How and why the Haitian problem grew
tribune24 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
WE have always had Haitians in the Bahamas. Like all Bahamians they came by different routes. Peaceful citizens, they were fully embraced by the locals, and many of them made outstanding contributions to their new country.
For example, the first black man to sit in the House of Assembly -- remaining there for 33 years - was Stephen Dillet, a Haitian by birth.
His mother was African, his father a French Army Officer. In Haiti's revolution of 1802, young Stephen and his mother were put on a boat headed for Cuba to find safe haven. However, their boat was captured by a British privateer and taken to Nassau, where the Dillets settled, and Stephen later entered politics. He was also an active Free Mason, having been appointed Deputy Provincial Grand Master in 1857. Another account of his life has him settling in the US where he owned slaves, then coming to Nassau where, in addition to being a member of the House, he was the island's coroner and postmaster.
It is recorded that at one time the historic Balcony House on Market Street --now a museum and believed to be the oldest house in the Bahamas dating back to 1788 -- was his home.
And so, over the years, Haitians settled in the Bahamas, fully participated in the island's activities, were embraced by other Bahamians -- all, at one time or another, themselves immigrants -- and were solidly woven into the Bahamas' human fabric. In those days, no one questioned their identity or their right to be here. Today, however, the story has changed. Bahamians whose tendrils once clung to Mother Haiti are terrified to share their now "shameful" secret with their fellow Bahamians.
Over the years, the situation changed. The PLP came on the scene with the late Sir Lynden Pindling promising that no longer would Bahamians be "hewers of wood and drawers of water". Manual labour was not only demeaning, but abhorrent to Bahamian ears -- "that's Haitian work!" And so Bahamians left the farms. Slowly Haitians started to fill the gaps. This was a different type of Haitian -- they were even unsettling to their Haitian brothers who had quietly settled here and become Bahamians. Haitian-Bahamians feared that the spotlight would also be turned on them. They, like many Bahamians, did not welcome the unskilled who had started to infiltrate the country, and who, as the illegal numbers increased, grew into what is today the "Haitian problem".
On a radio talk show in 2006, Bahamian Paul Cumberbatch, describing himself as a "small farmer" with more than 200 acres of land, had a serious complaint with then PLP Minister Shane Gibson, who at the time headed Immigration. Mr Cumberbatch said he needed 500 Haitians on his farm, and did not agree that any of those already in the Bahamas should be sent back to Haiti. He felt that all those with jobs -- legal or illegal-- should be regularised and only the jobless should be returned to Haiti.
"When Sir Lynden was prime minister," he said, "no minister could do what Shane (Gibson) is doing now." He said when then deputy prime minister Arthur Hanna, who had Immigration in his portfolio, and later when the late Sir Clement Maynard headed Immigration he was given whatever work permits he needed for his Haitians. Those were peaceful days, he said.
And so this is how Haitian immigration grew into today's social problem -- Bahamians refused to work the land -- themselves labelling it as "Haitian work." And PLP politicians pandering to the needs of their supporters by giving them permits to bring in unlimited numbers of unskilled workers to replace Bahamians on the farm. These Haitians, according to Mr Cumberbatch, were landed at the Coral Harbour Defence Force base. Some Bahamians, who were able to get unlimited numbers of permits, developed side businesses by farming out their Haitians to other Bahamians who had no political godfathers -- at a good price, of course.
Today, Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette, now in charge of Immigration, is trying to regularise the status of foreigners, among them Haitians. As for work permits, more than half approved were for unskilled jobs such as handymen and housekeepers. Mr Symonette said that the majority of people who received Bahamian citizenship were born in the Bahamas to foreigners and/or lived here all their lives. Many others were women married to Bahamian men. The Opposition's claim that 10,000 people were awarded citizenship was "grossly exaggerated," he said.
"People keep talking about 10,000 citizenships given by the FNM. That's wrong, wrong, wrong," said Haitian Ambassador Antonio Rodrigue.
"During the year," he said, "we had about 500 renounce -- so where are those 10,000?" Mr Rodrigue wanted to know.
Bahamian voters have to remember that this is "silly season" when lies abound. To qualify as an intelligent and responsible voter, they will have to be smarter than the liars and themselves search for the truth.
February 16, 2012
tribune24 editorial
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The modern Bahamas is a nation created through migration... ...The Amerindians Christopher Columbus met in The Islands 520 years ago are no more... ...Europeans and Africans displaced those people when permanent contact was made between the old and new worlds
Embracing multiculturalism
Nassau, The Bahamas
The comments of Haitian President Michel Martelly to Haitian-Bahamians last week have dominated public discourse since Martelly advised Bahamians of Haitian descent to form a voting bloc, and to vote for the party that has their best interests at heart. His remarks exposed raw emotions on the immigration issue in our country.
The modern Bahamas is a nation created through migration. The Amerindians Christopher Columbus met here 520 years ago are no more. Europeans and Africans displaced those people when permanent contact was made between the old and new worlds.
Today’s Bahamas is even more ethnically and culturally dynamic. People from the Middle East, China and India also call this country home. They bring their experiences to our cultural mix, expanding The Bahamas.
The Bahamian relationship with the Haitians who migrate here is complicated. Haitians have come to The Bahamas since the creation of the Republic of Haiti in 1804. With the collapse of Jean Claude Duvalier’s regime in the mid-1980s, however, those flows increased as Haiti’s poor looked for new lives in new places.
Some Bahamians resent the large number of poor Haitians who have come here looking for a second chance. Some Haitians are upset at the discriminatory treatment they have received from some Bahamians.
Martelly should not have gotten involved in Bahamian politics while visiting. Staying out of local politics while on foreign trips is a convention of diplomacy, but his intrusion into Bahamian politics is no excuse for bigotry and xenophobia.
The Government of The Bahamas has as a responsibility carrying out the laws of the country. It should provide our border protection officers with all the resources needed to prevent people from illegally entering Bahamian territory. Foreigners who come here illegally should be repatriated in accordance with the law.
But what must be remembered is that those who are given citizenship are Bahamians once that decision is made. They should be afforded the same rights and privileges as other Bahamians.
We can debate who should be given permanent residence as opposed to citizenship. Countries have the authority to set residency standards based on the consensus of the times. However, we should not disparage those given status or argue that they are lesser citizens if citizenship was granted.
In deciding to become part of our community these new Bahamians bring different ideas, languages, traditions, foods and energies to our already multicultural society. And as a culturally richer community we should work together to solve common problems.
Haitian-Bahamians should not close themselves off and form exclusive political blocs to defend themselves. Haitian-Bahamians should, like all other Bahamians, examine the various political parties and candidates and determine who is best to advance The Bahamas.
Conversely, ‘native’ Bahamians should not fear the inclusion of new people into our commonwealth. What should exist is an immigration policy that can reasonably control who comes to The Bahamas. We should seek to recruit people from around the world – in the numbers we think reasonable – to add skills to our country. In doing so, we as a nation become stronger.
