The legacy of colonialism and slavery creates self-hate and conflict among black people

The Unjust Legacy of Colonialism among Black People

By Hudson George




There is a big social problem among people of African descent in terms of who is black and who is mixed part black, and most of the time it all boils down to politics and prejudice, with a bit of colonial legacy.  Therefore due to self-hate among some black people, darker skinned blacks are socialised to stay in the back, similar as in the colonial era of oppression and segregation.

In the United States of America, the colonial system of segregation brainwashed the general population to believe that citizens who have a small percentage of African blood are black.  Presently, that racial theory without any scientific proof has become the norm for both black and white Americans.  They believe that one drop of black blood makes a person black, even though the labeling might not physically fit the appearance of the individual.

In Sudan, the Arab colonisers taught the Sudanese that those who have at least an Arab ancestor are Arabs and not Africans.  In some Latin American and Caribbean countries there is a similar kind of political racism, where some citizens will say in public that they are black, but when it is time to declare their racial status in a national census, they will claim that they are mixed race instead of being black.

In the United States, citizens of African descent identify themselves as African Americans, whether they mixed race as Rosa Parks, Fredrick Douglas, Halle Berry, Alisha Keys and Mariah Carey; or if they look pure African as Lou Rawls, Danny Glover, Tupac Shakur and Gladys Knight.  And even though the majority of African Americans are dark skinned, the lighter skinned ones are more appreciated and recognised when it comes to promoting black people’s talent and beauty on television in America.

In the last two decades, black Americans have been brainwashed to believe that Halle Berry is the most beautiful black woman in America, with the help of popular media culture that controls the minds of a majority of viewers.  With the power and influence of the media, the portrayal of Halle Berry as the most beautiful African American woman became a worldwide belief of what a beautiful black woman should look like, while the darker skinned African American women, who are much more beautiful than Halle Berry, never got media promotion and attention to show the rest of the world how beautiful they are as African American queens.

Now that Halle Berry is in her middle age, the American media selected another African American woman of mixed ancestry as the most beautiful among the rest.  This time around, the beautiful African queen is pop singer Beyoncé, who is of mixed race -- African, Native American and French Creole.

With all the cry about racial discrimination against black people in America, African Americans are still promoting their own version of internal racism and self-hate within their own race, whereby they refuse to see beauty in their own women who are pure African or almost pure African descent.

In Sudan there has been a war going on for very long time between North and South Sudan.  The leadership in North Sudan is Muslim and they claim to have Arab ancestors, even though some of them are of a darker completion than famous black American Muslim leaders Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan.

The Southern Sudanese, whose dark skinned complexion Animists and Christians claim to be the indigenous Africans and Sudan is their native country.  They claim that they are being discriminated against by the northerners because they are black.  Therefore, the fighting continues and people are dying.

In the Latin America and the Caribbean, people of African descent practice the same kind of self-hate.  Most black people in the Dominican Republic do not want to identify themselves as being black, they claim they are mixed race, even though the Dominican Republic and Haiti are two neighbouring countries with a common border on the island once called Hispaniola or San Dominique.  In the early days of European colonisation, the entire island used to be one country, before it was divided into French and Spanish colonies after various conflicts and wars.

In Brazil, black people have divided themselves racially by different shades of skin colour, while they continue to suffer from economic hardship, poor educational standard and violence in the large urban ghettoes.  Yet still, during World Cup soccer, black people globally support Brazil as the greatest soccer team in the world, all because of the great Brazilian soccer star Pele, who is a black and still known today as the greatest soccer player of all time.

In the English-speaking Caribbean islands there are divisions among black people based on skin colour too, even though it is not as bad as in the Dominican Republic and Brazil.  For example, in Jamaica, lighter skin colour means a lot in terms of social class and upward mobility.

It is very common to see some black Jamaicans bleaching their skin to look lighter, with the hope that they will be accepted at a higher status within society, even though Jamaica is a predominantly black vibrant society.

It is obvious that if Malcolm X had been successful in creating a separate black country in America for African Americans to live as a people and nation, the black population would surely have the same skin colour prejudice problem.  They would have segregated themselves into light skinned against darker skinned and mixed race against pure blacks.

