legally liberated with the abolition of slavery. (This really occurred in 1838 (not 1834, as cited by sources like Wikipedia). Parliament gave liberation in two stages: slaves became "apprentices" in 1834 but were obligated to work full-time for their masters without pay, for six years, which was shortened to four after extensive strikes, marches and demonstrations in the Caribbean.)

The history of Europe's slave trade with Africa is complex and very emotional. For a very good lesson on all that slavery entailed and the struggle for its abolition, I recommend Bury the Chains, by Adam Hochschild (see review). It is particularly illuminating on the role of the British MP, William Wilberforce, whose name is most closely associated with the abolition. He was indeed the politician who guided the laws through the British Parliament. However, according to Hochschild's account, he was not the prime mover in this process. That credit should go to amongst others Thomas Clarkson, who was a tireless organizer and searcher of information against the slave trade. Clarkson was belated acknowledged in 1996 for his role with a plaque in his honour in Westminster Abbey, somewhat less than the statue of Wilberforce, which was erected in the 1840s! Another main player was John Newton (who also wrote the song "Amazing Grace"). The Quaker movement also should get their share of the credit.

The latest twist in the emotions is discussion of reparations for the descendants. I wont discuss that topic today. But in thinking about it, I will ponder the role of the Anglican Church, which was one of the prime plantation and slave owners in the Caribbean (in Barbados, the Codrington estate in the east was a very good example). I will also ponder the role of Africans, who were indeed the important element of the supply of slaves.

What is the origin of Bim?

Many Bajans whom I asked over the past few days cannot tell me why the nickname for Barbados is "Bim". A quick search around the Internet indicates that it's a left over from the long connection with England, where Barbados was named "Bimshire" or Bim for short. I don't know if that is quaint or is really an insult. I can understand the shortening of this conjured English county name, by why the original name? The next best explanation I found refers to the fact that in 1942, Frank Collymore founded the literary magazine, Bim, which gave generations of writers an outlet for their poetry, short stories and literary criticism. In that context, it was argued that Bim was the nickname given to the planters by their slaves.

As happens with Internet searches go, the connections keep rolling on. A further search pulled up a reason why the name Bimshire has gained more recent prominence, being the not so fictional setting for a book written by Austin Clarke, The Polished Hoe (see one very good review and interview in January magazine). Born on Barbados in 1934, Clarke has lived in Canada for most of the last 46 years. Interestingly, with the assistance of the Central Bank of Barbados and the Canadian High Commission in Barbados, the play had a short tour in Barbados recently at the Frank Collymore Hall and was one of the most moving productions I have ever seen.

The Polished Hoe is set in the 1940s and is about the unfolding confession of Mary-Mathilda, one long night. She unburdens herself to the local police, and eventually explains how the polished hoe allows her to expunge her bitter memories. She was a young black girl when her mother (who had grown up in slavery) had given her to a powerful white man, Mr. Bellfeels, to be his mistress. Mary-Mathilda later became the mother of his only son, named Wilberforce. I won't spoil the rest of the story. The story brings back fully some of the mental and physical burdens that were part of the slave tradition, and many of which still have a powerful hold. So evocative that one of the actors said after the permiere performance in Barbados that he was left shaken for several hours after each performance.

I'll press on with my searching as I'm still unclear about the real origins of Bimshire, and which part of its origins are still alive and kicking.

Marina: a true Caribbean.

Marina Taitt is the office manager for the Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Centre. We had a fascinating conversation over lunch about reparations for slavery. During the conversation we branched into searching for ancestors and how difficult that is for black people in the Caribbean. Marina spent over 20 years in Jamaica, including time in Islington, in the parish of St. Mary. This happens to be close to the area where my father comes from. She reminisced briefly about planting peas and enjoying a short spell of agricultural life there, not wanting to leave.

Marina's background is also typically Caribbean. She was born in Guyana, is of mixed heritage of East Indian, Portuguese, and African. Her paternal grandfather, Jabez Taitt, moved from Barbados to Guyana in around 1920 to do his internship at a hospital in Guyana, because Barbados would not train nonwhite doctors; he never looked back. Her parents moved back to Barbados in the 1970s, thus completing the circle! Marina has tried to find out more about her Caribbean ancestors before her grandfather, but records in Barbados (affectionately called "Bim" by many) apparently don't go back to 1895, when he was born. Her grandfather had told Marina that his mother or grandmother was a slave on the Cave Hill plantation in Barbados, but Marina cannot confirm that. Marina's paternal grandmother, was Dorothy Pendleton, a white Guyanese-Portuguese who married Jabez in the 1920s. Marina's maternal grandmother was the daughter of an East Indian merchant from a rice-growing family, named Sawh, from somewhere in India, which disowned her for marry a man of African descent, her grandmother's parents had migrated from India to Guyana.

Marina has a great love of the Caribbean arts and culture. Her love for theatre led her to the Jamaica School of Drama at a time (1979) when some of the region’s most outstanding practitioners were teaching there, and she studied for the Diplomas in Theatre Arts and Theatre-in-Education. She developed a cultural sense of the region as a whole. She soon discovered that it was not easy to find research and reference materials on topics related to regional cultural development, without travelling around the region and collecting the information "out there". Marina wanted to find a way to collect information which was scattered, often unpublished/unseen and only partially recorded, and put it in a place where it could be easily accessed. So she developed http://www.caribarts.org/ as a way to do that: it's a true online "home" for Caribbean artists, a developing repository of information on our cultural traditions, which provides coverage of contemporary developments in Caribbean arts. It's a bold and dignified presentation of Caribbean lives and cultures, making a serious attempt to document cultural realities.

Marina is another modern day griot, online! She got a private grant in 2003 to design and post the full site online, and after a year of work a greatly expanded version of the site went live with the information databases she had been building. Today, she continues to expand the site’s listings and update the events and newsletter pages monthly. However, the site needs financial backing to boost the site’s income-generating elements and make it self-sustaining; unfortunately, responses from institutions have been few and negative.

The debate about reparations needs to continue. Some have argued that the important element of true emancipation is mental and spiritual, not financial. As Bob Marley sang, "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves will free our minds." Marina shows one way to go along this road.