When governments are unable to police the flow of people to a territory, the established community becomes suspicious. Hence, it is important for clear immigration policy to exist and resources to be provided to help ensure the policy is enforced.
We hope the passions cool on this issue. Ethnic rivalry has made many countries unstable and has led to conflict and war.
Feb 15, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Mexico's democracy is abusing human rights
by Isida Tushe
Guest Scholar at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
In recent months, the media has widely reported on the continuous human rights violations committed by members of the Mexican military. While news of these atrocities only recently surfaced on major news stations, Mexican authorities, in fact, have been struggling with human rights abuses since 2007 when these pivotal events first started to come to light. Such atrocities peaked during President Felipe Calderón’s six years in office, as police and armed forces have been found to be involved in at least 170 cases of torture, 24 extrajudicial killings, and 39 forced disappearances since 2006.1
When President Calderon first came to power, he dispatched military forces throughout Mexico in an attempt to take down the drug cartels and deter the violence generated by rival criminal organizations fighting over territory and clientele. Instead of reducing violence, the military forces began perpetuating the very crimes they were charged with stopping. In a country where drug cartels have been coexisting with civil society for years, the police and military forces became embedded in the pockets of the traffickers.
In Mexico, the cartels dominate specific geographical parts of the country, and the fight for influence and expansion of territory is constant. These drug cartels are not managed by corner thugs and criminal layabouts, but by sophisticated businessmen who employ a vast network of individuals, which include financial officers, hit men, and lieutenants.2
Mexico is a poor country containing many immensely wealthy individuals. Most Mexican citizens, however, struggle daily to bring food to the table to feed their families. In order for the drug cartels to be able to operate in a country like Mexico, it is widely believed that the government has to be, directly or indirectly involved in supporting these criminal elements. Accusations that the country’s various police forces have been corrupted by the cartels have been mounting for decades and unquestionably have merit to them. The fact that almost no major progress has been made towards dissolving Mexico’s drug cartels shows that the police departments have been deeply compromised by bribery, corruption, and venality.
Narcotics dealers also have been exerting a steadily increasing influence over Mexican authorities that could complicate efforts to contain and neutralize the drug cartels. With their operations spreading throughout the country, the cartels’ bribery tactics are having an impact not only on the poor but also on many high ranking government officials. Recently, US officials found a sophisticated drug-smuggling tunnel under the border of Mexico with the US. Considering the fact that such a project would take many weeks to build, some have speculated that security force members from both countries may have been persuaded to look the other way as local drug cartels continued to expand their illicit empires.
Time and again, contemporary reports about human rights violations have been inevitably backed by a victim’s family member asserting that the government statistics on human rights are inaccurate, and that many more civilians have been killed in the drug conflict than officially have been reported. Human Rights Watch reports have detailed that the majority of these victims were average citizens who had worked as farmers and mechanics, as well as factory and construction workers. No one makes a fuss over these little people when they are reported missing, and in desperation, many of their families have spoken out, contending that their murdered relatives were innocent and that they had no established ties to illegal activity. However, the police reports routinely implicate them as petty criminals in the drug war, implying that their deaths could have been expected and that there is no reason for the public to be alarmed.
Even though in Mexico, “the government is… ethically and legally obliged to use every means at its disposal, under the principle of joint responsibility, to reinforce the presence of authorities in communities with the highest incidence of gang rivalry,”3 a persistent and critical threat is being posed by the police and military itself.
Unfortunately, the security forces are stripping citizens of the power and authority to sustain pressure on the government to stop pretending that it is attempting to protect the rights of ordinary Mexicans when this is clearly not the case.
For references on this article, click here.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org
February 14, 2012
caribbeannewsnow
Guest Scholar at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
In recent months, the media has widely reported on the continuous human rights violations committed by members of the Mexican military. While news of these atrocities only recently surfaced on major news stations, Mexican authorities, in fact, have been struggling with human rights abuses since 2007 when these pivotal events first started to come to light. Such atrocities peaked during President Felipe Calderón’s six years in office, as police and armed forces have been found to be involved in at least 170 cases of torture, 24 extrajudicial killings, and 39 forced disappearances since 2006.1
When President Calderon first came to power, he dispatched military forces throughout Mexico in an attempt to take down the drug cartels and deter the violence generated by rival criminal organizations fighting over territory and clientele. Instead of reducing violence, the military forces began perpetuating the very crimes they were charged with stopping. In a country where drug cartels have been coexisting with civil society for years, the police and military forces became embedded in the pockets of the traffickers.
In Mexico, the cartels dominate specific geographical parts of the country, and the fight for influence and expansion of territory is constant. These drug cartels are not managed by corner thugs and criminal layabouts, but by sophisticated businessmen who employ a vast network of individuals, which include financial officers, hit men, and lieutenants.2
Mexico is a poor country containing many immensely wealthy individuals. Most Mexican citizens, however, struggle daily to bring food to the table to feed their families. In order for the drug cartels to be able to operate in a country like Mexico, it is widely believed that the government has to be, directly or indirectly involved in supporting these criminal elements. Accusations that the country’s various police forces have been corrupted by the cartels have been mounting for decades and unquestionably have merit to them. The fact that almost no major progress has been made towards dissolving Mexico’s drug cartels shows that the police departments have been deeply compromised by bribery, corruption, and venality.
Narcotics dealers also have been exerting a steadily increasing influence over Mexican authorities that could complicate efforts to contain and neutralize the drug cartels. With their operations spreading throughout the country, the cartels’ bribery tactics are having an impact not only on the poor but also on many high ranking government officials. Recently, US officials found a sophisticated drug-smuggling tunnel under the border of Mexico with the US. Considering the fact that such a project would take many weeks to build, some have speculated that security force members from both countries may have been persuaded to look the other way as local drug cartels continued to expand their illicit empires.
Time and again, contemporary reports about human rights violations have been inevitably backed by a victim’s family member asserting that the government statistics on human rights are inaccurate, and that many more civilians have been killed in the drug conflict than officially have been reported. Human Rights Watch reports have detailed that the majority of these victims were average citizens who had worked as farmers and mechanics, as well as factory and construction workers. No one makes a fuss over these little people when they are reported missing, and in desperation, many of their families have spoken out, contending that their murdered relatives were innocent and that they had no established ties to illegal activity. However, the police reports routinely implicate them as petty criminals in the drug war, implying that their deaths could have been expected and that there is no reason for the public to be alarmed.
Even though in Mexico, “the government is… ethically and legally obliged to use every means at its disposal, under the principle of joint responsibility, to reinforce the presence of authorities in communities with the highest incidence of gang rivalry,”3 a persistent and critical threat is being posed by the police and military itself.