And most likely a similar conflict would have happened, as we see happening in the Sudan and other countries where the skin colour of black people varies in terms of different shades of skin tone.

However, it will be impossible for black people to unite and make progressive changes to help the next generation, if they continue to promote lighter skinned women as the most beautiful, while the beautiful darker skinned black women are marginalised.  With such a kind of segregation and skin colour prejudice practice among some of our own black people and being portrayed in the media, how do we expect the other the races of human beings to respect us and take us seriously when we cry out about racism and discrimination?

What has happened to our great civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King Junior’s dream, that one day we all will be free and equal as human beings regardless of our skin colour and race and gender?

May 14, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

The Bahamas General Election 2012: ...Reversal of Fortune

Election 2012: Reversal of fortune

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

The results of the recent general election prove that democracy is still alive and well in our nation.  In the words of the late Sir Lynden O. Pindling after having conceded defeat to Hubert Ingraham in the 1992 general election, “The people of this great little democracy have spoken in a most dignified and elegant manner.  And the voice of the people is the voice of God”.

In an earlier piece, we had referenced the Jamaican elections of December 2011 in which the ruling Jamaican Labour Party (JLP) was defeated by the People’s National Party (PNP).  In the run-up to that election just like The Bahamas elections, polls had indicated that the race was close and in a dead heat.  However, the reverse would occur as the PNP would command 49 of the 63 available seats with no seats going to independents or third parties.  The challenges faced by the JLP were similar to those faced by the Free National Movement (FNM) government and not surprisingly, the outcomes have proved to be identical.

A reflection on election 2012

At this point, it is too early to state with great certainty the cause of the FNM’s defeat in the 2012 general election.  There is no doubt that the general election was hotly contested even though the number of constituencies won by the parties may not show this fact.  Apart from the long established parties of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the FNM, we saw the entrance of the newly formed Democratic National Alliance (DNA).

The DNA under the leadership of Branville McCartney capitalized on the obvious political divide of and the clamor for change by the Bahamian electorate.  However, as anticipated, votes for the DNA did not help the party win the government but rather served as spoiler of votes for the FNM and the PLP.  In the aftermath of the elections, certain political analysts have concluded that the presence of the DNA hurt the FNM more than it did the PLP based on the assumption that votes that were cast in favor of the DNA would have gone to the FNM.  This conclusion fails to explore the possibility that the DNA votes could have increased the number of PLP votes (and ultimately the number of PLP seats won) if in fact individuals voted against the FNM government and/or leadership.  However, in the absence of any scientific data to support these analyses, any subsequent conclusions are flawed.

In a public poll spearheaded by Public Domain, the results of the poll evidenced that there was an anti-government support with the FNM receiving 30.5 percent, the PLP 20.3 percent and DNA 16.5 percent.  Further, the exit polls conducted by The Tribune after the advanced polls showed the PLP ahead of the FNM significantly.  Preliminary data suggest that both the PLP and the FNM maintained their base while the DNA attained a portion of the independent and undecided votes.  It can also be argued that what separated the PLP from the FNM was that the PLP gained independent and undecided voters as well as disgruntled FNMs.

Same script, different cast

In 1992, Ingraham was successful in dethroning the most dominant political figure in Bahamian politics, the late Sir Lynden O. Pindling.  The administration had been plagued with socio-economic challenges due to effects of the drug era of the late 1970s through to the 1980s, a global recession, which at the time was termed the greatest since the Great Depression of the 1920s, and the rising cost of gas and food items.

Against this backdrop, Ingraham and the FNM campaigned against the PLP on the rising crime rate, an increasing national debt, illegal immigration and allegations of corruption and scandals.  Ingraham and the FNM promised a “government in the sunshine” that will usher in increased accountability and transparency in governance, better economic times and increased jobs, free enterprise and privatization of public entities and most notably the liberalization of the airwaves.

The Bahamian electorate, who at the time was suffering from high unemployment or underemployment and the rising cost of living, elected Ingraham and the FNM to office with the FNM defeating the PLP and claiming 32 of the 49 seats.  The FNM was subsequently granted a second mandate to govern during the general election of 1997 in a landslide victory in which the party won 34 of the 40 parliamentary seats.  Many remain of the view that Pindling’s failure to depart frontline politics and step down as leader of the opposition PLP also contributed to the resounding victory.

