Our socio-political history is littered with inconvenient, uncomfortable and downright ugly truths many among us would rather forget. Whenever such truths are raised, some quickly try to deflect or suppress the discussion, forgetting the lesson that undiscussed issues don’t simply go away, they merely take cover in the subcutaneous to ulcerate like a canker-sore.
The issue of race and its derivatives is one such problem that has littered our history. Yet, fearful that we are indicted for our inaction or complicity in the perpetuation of the problem, many of us would rather avoid the subject or treat it as a novel issue.
During a recent talk show appearance, Peter Josie expressed an uncomfortable truth about our historical attitude to people with a “ti-koule-wy-a-yi.” He, however, indicted himself by embracing the assumptions on which that exaltation was predicated, and for ignoring its manifested negative consequences. Given that he expressed the view to negate Philip J. Pierre and to ennoble Allen Chastanet, those sympathetic to Pierre have, rightfully in my view, not cowered, but positively affirmed Pierre’s black skin. Some opponents have conveniently used this affirmation to suggest and decry the introduction of the “race card into our politics.” Of course this is farcical, for race has always been a feature of our politics, if not our lives. Permit a brief guide through our history to illustrate the role of race in shaping our political discourse, uncomfortable though it may be.
The trans-Atlantic slave trade laid the foundation for our political and social system, regulated as it were along race and class lines. These two variables were so closely intertwined as to be indistinguishable. In our early history, an exclusive white owner-planter class dominated over darker-skinned people— with the mulatto or mixed population just below the whites, and the majority black population (both freed and enslaved) occupying the lowest rungs of the sociopolitical hierarchy.
Following emancipation a new round of indentured servitude was introduced, adding newer permutations in the racial/ colour spectrum on the island. With no free labour available and less control over the labour market, some white- owned plantations went bankrupt. Their bankruptcy led to significant return migration to Europe and created the condition for the upward mobility of a group of lightly coloured and minimally black elements into the newly vacated seats of political power. The original basis of their privileged classification, lightness of skin colour, would gradually shift to include less rigid criteria, such as educational, occupational, and economic status.
In any event, the transformation of the middle-class elite into national leadership positions was not without constant, serious, and occasional deadly struggles, largely characterized by confrontations with the traditional white power structures. The attainment of political power and some autonomy by the brown and black elite did not destroy the foundations of white domination. Economic power was still in the hands of the expatriate white ownership classes.
While the black former slaves were denied support, the lighter-skinned indentured servants were afforded credits and loans to go into more lucrative self-employment and business ventures. The colonial office granted the lighter- skinned ethnicities more favors and facilities to succeed in wealth creation, while every opportunity was taken by the planter classes to force blacks back into plantation labour. Theories professing the universal superiority of whites were used to justify the subordination of blacks in the plantation hierarchy. The middle classes, based on their own pompous and patronizing arrangement of shades of skin colour, reinforced the white racial order by championing their own presumed superiority over the black populations.
That race significantly contributed and continues to contribute to the structuring of our society, economy, and political culture does not necessarily mean that the racial factor is always obvious. Sometimes it operates at the subterranean, and can be gleamed from the coded language used in its reinforcement. Its influence has been so pervasive—directly or indirectly, and consciously or unconsciously— though not exclusively, in shaping people’s activities and relationships. Even today, in local households far removed from the royal family, there are concerns over the complexion and hair texture of progenies.
Traces of self-negation remained unmistakable, even among Black power activists of the 1970s. Rick Wayne’s “Odlumandjosie” gorgon, though feared as black-power activists, conscious of our racial antipathies towards the dark skin, re-christened a political opponent, Ferdinand Henry, “Star-Black”—an intended pejorative, not a compliment. Thus Peter Josie was keenly aware of the significance of his comment about Philip J. Pierre not having a “ti-koule-wy-a-yi.”
Before Mikey Pilgrim became Saint Lucia’s Che, with his light skin and long flowing dark mane, he was “Ti Jezi.” Pilgrim approximated the image of the Jesus Christ to be found in most households. It is thus unsurprising that he would win what at the time was a record number of votes for a candidate in our general election.
It is not only one party that has stoked or tried to capitalize on the racial undercurrents in the society. In 1996, leading up to the 1997 general elections, Sir John Compton, in his attempt to stanch the flow of support to Kenny Anthony and the SLP, declared that he had “fought the Barnards for far too long” to permit one of them to become Prime Minister of this country. Compton was trying to remind the electorate of his fights during the colonial period in the Dennery valley with plantation owners closely related to Kenny Anthony. More critically, Compton was trying to associate Anthony with the plantation-system of control.
Allen Chastanet, upon assumption of leadership of the UWP in 2013 attempted the same. Chastanet referenced Kenny Anthony’s family history and claimed that Anthony was practicing “plantocracy economics.” The racial subtext of the quip was unmistakable, though some tried to ignore it. Of course there was push-back; Chastanet’s own ties to the plantocracy was highlighted.
Whether to assuage their guilt or reduce their dissonance, some have pointed to their similarity of complexion and familial ties to the plantation system, to suggest that there is no difference between Chastanet and Anthony. Such a conclusion is both unfair and incorrect.
Among the black community in the U.S. there is a saying that “not all skin-folk is kinfolk.” This means that similarity of colour does not automatically translate to similarity of values and allyship. Whatever the similarities between the racial or ethnic backgrounds of Allen Chastanet and Kenny Anthony, their struggles and alliances for and with the working class, and the hence darker segments of the population, are incomparable. Chastanet has absolutely no connection with the struggles for betterment of the working class, and I need not dilate on Anthony’s long history in that struggle.
Chastanet’s ascension to the leadership of the UWP led Philip J. Pierre to comment on and ask that people take note of the “poster boy of the economic class.” Pierre was reminding the population of some historical antecedents, and warning against being disempowered. The racial subtext was apparent, but this time caused much discussion in some media outlets.
Ahead of the 2016 elections, with a clear understanding of the phenomenological value of whiteness in this society, Chastanet and his team engaged in some symbolic manipulation. Costumed as a priest or some messiah, Chastanet successfully launched his bid to secure the Micoud seat.
Guy Joseph would attempt to force a reckoning with our use of the term “coolie.” The term, though defanged of its venomous origins, had been in wide usage in our normal discourse. When a senator used the term to refer to Joseph, it rightly drew his rebuke; though an opportunity was missed to call for a cessation of use of the term, especially in parliament.
Josie’s most recent stirring of the pot has not led to Chastanet distancing himself from either Josie or his expressed sentiments. As if to validate Josie’s view, a highly visible and vocal supporter of the Prime Minister took to social media to express his preference for a white leader over one who is black.
In a stark departure from the historical norm, Pierre and his supporters have inverted the practice of lowering the head when one’s blackness is brought up or castigated. They have instead acclaimed his blackness, entreating others to do the same.
It must be acknowledged that there is tremendous power in the ability to name things. Thus to quickly reinforce the social and racial/colour order, some are trying to suggest that the “race-card” is now being introduced into our politics and that it should be rejected. Sadly, those making that argument are ignoring how race has always been used to keep a certain group in check, and are merely trying to maintain the status quo.
This article first appeared in the April 2021 edition of the STAR Monthly Review. Be sure to get your printed copy on newsstands or view it here:Â https://issuu.com/starbusinessweek/docs/star_monthly_review_-_april_30_2021