Unfortunately, the security forces are stripping citizens of the power and authority to sustain pressure on the government to stop pretending that it is attempting to protect the rights of ordinary Mexicans when this is clearly not the case.
For references on this article, click here.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org
February 14, 2012
caribbeannewsnow
Monday, February 13, 2012
Haitian President, Joseph Michel "Sweet Micky" Martelly woke up some of the worst nationalistic passions in The Bahamas on his recent visit... ...We as people from various backgrounds must work to ensure that passions cool... ...When countries divide along ethnic lines fueled by hatred and rivalry, peace and prosperity become illusive
The Haitian president’s divisive remarks
Tensions rise as Haitians told to form voting bloc
By Brent Dean
Guardian Associate Editor
brentldean@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
The presence of tens of thousands of Haitians in The Bahamas has for a long time been a point of frustration to the ‘new natives’ who call this chain of islands home. There was no policy announced, or agreed to, stating that our gates would be opened to all the poor and frustrated of Haiti. Yet many have come, and many continue to come, to these shores from the poorest country in the hemisphere.
The ‘accepted’ flow of people from Haiti to The Bahamas since the republic emerged in 1804 began to become more of a problem to Bahamians in the latter part of the 20th century, coinciding with increased instability in Haiti and larger migrant flows.
Successive administrations have maintained the policy of repatriation. Yet the shantytowns remain.
The Haitian presence goes beyond shantytowns, however. Haitians have increasingly migrated to established communities in New Providence such as Fox Hill and Bain Town. And in doing so the Haitian who decades ago was a ‘just’ a yardman, or ‘just’ a housekeeper, or ‘just’ a farm laborer in the minds of Bahamians has become a more prominent part of The Bahamas.
Young Haitians proudly celebrate Haitian Flag Day; Haitian ads in Creole play over the airwaves; Haitian business people have establishments in ‘Bahamian’ cultural areas such as Arawak Cay. Haitian pride in being Haitian in The Bahamas is rising.
Many Bahamians have watched the expansion of the Haitian presence these last few decades and are concerned about being displaced. Haiti has a population of nearly 10 million and The Bahamas has only 350,000. This fear of displacement is married to an anger. Many ask, “Who invited all these people here?”
The uneasiness many Bahamians feel towards growing Haitian influence in their country is at the heart of the controversy surrounding the comments of Haitian President Michel Martelly last week. Many feel they did not consent to these new neighbors ‘moving in’ and fear their involvement in the political process.
What the leader said to his people
There is an unwritten rule in diplomacy: When you go to a foreign country, stay out of its politics.
Martelly, an entertainer known as “Sweet Micky”, broke that rule during his short visit to The Bahamas.
“I told them to organize themselves and identify in the upcoming elections who is on their side. That way they can become a force. By being [unified] in the elections they might have people taking care of them… this is the democratic way,” Martelly told reporters Wednesday.
He was repeating statements he made in Haitian Creole as he spoke to thousands of Haitians and Haitian-Bahamians at a meeting on Tuesday night in eastern New Providence.
Martelly, inappropriately, went further. He lamented the plight of ‘stateless’ people who have to wait until their 18th birthdays to apply for Bahamian citizenship even though they were born in this country.
“This could be considered as a crime, but that’s not the issue to talk about crime here; the issue is to stand by them and find the right solution,” said the Haitian president. “Be responsible, be humans and see how to better assist these Haitians.”
Martelly’s business is Haiti, not The Bahamas. Those who can vote here are Bahamians and they do not need advice from foreigners regarding how they should vote.
When foreign leaders interfere in the elections of sovereign countries, they insult the country being interfered with and its people. They can also spread division.
The reaction of the political leaders
Bahamian politicians have been nearly united in their criticism of Martelly’s intervention in Bahamian politics.
Democratic National Alliance (DNA) Leader Branville McCartney said the president’s remarks were a “direct attack on Bahamian democracy and all Bahamians – those of foreign descent or otherwise – who uphold the ideals of the nation and their right to vote for whichever political party they see fit”.
The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) chairman was also offended.
“I thought it was an insult to the Bahamian people that a foreigner would come here and instruct Bahamian citizens to vote one way or the other,” said Bradley Roberts.
His rival in the governing party, speaking personally, said he was shocked by the political remarks.
“Non-Bahamians cannot dictate what goes on in The Bahamas, whether they visit or live here,” said Free National Movement (FNM) Chairman Carl Bethel, who also cautiously stressed that this comment did not refer to Martelly.
But, of course it did. Bethel and all FNMs have to speak carefully on the Haitian issue because the leader of their party has taken a more moderate, discursive approach on immigration than the PLP and DNA.
Perry Christie, the PLP’s leader, criticized Martelly at his party’s candidates launch on Friday night.
“I wouldn’t go into someone else’s country and tell the people there how to vote and I don’t want anyone from any other country coming here and telling me or my people how to vote either. So let’s be clear about that,” he said.
Ingraham, however, on Saturday in Andros said Martelly was perfectly entitled to encourage his former citizens to form a voting bloc.
“So insofar as the persons who are citizens of The Bahamas who were formerly Haitian nationals, we certainly look forward to receiving the votes of the majority of the Bahamians whether they were born in The Bahamas, naturalized in The Bahamas or otherwise,” he said.
“And we certainly would enjoy receiving the majority of the votes of persons who were naturalized of Haitian parentage and/or who have been living in The Bahamas for a long time.”
Ingraham has always maintained that his governments follow the laws of The Bahamas when it comes to immigration. However, while McCartney is almost hostile towards Haitians when he discusses immigration issues, and Christie takes a nationalistic approach in his rhetoric, the prime minister at times is empathic.
Many remember the simple but profound remark Ingraham made at a FNM rally in March 2011 at Fort Charlotte, when he sent a shout out to his “Haitian brothers and sisters”.
Ingraham does not engage in the type of demagoguery McCartney does when it comes to Haitians. By taking a more subdued, rhetorical approach to the issue of Haitian integration in The Bahamas, Ingraham is connecting his party to a new set of voters who will play a more prominent role in our politics.
The danger of ethnic politics
There are tens of thousands of Haitians residing in The Bahamas. Some live here illegally, some have legal status and some have become citizens.
As more and more Haitians are naturalized, their influence at elections, and their role in frontline politics, will increase.
Eventually more Bahamians with French names who are of Haitian descent such as Stephen Dillet, the first black person elected to the House of Assembly in The Bahamas, will be candidates and politicians.
If we all want to build a great nation then we as people from many different cultural communities must work together. If we form different ethnic voting blocs based on narrow cultural or racial interests, our politics will become more divisive and confrontational – possibly even violent.
This was the greatest tragedy of Martelly’s remarks. Rather than speaking to unity, those few words on voting and politics spoke to division.