Two decades later, history has repeated itself.  Ingraham, faced with similar challenges that his mentor had back in 1992, was defeated resoundingly in a landslide victory by Christie in the 2012 general election.  The 2012 victory would also put to rest all questions as to whether Christie had what it took to defeat his most formidable political leader.  Just like his mentor, a decade and a half earlier, Ingraham would concede defeat in a gracious manner and would go further by announcing his immediate resignation as a member of Parliament and leader of the FNM.

Christie’s legacy term

The following words of Pindling after the PLP’s defeat in 1997 echo through time, “Today’s generation may not be so kind, but we chose to build on the past rather than destroy it.  We chose consensus and compromise over confrontation and conflict.”  The Christie administration should be guided by these words.  Christie, who has been favored to lead the final leg of the three-man political era of Pindling, Ingraham and Christie, must build upon his accomplishments and the success of his predecessors.  He must chart the course this term to build upon the legacy he started during his first term in office.  Christie is presented with an opportunity to not only cement the legacy of his predecessors but also to solidify his own lasting legacy for successive generations of Bahamians.  A definitive decision on gambling, an effective immigration policy, the expansion of access to quality education, true urban development and expansion and diversification of our economy are realistic feats that can be achieved in one term of office.

George Mackey in one of his pieces stated the following: “By the time the PLP was voted out of office on August 19, 1992, most of the planks of its initial platform, designed to address the many social and political ills that had led to its formation, had already been virtually completed.  In essence, the platform of the Quiet Revolution had run its course.  What the enlightened masses required was another vision, one that had as its primary objective their economic empowerment”.

This objective remains the same four and a half decades after the PLP started its journey in 1967.  Christie must create the environment for economic empowerment of our people.

We the Bahamian people on our part must give credit where credit is due to leaders who have made the ultimate sacrifice to serve our nation.  Our politics has divided us so much that we choose to focus on the failures of our leaders rather than their successes.  Now more than ever, we must be united and committed to building a stronger and better Bahamas that will once again make its mark on the world stage.  We must put our colors aside in the interest of current and future generations of Bahamians.

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw.com

May 10, 2012

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

7 Years on from the Creation of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America’s Trade Agreement for the People (ALBA-TCP)

7 Years on from the Creation of the ALBA -TCP



By Tahina Ojeda Medina - Ciudad CSS



What initially started as an alternative aimed at stopping the advance of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) has been transformed into an alliance in favour of Latin American and Caribbean integration. I am referring to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America’s Trade Agreement for the People (ALBA-TCP).

It is important to remember the solitary beginnings of ALBA-TCP. The main goal of the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec was to create the FTAA, and like the majority of hemispheric meetings, the decision to implement a free trade area had already been taken prior to it being “democratically approved”.

The FTAA claimed to create a structure for free trade relations within the framework of the free market, without taking into account economic asymmetries, much less social ones. This aforementioned structure is evident in the 6th point of discussion for business and investment in the summit’s “plan of action”: countries will “ensure that the negotiations for the FTAA conclude before January 2005 at the latest, so that the agreement might be put into effect as soon as possible, no later than December 2005...”

The only vote against the plan came from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; although the plan was published as having been approved unanimously.

Once they had analysed the kind of injustices that the application of the FTAA would bring to Latin America and the Caribbean, Cuba and Venezuela stepped forward and agreed on a plan to put the brakes on this situation. This is where the idea of the ALBA emerged, against the 2001 FTAA, before it was formally established in 2004 in Havana, Cuba.

The next step to stop the advance of the FTAA was taken at the Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in 2005. The final declaration of this summit read “the necessary conditions to implement a balanced and equal free trade agreement still do not exist, (conditions which ensure) the effective access to markets free of subsidies and distortive business practices, which take into account the needs and sensitivities of all business partners, including in their levels of development and the size of their economies”. This summit represented a definitive break with the FTAA.

