Tweet
<span style="font-weight: bold">A letter to Jamaica (Pt I) - Rekindle Pan-Africanism's message of black greatness</span>
Published: Sunday | March 22, 2009
We must all agree that Jamaica is a very wonderful country, much more important than her size would seem to justify. It's a country that has produced great people in the past and still does. People like Marcus Garvey, a great philosopher, one of the first, one of the best, came from Jamaica.
We have produced people like 'Lightning Bolt' and Shelley-Ann Fraser, Olympic champions, among the fastest men and women in the world. We have produced great writers and painters, like Louise Bennett, Barrington Watson and others.
We have produced great teachers, such as Dr Claude Packer, Bishop Percival Gibson, J.J. Mills, and great educational institutions. A country which was once the leading producer of bauxite in the world has so many attributes that I fail to see why we should be so far down in the ratings of countries and their progress. No country that can have produced so many thinkers should be so low down, largely because of crime, under-development and other excuses mentioned from time to time. Perhaps we should look into the reasons for this. Perhaps, and we always do look at the failures of leadership, we could begin at 1962 when we got our Independence.
<span style="font-style: italic">We started wrong</span>
It might well be that in receiving our Independence from the British and the Order in Council as the thing that granted us liberty and freedom, we started wrong. Nobody can grant you freedom. They can recognise the freedom you should have had from birth. Nevertheless, we followed because it was the colonial way. But we, as a colony as of 1962, became a free people. We start from there and perhaps it is a real point of departure for looking back and hoping for the future.
This year, 2009, is filled with hope because of certain occurrences. There is an atmosphere of hope which has gone right around the world. Jamaica still has a stigma of crime, underdevelopment and hopelessness.
But let us return to 1962, for it is then we assumed our own responsibility as a free nation. This is when we, by receiving this gift from Britain in the good old colonial ritual of passage, robbed ourselves of the angst that people fighting for liberty entertain. It robbed our future because the people have said: "Somebody gave us something; we did not fight for it."
<span style="font-style: italic">Seeds of dependence</span>
Did it begin the seeds of dependence which is the hallmark and the perpetual stain of dependence in the colonial legacy? A people who should be doing things for themselves, by themselves, had begun the new independence by depending on the benevolence of their erstwhile masters. And it is still there. That attitude of dependency has come right down the ages and it is there today.
I can think, even in my own small part of time in the history of our country, of the time when the people got together to do things that they wanted to get done. The road was bad; they would get stones together to fix it. If the river divided them, they would build their own bridges. Today, it is different. Government must do this; Government must do that. There is a dependency on Government, which has come right down the line.
Furthermore, in 1962, when we became independent, there were several decisions we could have taken. Our leaders could first have taken the path of a strong central government like Cuba. Thank God we did not go that route! Or in the second decision, that is, putting black people in white people's offices, thinking that we had made change. This is the decision which we took, and carried on business as usual. There was no change; the word 'independence' was meaningless.
But, perhaps, they could have taken a third route. I know it is always easier to look back with the benefit of hindsight, but perhaps, if at that time, our leaders had the far-sighted vision and had asked themselves the questions, "Now that we are in charge, what sort of Jamaica do we want to make for the next 100 years? What sort of people do we want to produce in 100 years after freedom and beyond?" if they had taken that view, wiser and very different developments would have taken place.
<span style="font-weight: bold">For instance, let us look at the entire musculature of the country, the whole body of a free Jamaica, including:</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">Law and order:</span> The police in colonial days were there to keep the Queen's peace and to carry out draconian orders, largely against the poor, as the vagrants of the law, protecting the properties, etc. We needed a different attitude, a different type of police force. One built around creating and maintaining peaceful communities.
<span style="font-style: italic">The civil service:</span> We accepted a mechanism that ran smoothly for its masters and produced results for its masters who were British, and it should have alerted us that we should not use the same kind of mechanisms that moved effectively for any masters outside of Jamaica. Our civil service rules should have been different.
<span style="font-style: italic">
Education</span>: We inherited an educational system from the British which was elitist and usually brought to us up to a level where we could write intelligent letters, ending, 'Your obedient servant, John Doe'.
We had to change that; we had to change our educational system, to one that would teach our people to think outside the box, teaching our own history of ourselves, which would reach back into the rich legacy of our past, a legacy which must be very powerful, because it had overcome so many blocks and blows and obstacles and yet, has maintained its vibrancy. Teach them that slavery did not begin their history but interrupted their history. In other words, connect them with their legacy. Connect them with their real past. Therefore, those things would have shaped our nation differently. Those decisions at Independence would have completed the vision of leaders who looked forward to what they would have wanted, instead of taking the seats of white people and carrying on business as usual.
<span style="font-style: italic">Politicians not failures</span>
And the result is that through the years, we have produced a whole succession of politicians who, by and large, have not been complete failures. I do not always point my finger at the politician as being the chief cause of our present state. No, they did a lot. Our people are much more advanced than they were in many ways. We can see it in the houses and the businesses, and so on. We have come a great way since Independence.
No, I would say that they produced a series of leaders, including great people, such as Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley. Jamaica has produced some of the greatest people in the world, like Marcus Garvey. We should all study that man. He was Jamaica's gift to the world, not just a black leader, but a great world leader who happened to be black. There is a difference.