Martelly woke up some of the worst nationalistic passions in The Bahamas. We as people from various backgrounds must work to ensure that passions cool. When countries divide along ethnic lines fueled by hatred and rivalry, peace and prosperity become illusive
Feb 13, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
There is still a desperate need for the black world to coalesce around an affirmative ideology of blackness... Not a political concept of black power, but a soulful concept of blackness that is rooted in its source of power... Africa
What does it mean to you to be black?
By KHALILA NICOLLS
Khalilanicolls@gmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE other day I stumped a politician by asking him a simple question: What is Africa? The question emerged because he responded to another question I posed, are you African, by saying, "No, I am a Bahamian with African heritage." So naturally, I pressed, and asked, well what does it mean to have Africa heritage?
He fumbled for a response, claiming that regrettably, he had not done the research to know which tribe in Africa he came from. He said if he were asked the same question by one of his children, he would say, let us go and research it together.
Being perturbed by my unbridled dissatisfaction, he gave it another go. This time, he responded with the politically correct answer, speaking to Africa's wealth, in terms of her beautiful and bountiful natural resources and the many venerable world leaders she has given birth to.
The reason I was perturbed by his response was not because I felt he gave a poor answer initially, which he did, or that I was unsatisfied with his answer in the second instance, which I was not. It was because he seemed not to have understood the question.
What does Africa mean in the context of your identity? The question completely went over his head. I was not totally surprised, because when it comes to questions of identity and the study of meaning, many Bahamians seem to be uninterested or simply clueless.
As a street scholar with a professed love for questions of identity, I am often starved for engagement on these questions. It is a challenge arriving at a common understanding of Majority Rule, because without an interrogation of meaning it is difficult to arrive at a full understanding of one's identity or a consensus of worth.
As a Bahamian, I feel personally slighted, not having had the opportunity within the framework of my state-mandated educational career to interrogate the meaning of Majority Rule or any number of other concepts that are central to my identity.
Needless to say, engaging in the process of inquiry is part of the reason for creating my own platform, and of great interest to me is the idea of blackness and its relationship to the concept of Majority Rule.
The last time I wrote about Majority Rule, I argued that its assumed meaning, a symbol of black liberation in the Bahamas, failed to stand up in the face of scrutiny. That Majority Rule represented an expansion of our democratic system; the shattering of a glass ceiling for black Bahamians seeking political office; a milestone in political progress, but not a transformation in black consciousness or an ideological awakening of black people.
Evidence suggests that at the time of its coining, our nation's leaders were conflicted in the concept of their own blackness, and the real worth of that identity. Certainly, our leaders recognised the political power of the black association, but they also accepted that blackness was a political liability. It was something they were willing to bargain with.
All in all, I suggested, our collective vision of a black nation was ideologically tame, and so too was the impact of the black majority government on the progress of black Bahamians as a collective body.
So what is left to be said? Lots, because when it comes to understanding our own blackness in a country that celebrates Majority Rule and recognises itself as a majority black nation, I feel our nation's leaders, when they led us into the era of self-governance, failed to set the record straight on a number of important race issues.
First, racial solidarity is not a form of discrimination against white people or some kind of reverse-racism.
Second, blackness does not have meaning only where racial discrimination exists.
Third, to speak about white racial prejudice and how it was used to justify genocide, to disfranchise and dehumanise indigenous people across the globe, and to enrich white people and their generations yet to come is not an act of denigrating white people; it is basic world history.
On the first issue, I need to reflect on another interview I recently conducted. When I asked the person the meaning of being black, his first instinct was to say, let me see how to answer this without sounding like a racist. He then fumbled on to answer the question in line with the politically correct things to feel and say.
I had a similar encounter when listening to Freddy Munnings Jr on the radio programme Matters of the Heart. He recounted a time when he asked the Minister of Education (he did not specify which one) why Bahamians do not learn African history in school.
The minister replied by saying he did not want to teach racism. Mr Munnings rightly asked what is racist about teaching our children that their ancestors brought the world astrology, astronomy, mathematics and medicine, among other great contributions to world history.
I am with Mr Munnings on this one: what is racist about African pride? What is racist about affirming a black identity? Why have we chosen to accept the view that racial solidarity is somehow a destructive and divisive concept; that affirming a connection to one's blackness is somehow racist? It is an apologetic view of being black that black people would be better served to reject.
In January, the Arizona State legislature won its battle to outlaw the Tuscon Unified School District's Mexican American Studies (MAS) programme, on the grounds that it "promotes activism against white people, promotes racial resentment and advocates ethnic solidarity".
Best-selling classics like Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by Paulo Freire, and Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years, by Bill Bigelow, were banned from the curriculum.
It seems white people still fear that blacks and other subjects of white oppression might one day turn the tables and exact bitter revenge. In a school district where 60 per cent of the students are Latino, the fears must run high. But quite frankly, I find this fear to be arrogant, delusional, self-absorbed and downright ignorant, but completely unsurprising.
It is on the same basis of Arizona's objection that a black man would find it uncomfortable to give meaning to his own blackness. Not wanting to sound racist is a euphemism for not wanting to make white people uncomfortable; not wanting to evoke their misplaced fears.
Whether a black man's racial resentment is real or perceived, warranted or not, he should have the right and the space to feel as he may, and process his own experience, without having to be politically correct about it.
Denying him his right to feel does more to promote racial resentment than allowing him his space to heal. I think that is worth repeating (and I hope people at Arizona State are reading):
Denying him his right to feel (which includes inquiring into and processing his own experience) does more to promote racial resentment than allowing him his space to heal.
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire states: "Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence," and a "violation of their humanity". When I spoke earlier about feeling personally slighted, it was this violation I alluded to.
For all of our accomplishments, blacks are still negotiating the right to think, speak and feel for ourselves about our experience of being black.
As a society, we do not have a humanising pedagogy in which students of the former oppressed and oppressor classes can deepen their consciousness of their situation and be responsible for their own liberating process.
The failure of inquiry is one of the primary racial dilemmas of the 21st century, and our blind longing for a post-racial world only exacerbates the problem.
Race is an important means by which people in a post-1492 world are able to recognise, understand and celebrate their collective identity (an identity I must note that predates 1492 by millennia); race has been a great source of pain and is now the basis on which there is need for great healing; race was the mode in which white people established their position of superiority and wealth, and it is the basis on which the former oppressor class must now humble itself.
For all of the post-racial idealism of the Obama age, race is far from being an irrelevant concept.
This leads me to my second contention: The suggestion that blackness only has meaning as a means of political organisation or as an object of someone's oppression, whether in a state of subjugation or resistance.
Basically, the argument goes like this: because we do not believe there is any longer racial discrimination, or because we no longer believe we have to fight for our rights, we no longer need to hold on to a black identity. It is the "we are one" argument.