Furthermore, Latin America and the Caribbean’s political map had changed since the FTAA was proposed. Cuba and Venezuela were no longer alone. From 2004, the following countries joined the ALBA: Bolivia (2006), Nicaragua (2008), Dominica (2008), Honduras (2008-2010), Ecuador (2009), St. Vincent and the Grenadine Islands (2009) and Antigua and Barbuda (2009). The subcontinent turned to the left, and this turn was met with various destabilisation attempts. An attempt to create war in 2008 in Bolivia, a state coup in Honduras in 2009, a failed state coup in Ecuador in 2012, amongst other international pressures toward the rest of the region.

Whilst the South was negotiating the various political difficulties arising from setting into motion the mechanisms designed to fight for the protection of the people, the “developed world” sunk into an unprecedented economic crisis created by the “invisible hand of the market”. These events are not isolated from the political and theoretical debate on contemporary international relations. When a project like the ALBA-TCP is analysed at an academic level, inevitable questions emerge, such as; is it a scheme aimed at integration? Is it aiming to construct a regional politics or an intra-regional free-trade agreement? Is the ALBA-TCP a formula to confront the negative effects of globalisation, or is it a strategy to enter into this process but from a stronger position?

All these questions have answers, which are still vague and somewhat open to debate, if we analyse the process of ALBA’s creation and consolidation from the perspective of theories on new “postliberal” regionalisms in Latin America and their relationship to globalisation. It is evident that ALBA-TCP was not conceived of as a scheme for regional integration, but rather as a political alliance to put a stop to FTAA which was progressively transformed into a collaborative mechanism which helped to strengthen real cooperation between countries in the regional South.

It is too soon to predict what a final regional integration project in South America would look like, but what we can confirm is that the ALBA has allowed for the creation of new forms of exchange and communication between countries that were once isolated; a first step in exploring a political agenda for integration. In this sense, ALBA-TCP is a formula for resistance to the project of globalisation. It is impossible to deny that globalisation is a concrete reality, but it doesn’t mean that countries have to throw themselves into its choppy seas without a lifejacket; the consolidation of strong regions is needed in order to confront the contradictions of the world system in which we live.

The ALBA-TCP, as Maria del Carmen Almendras Camargo defined it in the celebrations for the alliance’s 7th anniversary in Madrid, February 2012, is a “regional integration bloc made up of 8 countries with a population of 71 million inhabitants and a GDP of 498 billion dollars. It is the second largest trading bloc in the Latin American and Caribbean region after Mercosur, which has enormous human and natural resource potential.”

As ALBA begins to consolidate independently as a definite regional integration scheme, it is mutating and fusing with other integration strategies such as UNASUR and CELAC. On its 7th anniversary there are a whole host of reasons to celebrate; it has demonstrated that it is possible to say NO to the great global powers and design an independent and sovereign politics which can pave the way to a multi-polar world. Like the maestro Simón Rodriguez even said himself, we invent or we err.

Tahina Ojeda Medina is a researcher at the Development and Cooperation Institute at the Complutense University in Madrid ((IUDC-UCM), graduate in International Relations and a lawyer from the Central University of Venezuela, M.S in International Cooperation, Masters in Contemporary Latin American Studies and Doctorate in Political Science at the Complutense University in Madrid.

Translated by Rachael Boothroyd for Venezuelanalysis.com

Source: Ciudad CCS

May 7th 2012
 

Bahamas Blog International

The Organization of American States (OAS) electoral observation mission calls the May 07, 2012 general election in The Bahamas - “free and fair”

OAS labels elections ‘free and fair’

By Guardian Staff Reporter
travis@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Calling Monday’s general election “free and fair”, the Organization of American States (OAS) electoral observation mission yesterday offered four preliminary recommendations to The Bahamas government after monitoring the country’s electoral process.

The OAS team recommended the “adoption of a legal framework on the financing of political parties and campaigns in order to enhance the accountability, transparency and equity of the democratic process”.

The team also recommended the process of redrawing constituency boundaries and the membership of the Boundaries Commission be independent of the government.

This recommendation was also an issue visited in the 2002 referendum.

The majority of Bahamians polled (57,291) voted against the creation of an independent Boundaries Commission, with 30,903 voting in favor of it.

The mission also encouraged the Broadcasting Corporation of The Bahamas (BCB) to “provide access to all political parties and candidates in a free, fair and independent manner”.