<span style="font-weight: bold">See Part II in tomorrow's Gleaner</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">Dudley Thompson is a former minister of government in the Michael Manley administration of the 1970s. Feed back may be sent to [email protected]. </span>
Published: Sunday | March 22, 2009
We must all agree that Jamaica is a very wonderful country, much more important than her size would seem to justify. It's a country that has produced great people in the past and still does. People like Marcus Garvey, a great philosopher, one of the first, one of the best, came from Jamaica.
We have produced people like 'Lightning Bolt' and Shelley-Ann Fraser, Olympic champions, among the fastest men and women in the world. We have produced great writers and painters, like Louise Bennett, Barrington Watson and others.
We have produced great teachers, such as Dr Claude Packer, Bishop Percival Gibson, J.J. Mills, and great educational institutions. A country which was once the leading producer of bauxite in the world has so many attributes that I fail to see why we should be so far down in the ratings of countries and their progress. No country that can have produced so many thinkers should be so low down, largely because of crime, under-development and other excuses mentioned from time to time. Perhaps we should look into the reasons for this. Perhaps, and we always do look at the failures of leadership, we could begin at 1962 when we got our Independence.
<span style="font-style: italic">We started wrong</span>
It might well be that in receiving our Independence from the British and the Order in Council as the thing that granted us liberty and freedom, we started wrong. Nobody can grant you freedom. They can recognise the freedom you should have had from birth. Nevertheless, we followed because it was the colonial way. But we, as a colony as of 1962, became a free people. We start from there and perhaps it is a real point of departure for looking back and hoping for the future.
This year, 2009, is filled with hope because of certain occurrences. There is an atmosphere of hope which has gone right around the world. Jamaica still has a stigma of crime, underdevelopment and hopelessness.
But let us return to 1962, for it is then we assumed our own responsibility as a free nation. This is when we, by receiving this gift from Britain in the good old colonial ritual of passage, robbed ourselves of the angst that people fighting for liberty entertain. It robbed our future because the people have said: "Somebody gave us something; we did not fight for it."
<span style="font-style: italic">Seeds of dependence</span>
Did it begin the seeds of dependence which is the hallmark and the perpetual stain of dependence in the colonial legacy? A people who should be doing things for themselves, by themselves, had begun the new independence by depending on the benevolence of their erstwhile masters. And it is still there. That attitude of dependency has come right down the ages and it is there today.
I can think, even in my own small part of time in the history of our country, of the time when the people got together to do things that they wanted to get done. The road was bad; they would get stones together to fix it. If the river divided them, they would build their own bridges. Today, it is different. Government must do this; Government must do that. There is a dependency on Government, which has come right down the line.
Furthermore, in 1962, when we became independent, there were several decisions we could have taken. Our leaders could first have taken the path of a strong central government like Cuba. Thank God we did not go that route! Or in the second decision, that is, putting black people in white people's offices, thinking that we had made change. This is the decision which we took, and carried on business as usual. There was no change; the word 'independence' was meaningless.
But, perhaps, they could have taken a third route. I know it is always easier to look back with the benefit of hindsight, but perhaps, if at that time, our leaders had the far-sighted vision and had asked themselves the questions, "Now that we are in charge, what sort of Jamaica do we want to make for the next 100 years? What sort of people do we want to produce in 100 years after freedom and beyond?" if they had taken that view, wiser and very different developments would have taken place.
<span style="font-weight: bold">For instance, let us look at the entire musculature of the country, the whole body of a free Jamaica, including:</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">Law and order:</span> The police in colonial days were there to keep the Queen's peace and to carry out draconian orders, largely against the poor, as the vagrants of the law, protecting the properties, etc. We needed a different attitude, a different type of police force. One built around creating and maintaining peaceful communities.
<span style="font-style: italic">The civil service:</span> We accepted a mechanism that ran smoothly for its masters and produced results for its masters who were British, and it should have alerted us that we should not use the same kind of mechanisms that moved effectively for any masters outside of Jamaica. Our civil service rules should have been different.
<span style="font-style: italic">
Education</span>: We inherited an educational system from the British which was elitist and usually brought to us up to a level where we could write intelligent letters, ending, 'Your obedient servant, John Doe'.
We had to change that; we had to change our educational system, to one that would teach our people to think outside the box, teaching our own history of ourselves, which would reach back into the rich legacy of our past, a legacy which must be very powerful, because it had overcome so many blocks and blows and obstacles and yet, has maintained its vibrancy. Teach them that slavery did not begin their history but interrupted their history. In other words, connect them with their legacy. Connect them with their real past. Therefore, those things would have shaped our nation differently. Those decisions at Independence would have completed the vision of leaders who looked forward to what they would have wanted, instead of taking the seats of white people and carrying on business as usual.
<span style="font-style: italic">Politicians not failures</span>
And the result is that through the years, we have produced a whole succession of politicians who, by and large, have not been complete failures. I do not always point my finger at the politician as being the chief cause of our present state. No, they did a lot. Our people are much more advanced than they were in many ways. We can see it in the houses and the businesses, and so on. We have come a great way since Independence.
No, I would say that they produced a series of leaders, including great people, such as Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley. Jamaica has produced some of the greatest people in the world, like Marcus Garvey. We should all study that man. He was Jamaica's gift to the world, not just a black leader, but a great world leader who happened to be black. There is a difference.
<span style="font-weight: bold">See Part II in tomorrow's Gleaner</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">Dudley Thompson is a former minister of government in the Michael Manley administration of the 1970s. Feed back may be sent to [email protected]. </span>