The problem is, black people are not mere objects of someone's oppression, and seeing blackness solely as such is a shallow way to conceive of one's identity. Sadly, this is how we have been taught: to identify with each other based on struggle. That is why, typically, those who feel the struggle is over, celebrate the good fight, but feel little to no need for race association. They see no fallacy in the concept of One Bahamas. On the other hand, those who feel the struggle continues, see the world more pronouncedly through a racial lens, and experience dissonance in the concept that we are one.
The black identity does not exist only because white people once were the authors of our oppression. The experience of the Maafa (a term used to collectively describe the history, effects and legacy of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and the various atrocities on African people as a collective) has no doubt shaped how we understand race, but prior to the perverted introduction of the post-Maafa racial construct, there was still a black identity to which black people are inextricably linked.
The reason I say the black consciousness of our leaders, and our nation as a whole, in the era of Majority Rule was skin deep is because it was not an affirmative ideology that defined our blackness; it was a concept of our biological likeness, otherwise known as skin colour, combined with a common experience of oppression under white control and a common political objective. It was around that identity that black political leaders were able to carve out a black constituency and mobilise the masses.
Many black Bahamians to this day still find it difficult to answer the question, "What does it mean to be black?"
Many black Bahamians still cannot reconcile the concept of being Bahamian and African. It pains them to assume that identity unless it is qualified, as in Bahamian with African heritage or Bahamian who is a descendant of Africa.
The black experience of the Maafa created in black people such a hatred of Africa and all things African, but to this day, blacks who claim to be liberated have yet to reclaim their mother. I am no Bible scholar, and usually I avoid Bible quotes, but I make an exception to cite Exodus 20:12, a verse Bahamians are well familiar with: "Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the lord thy God giveth thee."
What about restoring the love for our earth mother? Despite our discomfort with claiming a "one (Bahamian or African)" identity, there is no conflict of identity or need for a dichotomous relationship. Think, after all, about our mothers who marry - they take on a new legal name (Bahamian), but they never lose their maiden name of birth (African). My birth mother, for example, has every right to claim her Gage identity as she does to her Nicolls identity. Her being a Nicolls does not negate her being a Gage. Her being a Gage does not deny her being a Nicolls.
The main point in all of this is how we understand our blackness as black people. I maintain that Chinese people do not hold a concept of being Chinese because they have been caricatured as having slanted-eyes. An Indian's concept of being Indian is not because of an accent. The recognition of their Chinese or Indian identity is based on a shared understanding of heritage, language, food, culture, history, geography, legacy and the likes.
Black people do not have a consensus of identity, not because no commonality exists, but because we have chosen to deny our very existence. To this day, we identify with a very shallow concept of self that goes only skin deep. It is a very lose concept that can be easily manipulated to serve political objectives, which is what happens most often when politicians play “the race card”.
Given the complex legacy of slavery and colonialism, it is apparent that skin colour is highly problematic as a mode of identity. As inter-racial realties continue to shape our world, skin colour will be more and more an irreconcilable mode of identity. But none of this negates race.
There is still a desperate need for the black world to coalesce around an affirmative ideology of blackness. Not a political concept of black power, but a soulful concept of blackness that is rooted in its source of power, Africa.
Any concept of blackness that lacks a consciousness of Africa lacks its primal essence and true source of power.
In the Bahamas and across the globe, black people as a collective community are in a dire state. We need to piece ourselves back together and heal our wounds in order to secure the progress we wish to see.
Paulo Freire once asked the question: “How can the oppressed, as divided unauthentic beings, participate in the pedagogy of their liberation?" Real progress of the mind, body, spirit (and pocket book) must entail growth in an understanding of our very blackness. It must entail inquiry into understanding who we are. In African tradition, to know thyself is one of the most noblest callings.
In 1967 our leaders, already enculturated into the new world order, were unable to champion this calling. In 2012 our leaders are in no better position. Humbly, I issue the call.
* Pan-African writer and cultural scholar Noelle Khalila Nicolls is a practising journalist in the Bahamas. Her column Talkin Sense explores issues of race, culture and politricks.
February 09, 2012
tribune242
By KHALILA NICOLLS
Khalilanicolls@gmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE other day I stumped a politician by asking him a simple question: What is Africa? The question emerged because he responded to another question I posed, are you African, by saying, "No, I am a Bahamian with African heritage." So naturally, I pressed, and asked, well what does it mean to have Africa heritage?
He fumbled for a response, claiming that regrettably, he had not done the research to know which tribe in Africa he came from. He said if he were asked the same question by one of his children, he would say, let us go and research it together.
Being perturbed by my unbridled dissatisfaction, he gave it another go. This time, he responded with the politically correct answer, speaking to Africa's wealth, in terms of her beautiful and bountiful natural resources and the many venerable world leaders she has given birth to.
The reason I was perturbed by his response was not because I felt he gave a poor answer initially, which he did, or that I was unsatisfied with his answer in the second instance, which I was not. It was because he seemed not to have understood the question.
What does Africa mean in the context of your identity? The question completely went over his head. I was not totally surprised, because when it comes to questions of identity and the study of meaning, many Bahamians seem to be uninterested or simply clueless.
As a street scholar with a professed love for questions of identity, I am often starved for engagement on these questions. It is a challenge arriving at a common understanding of Majority Rule, because without an interrogation of meaning it is difficult to arrive at a full understanding of one's identity or a consensus of worth.
As a Bahamian, I feel personally slighted, not having had the opportunity within the framework of my state-mandated educational career to interrogate the meaning of Majority Rule or any number of other concepts that are central to my identity.
Needless to say, engaging in the process of inquiry is part of the reason for creating my own platform, and of great interest to me is the idea of blackness and its relationship to the concept of Majority Rule.
The last time I wrote about Majority Rule, I argued that its assumed meaning, a symbol of black liberation in the Bahamas, failed to stand up in the face of scrutiny. That Majority Rule represented an expansion of our democratic system; the shattering of a glass ceiling for black Bahamians seeking political office; a milestone in political progress, but not a transformation in black consciousness or an ideological awakening of black people.
Evidence suggests that at the time of its coining, our nation's leaders were conflicted in the concept of their own blackness, and the real worth of that identity. Certainly, our leaders recognised the political power of the black association, but they also accepted that blackness was a political liability. It was something they were willing to bargain with.
All in all, I suggested, our collective vision of a black nation was ideologically tame, and so too was the impact of the black majority government on the progress of black Bahamians as a collective body.
So what is left to be said? Lots, because when it comes to understanding our own blackness in a country that celebrates Majority Rule and recognises itself as a majority black nation, I feel our nation's leaders, when they led us into the era of self-governance, failed to set the record straight on a number of important race issues.
First, racial solidarity is not a form of discrimination against white people or some kind of reverse-racism.
Second, blackness does not have meaning only where racial discrimination exists.
Third, to speak about white racial prejudice and how it was used to justify genocide, to disfranchise and dehumanise indigenous people across the globe, and to enrich white people and their generations yet to come is not an act of denigrating white people; it is basic world history.