The mission also encouraged political parties to incorporate more women in leadership positions and as candidates.

“[The year 2012] marks the 50th anniversary of women’s suffrage in The Bahamas,” said Alfonso Quinonez, chief of the mission for the observation team.

“For this election there were, 18,574 more women than men registered as voters. However, the increased participation of women as voters has not yet translated into other key areas of political participation. Only 22 out of the 133 candidates for this election were women.”

Former prime minister and Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Hubert Ingraham noted on the campaign trail that women would be a deciding factor in the election.

This was the first time that outside observers were invited to monitor an election in The Bahamas.

Teams from the OAS and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) were at various polling divisions on Monday.

Quinonez said it was an honor to observe the general election and noted that his team monitored 30 constituencies on election day.

“OAS international observers visited 189 polling stations throughout election day,” he told reporters.

“In all observed cases police were present and helpful to ensure a peaceful atmosphere. Voter participation was high and estimated at 88 percent.”

Quinonez pointed out that the mission would soon present to the OAS permanent council a detailed report that would be made available on the OAS’ website.

May 09, 2012

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

That bandit Chavez and the upstart Iweala!

By Dr Richard A. Byron-Cox




President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is sick. His is a cancer case. And some in Venezuela, the US and our Caribbean, having branded him dangerously pesky, are fervently if silently praying that the illness prevails, speedily coffining-off this Venezuelan bad boy to the permanent silence of the grave. The Venezuelans and North Americans who wish this, need not concern us here. Suffice to say, the former find it difficult to challenge his popularity at home, while the latter are in contemptuous disbelief that “this Latino” has the cojones to question them. Our concern therefore is the Caribbean ones who want to see the back of Hugo. The question is why?
 

Their given reasons are too many for discussion in an article of a few hundred words. Consequently, we zero in on the cardinal ones, highlighting their merits or lack therefore.


Prophecies abound in some quarters that the Chavez-motored ALBA will ultimately lead to the death of CARICOM through the poaching of its members. The reality however is that many CARICOM states are members of other groupings, including the Association of Caribbean States, the OAS, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and El Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana (SICA). Membership in these organisations has proven non-hazardous to the existence of CARICOM. So from whence is this hue and cry about el bandido venezolano trying to destroy CARICOM? Is this really serious!

Some, declaring concern for our democracy, are adamant that Chavez’s dictatorial hold on power is alien and dangerously contagious to us. Since birds of a feather flock together, they advise we stick with our crowd, maintaining a healthy distance from his corrupting influence. Truth be told, Hugo’s road to power was elections certified by all and sundry to be free and fair. He has won six straight and, though cancer stricken, is preparing to face the polls again. Isn’t it incredible that a man dubbed a dictator so readily embraces and subjects to the democratic exercise of the will of the people? Could this concern therefore be a case of people crying wolf while slaughtering a shepherd?

Others prescribe strict precautionary measures when engaging this socialist bosom buddy of those unrepentant communists, Fidel and his petit frère, Raul. The rumour is that Chavez is hell-bent on emulating the Castros by nationalising the entire Venezuelan economy. Then, he would dictate that our Caribbean leaders follow his lead, denying us all, the freedom of enterprise. This is naught but scaremongering and quatsch. While Chavez has nationalised a few industries in the crucial oil sector, free enterprise is most certainly alive and well in Venezuela after more than a decade of his presidency! This is self-evident truth. Further, Cuba itself is “liberating” its economy more and more, (granted not in the manner that the US, that self-proclaimed champion and self-appointed world evangelist of laissez faire economics would like).

It is also said that Chavez and Venezuela have been historically, politically and culturally conditioned differently from the way we were. We should therefore stick steadfastly to our kith and kin, which he certainly is not. But the argument that Venezuela is not Caribbean is questionable, not in the least for the simple fact that its northern coast is washed by the Caribbean Sea. So if being “Latino” makes Chavez foreign to us, then what of our relations with China, Brazil, Israel and, yes, the powerful white-dominated troika of Europe, Canada and the US? Are these our kith and kin? Lest we forget, this latter three comprise the G7 club where not even the emerging giants of the BRICS are welcome, not to mention us. Indeed, they have condemned us to the periphery of the world arena after having enslaved and exploited us for centuries. Oh yes, that is the inconvenient truth!