On the first issue, I need to reflect on another interview I recently conducted. When I asked the person the meaning of being black, his first instinct was to say, let me see how to answer this without sounding like a racist. He then fumbled on to answer the question in line with the politically correct things to feel and say.
I had a similar encounter when listening to Freddy Munnings Jr on the radio programme Matters of the Heart. He recounted a time when he asked the Minister of Education (he did not specify which one) why Bahamians do not learn African history in school.
The minister replied by saying he did not want to teach racism. Mr Munnings rightly asked what is racist about teaching our children that their ancestors brought the world astrology, astronomy, mathematics and medicine, among other great contributions to world history.
I am with Mr Munnings on this one: what is racist about African pride? What is racist about affirming a black identity? Why have we chosen to accept the view that racial solidarity is somehow a destructive and divisive concept; that affirming a connection to one's blackness is somehow racist? It is an apologetic view of being black that black people would be better served to reject.
In January, the Arizona State legislature won its battle to outlaw the Tuscon Unified School District's Mexican American Studies (MAS) programme, on the grounds that it "promotes activism against white people, promotes racial resentment and advocates ethnic solidarity".
Best-selling classics like Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by Paulo Freire, and Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years, by Bill Bigelow, were banned from the curriculum.
It seems white people still fear that blacks and other subjects of white oppression might one day turn the tables and exact bitter revenge. In a school district where 60 per cent of the students are Latino, the fears must run high. But quite frankly, I find this fear to be arrogant, delusional, self-absorbed and downright ignorant, but completely unsurprising.
It is on the same basis of Arizona's objection that a black man would find it uncomfortable to give meaning to his own blackness. Not wanting to sound racist is a euphemism for not wanting to make white people uncomfortable; not wanting to evoke their misplaced fears.
Whether a black man's racial resentment is real or perceived, warranted or not, he should have the right and the space to feel as he may, and process his own experience, without having to be politically correct about it.
Denying him his right to feel does more to promote racial resentment than allowing him his space to heal. I think that is worth repeating (and I hope people at Arizona State are reading):
Denying him his right to feel (which includes inquiring into and processing his own experience) does more to promote racial resentment than allowing him his space to heal.
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire states: "Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence," and a "violation of their humanity". When I spoke earlier about feeling personally slighted, it was this violation I alluded to.
For all of our accomplishments, blacks are still negotiating the right to think, speak and feel for ourselves about our experience of being black.
As a society, we do not have a humanising pedagogy in which students of the former oppressed and oppressor classes can deepen their consciousness of their situation and be responsible for their own liberating process.
The failure of inquiry is one of the primary racial dilemmas of the 21st century, and our blind longing for a post-racial world only exacerbates the problem.
Race is an important means by which people in a post-1492 world are able to recognise, understand and celebrate their collective identity (an identity I must note that predates 1492 by millennia); race has been a great source of pain and is now the basis on which there is need for great healing; race was the mode in which white people established their position of superiority and wealth, and it is the basis on which the former oppressor class must now humble itself.
For all of the post-racial idealism of the Obama age, race is far from being an irrelevant concept.
This leads me to my second contention: The suggestion that blackness only has meaning as a means of political organisation or as an object of someone's oppression, whether in a state of subjugation or resistance.
Basically, the argument goes like this: because we do not believe there is any longer racial discrimination, or because we no longer believe we have to fight for our rights, we no longer need to hold on to a black identity. It is the "we are one" argument.
The problem is, black people are not mere objects of someone's oppression, and seeing blackness solely as such is a shallow way to conceive of one's identity. Sadly, this is how we have been taught: to identify with each other based on struggle. That is why, typically, those who feel the struggle is over, celebrate the good fight, but feel little to no need for race association. They see no fallacy in the concept of One Bahamas. On the other hand, those who feel the struggle continues, see the world more pronouncedly through a racial lens, and experience dissonance in the concept that we are one.
The black identity does not exist only because white people once were the authors of our oppression. The experience of the Maafa (a term used to collectively describe the history, effects and legacy of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and the various atrocities on African people as a collective) has no doubt shaped how we understand race, but prior to the perverted introduction of the post-Maafa racial construct, there was still a black identity to which black people are inextricably linked.
The reason I say the black consciousness of our leaders, and our nation as a whole, in the era of Majority Rule was skin deep is because it was not an affirmative ideology that defined our blackness; it was a concept of our biological likeness, otherwise known as skin colour, combined with a common experience of oppression under white control and a common political objective. It was around that identity that black political leaders were able to carve out a black constituency and mobilise the masses.
Many black Bahamians to this day still find it difficult to answer the question, "What does it mean to be black?"
Many black Bahamians still cannot reconcile the concept of being Bahamian and African. It pains them to assume that identity unless it is qualified, as in Bahamian with African heritage or Bahamian who is a descendant of Africa.
The black experience of the Maafa created in black people such a hatred of Africa and all things African, but to this day, blacks who claim to be liberated have yet to reclaim their mother. I am no Bible scholar, and usually I avoid Bible quotes, but I make an exception to cite Exodus 20:12, a verse Bahamians are well familiar with: "Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the lord thy God giveth thee."
What about restoring the love for our earth mother? Despite our discomfort with claiming a "one (Bahamian or African)" identity, there is no conflict of identity or need for a dichotomous relationship. Think, after all, about our mothers who marry - they take on a new legal name (Bahamian), but they never lose their maiden name of birth (African). My birth mother, for example, has every right to claim her Gage identity as she does to her Nicolls identity. Her being a Nicolls does not negate her being a Gage. Her being a Gage does not deny her being a Nicolls.
The main point in all of this is how we understand our blackness as black people. I maintain that Chinese people do not hold a concept of being Chinese because they have been caricatured as having slanted-eyes. An Indian's concept of being Indian is not because of an accent. The recognition of their Chinese or Indian identity is based on a shared understanding of heritage, language, food, culture, history, geography, legacy and the likes.
Black people do not have a consensus of identity, not because no commonality exists, but because we have chosen to deny our very existence. To this day, we identify with a very shallow concept of self that goes only skin deep. It is a very lose concept that can be easily manipulated to serve political objectives, which is what happens most often when politicians play “the race card”.
Given the complex legacy of slavery and colonialism, it is apparent that skin colour is highly problematic as a mode of identity. As inter-racial realties continue to shape our world, skin colour will be more and more an irreconcilable mode of identity. But none of this negates race.
There is still a desperate need for the black world to coalesce around an affirmative ideology of blackness. Not a political concept of black power, but a soulful concept of blackness that is rooted in its source of power, Africa.
Any concept of blackness that lacks a consciousness of Africa lacks its primal essence and true source of power.
In the Bahamas and across the globe, black people as a collective community are in a dire state. We need to piece ourselves back together and heal our wounds in order to secure the progress we wish to see.
Paulo Freire once asked the question: “How can the oppressed, as divided unauthentic beings, participate in the pedagogy of their liberation?" Real progress of the mind, body, spirit (and pocket book) must entail growth in an understanding of our very blackness. It must entail inquiry into understanding who we are. In African tradition, to know thyself is one of the most noblest callings.
In 1967 our leaders, already enculturated into the new world order, were unable to champion this calling. In 2012 our leaders are in no better position. Humbly, I issue the call.
* Pan-African writer and cultural scholar Noelle Khalila Nicolls is a practising journalist in the Bahamas. Her column Talkin Sense explores issues of race, culture and politricks.
February 09, 2012
tribune242
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Haitian President Michel Martelly's visit to The Bahamas turns political in a general election climate
Haitian president's visit turns political
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
JUDGING from the squeals in the political arena since the two-day visit of Haitian President Michel Martelly, it would seem that many guilty consciences have been exposed.
In speaking with his people -- some born in the Bahamas with the legal right to be here-- President Martelly advised those registered to vote to organise themselves and "identify in this upcoming election with who is on their side".
In plain, simple English (and Mr Martelly speaks good English) they were told -- vote your conscience. No one heard him say vote FNM, PLP or DNA. The decision of each of them will be subjective, as it is with all voters. Each one will have had a different experience with the various governments -- and like each and every Bahamian, they too will have to decide which government is capable of doing the best, not only for them, but for the Bahamas - their country.
But now the political hoodwinkers are about their dirty work of confusion. The rumour, fanned by various members of the opposition, claim that President Martelly encouraged Haitians to vote FNM. If that is so, maybe some of them had better go back to kindergarten to learn to speak English. Many Bahamians complain that Haitians will eventually take over the Bahamas. If this is the level of Bahamian politicians' understanding of their own language, then maybe Haitians will one day takeover the country.
Mr Martelly did not instruct anyone on how to vote. He arrived in Nassau on Wednesday to have discussions with Bahamian officials and the Haitian community on how to develop trade opportunities and improve conditions for Haitians legally in the Bahamas. "I promised them to work for them to better their possibilities to remain in Haiti so I had a very open discussion with officials as to how can we protect those who at least have the legal papers."
President Martelly said he was "committed to working with the Bahamian government to find responsible and humane solutions to reports of mistreatment of legal residents and persons born in the Bahamas of Haitian descent." However, he said, his ultimate focus was to try to create jobs that would keep Haitians at home and stop the illegal flow to the Bahamas. He was also here to encourage investment in Haiti - "we want trade, we need to create jobs, as we create jobs, companies make money, they pay their taxes and Haiti prospers".
He also hoped to resume talks regarding the export of agricultural produce from Haiti. Apparently, Mr Martelly's predecessor was already negotiating with the Bahamas government for the importation of Haitian mangoes -- talks that ended with the 2010 earthquake that crushed Haiti. Mr Martelly was resuming those talks.
Bran McCartney, DNA leader, formerly Minister of State for Immigration in the FNM government, found that for Mr Martelly to "insinuate that Bahamians of Haitian descent are being abused is misleading".
Come now, Mr McCartney, you know that this statement is not misleading. Even today there are certain officials, in uniform, who will shake down a Haitian for his money. And what about the legal Haitians in Eleuthera -- many in their nightclothes - who were roused from their beds by the police and herded to a fast ferry bound for Nassau. Of the 193 persons arrested and sent to the Detention Centre, 170 had to be released because they were legal residents. True, in 2006, this was not on Mr McCartney's watch, but still, under then Immigration Minister Shane Gibson (PLP), it was unfair harassment, and a legitimate subject for discussion by Haiti's visiting president.
Mr Martelly talked of the children born here who have to wait until they are 18 to apply for citizenship - in the meantime they "don't belong anywhere". He said that if these persons are sent back to Haiti they would know nobody, and would not even recognise the place where they had landed.
We also know that this is true. We have had personal experience with such a situation. It was the case of a young girl, who if it had not been for her name, could pass as Bahamian. Both parents, had legal standing in the Bahamas. She arrived here a babe in arms. One day, she was picked up working as a shop girl -- her employers probably did not suspect she was Haitian. She was taken to the Detention Centre. The next day, she was to be flown to Haiti, where she had no family, friends, or even acquaintances. A top girl in one of the government schools, even her teachers went to bat for her. Eventually, we got her out. But how many more have there been like her who have had no one to turn to for help.
We understand that one of the issues that hastened Mr McCartney's departure from his post as FNM Minister of State for Immigration was his harsh position on the Haitian question. His policies were out of step with that of his party. Hence a parting of the ways, and the eventual establishment of the DNA party.
And, of course, we needn't remind anyone of the harsh treatment of Haitians under the PLP administration, particularly under former immigration minister Loftus Roker when Haitians were hunted from the bush with dogs, while their unattended homes were raided by thieving Bahamians.
Yes, Mr McCartney, Mr Martelly had a lot to talk about. It is now up to the Bahamians of Haitian descent and Haitians with the right to vote to decide which party has the more humane approach to their unfortunate situation.
But to say that Mr Martelly's presence was a "political ploy by the FNM to manipulate the (electoral) process" and the President's comments - at this politically sensitive time - were a "direct attack on Bahamian democracy" is just so much political chicanery.
February 10, 2012
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
JUDGING from the squeals in the political arena since the two-day visit of Haitian President Michel Martelly, it would seem that many guilty consciences have been exposed.
In speaking with his people -- some born in the Bahamas with the legal right to be here-- President Martelly advised those registered to vote to organise themselves and "identify in this upcoming election with who is on their side".
In plain, simple English (and Mr Martelly speaks good English) they were told -- vote your conscience. No one heard him say vote FNM, PLP or DNA. The decision of each of them will be subjective, as it is with all voters. Each one will have had a different experience with the various governments -- and like each and every Bahamian, they too will have to decide which government is capable of doing the best, not only for them, but for the Bahamas - their country.
But now the political hoodwinkers are about their dirty work of confusion. The rumour, fanned by various members of the opposition, claim that President Martelly encouraged Haitians to vote FNM. If that is so, maybe some of them had better go back to kindergarten to learn to speak English. Many Bahamians complain that Haitians will eventually take over the Bahamas. If this is the level of Bahamian politicians' understanding of their own language, then maybe Haitians will one day takeover the country.
Mr Martelly did not instruct anyone on how to vote. He arrived in Nassau on Wednesday to have discussions with Bahamian officials and the Haitian community on how to develop trade opportunities and improve conditions for Haitians legally in the Bahamas. "I promised them to work for them to better their possibilities to remain in Haiti so I had a very open discussion with officials as to how can we protect those who at least have the legal papers."