But all the aforesaid pales in comparison with what these fundamental “democrats,” and sworn guardians of the “free market” universally agree is President Chavez’s unpardonable sin: questioning the US’s self-appropriated status of world gendarme, and him being perceived as recruiting CARICOM states into his mercenary anti-gendarme gang. Not known for reticence, Chavez’s caustic anti-Yankee rhetoric is proffered as evidence that he is a threat to the one with the big stick? But has Chavez’s indignant rejection of US self-proclaimed imperium in the region hurt the relations between the CARICOM and the US? The clear and unequivocal answer is no.

Why then all this hullabaloo of Chavez and ALBA being of such grave danger to the CARICOM Caribbean? I dare to postulate that the key to it all is Chavez’s courage to question Uncle Sam on the one hand, and the cowardice of some in CARICOM on the other who shudder at the mere thought of this being possible. Indeed some of the latter are akin to an Uncle Sam poodle, which rushes to retrieve the thrown stick, but changes into a pit-bull if they merely think that you are attacking their master. So it’s no headline news that they are merciless to Hugo, even at this hour of his grave ailment.

All supra dictum have me wondering why these eternally loyal Uncle Toms have not gone paranoid on Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala due to her recent challenge of Yankee imperium over the World Bank?

Madam Iweala, like Hugo, has boldly rejected the US’s Jesus complex, and its self-belief in its global messiah role. She had the audacity to declare her candidacy for president of the Bank, insisting that she was the best suited. What’s wrong with that, you ask? Sure she is Harvard trained; is an economist; holds a PhD; is a minister of finance; was a World Bank director… In short, she has a CV of relevance longer than from Suriname to Bermuda and wider than from Bridgetown to Belize City.

So what’s the problem? It’s rather simple. Ab initio, the World Bank has been a most valued piece of hardware in the US’s arsenal of economic weaponry, especially as regards execution of its policy towards the so-called Third World. It is particularly useful for disguising, when and where necessary, the US’s real intent; and is central to the US’s ability to directly dictate economic policy in most developing nations. Now here comes this Third World-black-African upstart demanding that this important column of US global economic imperium be surrendered to her, publicly declaring that suitability, and not economic and military hegemony should determine who gets to be president of the Bank!

Yes, Iweala is indeed a terrorist, for as George W. Bush said, who is not with the US is against it. Let’s not be self-deceiving. The World Bank is as much an instrument of US power as the most potent piece of weaponry in its military. Iweala’s open challenge to US suzerainty on this front is an affront, just as Hugo’s stance is as regards their behaviour in the region. Like him, she is contemptuous of the idea that American dictates is leges legume, convinced that it does not always lead to what is boni et aequi. Yet, she was spared the crucifixion that cancer-stricken Chavez must bear. I wonder why? It’d be interesting to know.

May 07, 2012
 
caribbeannewsnow
 

Bahamas Blog International

Labour Day in Haiti

By Jean H Charles


In a country where 89% of the population endure unemployment or underemployment, more than 500,000 people, mostly young ones, turned out into the vast yard of Haiti’s Ministry of Agriculture to celebrate International Labour Day on May 1.

Indeed on Labour Day, the rest of the world (with the exception of the United States that celebrates its own on the first Monday of September) takes a day of rest to give homage to the punishment that God sanctioned man to: “You shall now eat your bread from the sweat of your labour.”

Early in the day, I took public transportation to go to the Ministry of Agriculture, located on the outskirts of the city of Port au Prince, to attend the fiesta of three days that features the art, the food, the agricultural experiments and the produce of Haiti. I knew, there would be a massive traffic jam later when the whole city would take the only road leading to the event. Indeed by midday, only a helicopter could get you into the Labour Fair.

President Michel Martelly, freshly minted from a week’s stay at a hospital in Miami, recuperating from pulmonary embolism, plunged himself into the affection of the crowd to urge the Haitian people to make the duty of work, a labour of love to remake Haiti the pearl of the islands when labour was total hell.