President Martelly said he was "committed to working with the Bahamian government to find responsible and humane solutions to reports of mistreatment of legal residents and persons born in the Bahamas of Haitian descent." However, he said, his ultimate focus was to try to create jobs that would keep Haitians at home and stop the illegal flow to the Bahamas. He was also here to encourage investment in Haiti - "we want trade, we need to create jobs, as we create jobs, companies make money, they pay their taxes and Haiti prospers".
He also hoped to resume talks regarding the export of agricultural produce from Haiti. Apparently, Mr Martelly's predecessor was already negotiating with the Bahamas government for the importation of Haitian mangoes -- talks that ended with the 2010 earthquake that crushed Haiti. Mr Martelly was resuming those talks.
Bran McCartney, DNA leader, formerly Minister of State for Immigration in the FNM government, found that for Mr Martelly to "insinuate that Bahamians of Haitian descent are being abused is misleading".
Come now, Mr McCartney, you know that this statement is not misleading. Even today there are certain officials, in uniform, who will shake down a Haitian for his money. And what about the legal Haitians in Eleuthera -- many in their nightclothes - who were roused from their beds by the police and herded to a fast ferry bound for Nassau. Of the 193 persons arrested and sent to the Detention Centre, 170 had to be released because they were legal residents. True, in 2006, this was not on Mr McCartney's watch, but still, under then Immigration Minister Shane Gibson (PLP), it was unfair harassment, and a legitimate subject for discussion by Haiti's visiting president.
Mr Martelly talked of the children born here who have to wait until they are 18 to apply for citizenship - in the meantime they "don't belong anywhere". He said that if these persons are sent back to Haiti they would know nobody, and would not even recognise the place where they had landed.
We also know that this is true. We have had personal experience with such a situation. It was the case of a young girl, who if it had not been for her name, could pass as Bahamian. Both parents, had legal standing in the Bahamas. She arrived here a babe in arms. One day, she was picked up working as a shop girl -- her employers probably did not suspect she was Haitian. She was taken to the Detention Centre. The next day, she was to be flown to Haiti, where she had no family, friends, or even acquaintances. A top girl in one of the government schools, even her teachers went to bat for her. Eventually, we got her out. But how many more have there been like her who have had no one to turn to for help.
We understand that one of the issues that hastened Mr McCartney's departure from his post as FNM Minister of State for Immigration was his harsh position on the Haitian question. His policies were out of step with that of his party. Hence a parting of the ways, and the eventual establishment of the DNA party.
And, of course, we needn't remind anyone of the harsh treatment of Haitians under the PLP administration, particularly under former immigration minister Loftus Roker when Haitians were hunted from the bush with dogs, while their unattended homes were raided by thieving Bahamians.
Yes, Mr McCartney, Mr Martelly had a lot to talk about. It is now up to the Bahamians of Haitian descent and Haitians with the right to vote to decide which party has the more humane approach to their unfortunate situation.
But to say that Mr Martelly's presence was a "political ploy by the FNM to manipulate the (electoral) process" and the President's comments - at this politically sensitive time - were a "direct attack on Bahamian democracy" is just so much political chicanery.
February 10, 2012
tribune242 editorial
Friday, February 10, 2012
Haitian President Michel Martelly’s encouragement to Haitian-Bahamians to vote in a bloc for the party that best serves their interests in the upcoming general election in The Bahamas has sparked outrage among Bahamians
Outrage at Haitian leader’s remarks
By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
Haitian President Michel Martelly’s encouragement to Haitian-Bahamians to vote in a bloc for the party that best serves their interests sparked outrage yesterday from political observers, who called the comments ‘insulting’ interference in the country’s political system.
Some members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) said Martelly’s comments were inappropriate. Some observers also said they were ill-timed, considering the fact that the next election is so close.
It was also suggested by some yesterday that newly-regularized Bahamians might heed Martelly’s advice and be inclined to vote for the FNM.
“I thought it was an insult to the Bahamian people that a foreigner would come here and instruct Bahamian citizens to vote one way or the other,” said PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts.
Roberts, who was briefly a former immigration minister in the Christie administration, pointed out that only Bahamian citizens can vote in elections. He said they should therefore vote for the party that best serves the country, not a particular sect or group.
His sentiments in this regard were echoed by Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell and former PLP MP and senator Philip Galanis.
“People vote for their best interests, they don’t in my view vote as a bloc. Every Bahamian who is voting will vote for the party that is in the best interest of The Bahamas,” said Mitchell.
He said, however, that the PLP was assured by the Haitian Embassy that the comments were not meant to be inflammatory.
However, Galanis said Haitian-Bahamians who were eligible for citizenship and regularized by the government over the past five years may see Martelly’s words as an endorsement of the FNM.
“It was totally inappropriate for him to make those statements in the run-up to the next election because there were so many persons who just received citizenship by the FNM, and they may take that as [a cue to say] that’s who they should vote for,” said Galanis.
The government granted citizenship to nearly 2,600 people in the four-and-a-half years it has been in power, Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette revealed earlier this week, but he did not indicate how many were of Haitian descent.
Yesterday, the Democratic National Alliance said Martelly’s comments were not suitable considering the heightened political season.
DNA Leader Branville McCartney said the president’s remarks were a “direct attack on Bahamian democracy and all Bahamians — those of foreign descent or otherwise — who uphold the ideals of the nation and their right to vote for whichever political party they see fit”.
“Haiti’s president should respect the sovereignty of our democracy,” McCartney added in a statement yesterday.
FNM Chairman Carl Bethel, who did not speak for the party but gave his personal views, said Martelly’s political statements shocked him.
“Non-Bahamians cannot dictate what goes on in The Bahamas, whether they visit or live here,” said Bethel, who stressed that this comment did not refer to President Martelly.
He also shot down speculation that Martelly’s visit was orchestrated by the FNM to gain votes from the Haitian-Bahamian community.
“The FNM is a Bahamian party whose first interest is the interest of The Bahamas,” he said.
During his brief visit to The Bahamas, President Martelly urged Haitian-Bahamians with the right to vote to support the party that could serve and protect their interests.
He made the statements during a meeting with Haitians and people of Haitian descent at Church of God on Joe Farrington Road on Tuesday night, and repeated them on Wednesday.
Last year, PLP Leader Perry Christie said successive governments have been hesitant to take a strong stance against the illegal Haitian immigrant problem because they fear a voting bloc of Haitian-Bahamians.
“Once governments become frightened of the numbers of Haitians who have become Bahamians and who can vote... they have become an important voting bloc. So somewhere along the line the purity of the commitment to protect The Bahamas and its territorial waters is sort of merged to the fear of doing things that might cause you to lose an election,” Christie said.
"...We allowed ourselves to be influenced too much by their presence as opposed to using our own commitment to convince and satisfy them that they are Bahamians, accepted as Bahamians, and that the programs that we are offering them to close down illegal immigrants coming into our country are programs as much in their favor as in any other Bahamian's favor.”
Feb 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)