The president, as well as his Minister of Agriculture, Heber Doctor, and his Minister of Social Affairs and Labour, Francois Lafaille, that sponsored the event, took the artistic decorated podium (a master work of Sisalco, a Haitian company that produces designer bags, trays and other home products made of sisal) to urge the crowd and the nation to take advantage of the new vision of the government in terms of agriculture that focuses on four different features: guaranteed food security for all; guaranteed revenue for those who work hard and play by the rules; protection of the natural resources; and contribution for bringing foreign currencies into the country.

I was already into the path of that new locomotive when, last week I was invited to Cape Haitian (on the northern coast of Haiti) to a spectacular forum organized by the very articulate and ebullient Under Secretary of Agriculture for vegetal production, Mr Fresner Dorcin. For the first time in Haitian politics, a ministry is pulling all the actors and founding agencies together to share their knowledge, their constraints and their vision on agriculture in a given catchment area: the northern and northeast part of Haiti. 

This caravan will go from county to county in duplicating the model developed in the north of Haiti. Secretary Dorcin has pulled off a energetic team made of the best agronomists in the country, ready to kill the sacred cows and the old inertia that incubate the culture where each director of the ministry has his own little program that has nothing to do with a coordinated vision of the modern management of agriculture in a country where 90% of the population are involved in a way or the other in the business of agriculture.

The mood in Haiti is comparable to the mood in the rest of the world on Labour Day. No more those massive demonstrations of workers united to celebrate the symbol and the achievements of communism and socialism (down with capitalism!) in the capitals of the former Soviet Union, its satellites and its wannabe satellites. The crowd in Haiti was festive and in a spirit of jubilance, not a single incident of violence in a mass of half a million people, most of them still looking for work or a ready market for their creativities.

I was proud to be a native of Haiti amongst this gargantuan demonstration of creativity in decorative arts, happy as a lad going from booth to booth in sampling the different culinary specialties of each county of Haiti.

Upon stumbling on a giant fruit that I did not know before (I knew later its name was jacqier, a native of India), I was ready to buy the produce and play the Christopher Columbus game (transporting one seed from east to west of the world) when Mr Brunel Garcon, a friend from high school, who in the meantime became an official of the cabinet of the minister of agriculture, intervened to help me to get the gargantuan fruit free of charge. 

I profited from my proximity on the stage with the minister of agriculture to conduct a long and debating conversation on the policy of agriculture in Haiti. Should the government incubate and facilitate the business of agriculture as countries such as Japan, the United States and the European Union or should this government stay out of the business of incubation and let the market and investors have free hand?

At the level of the political platform of Repons Peyizan, the party in power (freshly reconciled in a warm and intimate relationship with the government) is leading a movement to enrich each peasant family in the territory of the republic. 

The program is a cocktail of husbandry, organic agriculture and art-craft where the party, through its social organization, will incubate each family to engage into those activities that will generate a minimum of $15,000 dollars per year in the next five years from the paltry $400 dollars per year today.

The party is attaching itself to an anchor agency to actualize its goal and its mission. The program is starting in the region of Jacmel, in the southeastern part of Haiti, with the support of the technical mission of Taiwan at the beginning of this month.

The debate initiated with the minister of agriculture is still open. Will Haiti follow the model seen in the other Western countries where the number of agricultural workers take a dip on the lower side as the country becomes richer or should Haiti lead the way again in the world where it can demonstrate it can retain its agricultural workers in their fields and on their land, where they will lead a happy and pastoral life with niche markets for specialized and organic products?

Haiti is today at an exciting place. It has a new president, soon a new government, dynamic ready to shake the inertia of arrogance, incompetence and indifference of the last sixty years of governance in the country. Its young population of almost 8 million people out of a nation of 10 million people is ready to engage into the world of work with the creativity which is proper to the Haitian people.

Haiti is indeed open for business! Businessmen of the world unite! See you in Haiti soon!


May 5, 2012


caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

...the shifting political sands in The Bahamas find Bahamian Prime Minister -Hubert Ingraham - facing a general election to win a fourth term in government for the governing Free National Movement (FNM) party

The Shifting Sands Of Bahamian Politics

tribune242 
Nassau, The Bahamas


 LADY PINDLING'S appearance at the PLP's Clifford Park rally Friday night - to "set the record straight" for her "PLP family" - brought back many memories of the upheaval created by the Commission of Inquiry into drugs. It also highlighted the shifting sands of politics.

In her talk to her political family, Lady Pindling deliberately avoided the fact that her late husband's anointed successor was fired by him from the PLP cabinet in the eighties. She wanted the gullible crowd to believe that it was only Prime Minister Ingraham who was given orders to "walk the plank."

She also wanted her flock to understand that not only did Sir Lynden anoint Mr Christie as his successor, but Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield also would have liked him to have been his political heir. Anyone who recalled those times would find this assertion almost laughable.

It is true that at the time both Mr Christie and Mr Ingraham were hedging their bets about their political future. They both agreed that they would continue in politics, the question was how? Join an existing political party or remain Independent?

After the Commission of Inquiry, they both expressed concern about corruption, which former PLP Loftus Roker had earlier warned was "rocking the PLP to its very foundations." Because of their position -- particularly Mr Ingraham's -- they were both fired from the Pindling Cabinet. Mr Ingraham was later expelled from the PLP, while Mr Christie at the last minute was rejected as a PLP candidate in the 1987 election. Both decided to go it alone, winning a decisive victory in the 1987 election, unopposed by the FNM. They were the first Independent candidates to do so in the history of the modern Bahamas.

They were both weighing the possibility of joining a political party. Mr Ingraham, the more decisive of the two, was not certain which route he would take. However, he knew the route he would not take. Mr Christie was not so sure. He said he was still "philosophically committed to those principles" that originally attracted him to the PLP. He was not talking with the FNM, but he was talking with the PLP.

And so when Sir Lynden dangled a Cabinet post in front of him, he could not resist. He had his future made, no more time wasting fighting for his principles in the trenches. He was secure at the top.

The Tribune at the time speculated that Mr Christie would go back to the PLP. For all the years he was in the political wilderness, no reporter could ever draw him out on his opinions. Mr Christie promised interviews that he never kept. When he did go back he said he told Sir Lynden on two occasions: "My brother, I hope you realise that my silence is a statement."

Is that the way we are today to interpret his silence on issues on which he should be vocal -- particularly the allegations of corruption in his own party?

Not so Mr Ingraham. He said he was sorry to see his law partner and friend heading back to the PLP ship. "But that's his right to do," he added. "

I determined a long time ago," he said, "that the ship was taking the Bahamas in the wrong direction and it continues to be my goal to stop the ship."

He closed his ears to Sir Lynden's siren song to come back on board.

Today, Mr Ingraham is still determined to stop the PLP ship. Mr Christie, on the other hand, continues to face what Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield described at the time as "one of his biggest hurdles" -- credibility.

Never far from the limelight, today's Fox Hill PLP candidate Fred Mitchell, who in those days headed his own political party -- the PDF-- demonstrated with placards outside of the House of Assembly calling for Mr Christie's resignation. He claimed that Mr Christie had broken his agreement with his supporters in Centreville by returning to the PLP. There were even PLP MPs who were upset that Mr Christie -- once the prodigal son-- had leap-frogged over all of them to a top position on his return to the fold.

Mr Mitchell felt Mr Christie was morally bound to resign his seat in Parliament when he decided to accept the Cabinet appointment.

Mr Mitchell maintained that Mr Christie had broken his political contract with his constituents who had returned him to parliament to oppose PLP corruption.

In the meantime, Mr Ingraham was still at war in the House with the PLP government for challenging the right of the Public Accounts Committee to "send for persons or papers" to do its work. Mr Ingraham was a member of that committee. He said that there was "crookedness" in the government's 1987 audited accounts, and that an attempt was being made to cover-up what was going on with the government's finances.

Today the shifting political sands find Prime Minister Ingraham facing a general election to win a fourth term in government for the FNM.

Meanwhile, Mr Christie, leader of the Opposition, hopes to replace him on May 7. As for Mr Mitchell -- whose dream was one day to become prime minister -- has himself returned to the PLP and serves under the man who he felt betrayed his supporters by returning to the PLP.

Politics is certainly a fickle throw of the dice.

May 02, 2012

tribune242

Bahamas Blog international