I doh understand why indians always claiming discrimination when their race/group is generally more successful than people of african descent.
Boss,
Don't bracket a whole subsection of our country because some jokers who happen to be of the same ethnicity pushing race talk to an extreme. They do NOT speak for the informed populace, only the ones who excel within the context of tribal politics.
While there may not be an overt conspiracy against "indians" as claimed by the collective jackasses, there exists prejudice across the board (ALL races) in Trinidad and Tobago. Its not hard to come on this board and find posts that border on ridiculous. Nothing is ever said because we have this illusion that we are a nation of great tolerance and a prevailing attitude of "if you cyah take picong, you eh no trini". One consequence of all of this is that we never have honest discussions bout race matters in T&T.
Something else to note, people of all races have succeeded in spite of perceived discrimination. Success is not a measuring stick for whether discrimination exists or not. But I digress.
Good post. Trinbagonians don't organize their lives around hatred and ethnic difference but very subtle discrimination exists. Case in point: "If you cyah take picong you eh no Trini". I'm almost certain "taking and giving picong" is a African derived cultural trait that we transposed onto part of the core of what it apparently means to be "Trini".
In fact most of what we consider Trini is based on Afro-European culture, with a smattering of superficial Indian references. We don’t even come close to incorporating the stories, the great texts or even the ayurvedas of India into mainstream culture. The closest I can recall to authentic Indian spiritulism being brought into the mainstream in and of itself was when Lord Shorty sang Om Shanti in ‘78.
I’m not excusing Gopeesingh and his nonsense. But discrimination is always invisible to those who form the cultural majority. Gopeesingh might be talking shyte, but if we smart we will reject him but take a long hard look at ourselves and how we do we business.
No Name and Zando, kudos for injecting thoughtful nuance into the discussion. That stated, leh me quibble lil bit.
As far as the honest discussions on race: I believe contributors here (and on the Trini street) project honesty in their discourse on race ... it may not always be seemingly informed, particularly enlightened, liberal or to our liking, buh I sense it's 'honest' b/c it's 'experiential' and 'perceived', and dispensed in a stream of consciousness way.
If we want to arrive at a more penetrating platform demonstrating incisive honesty rooted in so-called 21st century values and norms, perhaps then we should change 'our' leaders and re-orient the view on the street (top to bottom reform?) AND revisit the class fracture that's the other denied axis of "our nation of great tolerance" (bottom to top reform?)
Buh really, our "superficial Indian references" likely stem from our superficial interactions. We're all willing participants in a national Jedi mind trick that's self-serving. Want to put this to the test? Try explaining who we are to non-Trinis (or kids). What pisses off a bulky cross-section of the populace is the political "jokers" who refuse to buy into the 'trick' for
their self-serving reasons. So, lemme ask ah question: why does the Jedi mind trick operate on the basis of African and Indian exclusively?
+++
Zando, why ah gehhin de feeling 'closest' is almost a proxy for 'first'? Or even 'only'
Anyway, I think closest is debatable, but your point is taken. I would prefer to refer to Shorty's contributions as a point of departure because we can't ignore the fact that the early 70s reflect only a brief period in our self-determination/post-independence experiment. [We really looking at '73/'74 rather than '78]. It wasn't that much earlier that the society was ordered (still is to degree) by covenants imposed on us. As I understand it, the sort of incorporation into a meshed artistic fabric you refer to would have been difficult prior to that. If we're honest, it's been challenging subsequently.
In my view, there is always a fear of cultural approximation and cultural insensitivity when the 'messenger' crosses boundaries. We've had more than a couple episodes like that over the years. However, when the 'messenger' brings the apparent legitimacy of coming from within a tradition (versus not) .. while the charges persist as internal debate and at lower intensity, ultimately they broaden inclusiveness and foster cultural dialogue (say, as over the years tassa has spoken with increasing volume and has 'married' other manifestations).
So, what's the predicate for an infusion of an "authentic Indian spiritualism"? Invitation, collaboration or imposition? While I'm not insensitive to this charge of a cultural tyranny of the majority, you haven't placed an onus on the culturally aggrieved or oppressed in helping bridge the gap ... neither have you addressed whether they wanted to affect the dominant idiom OR merely wanted a kind of parallel, equal platform. (What distinguished Mastana Bahar (TV) from Geetanjali (radio)?
I would caution that historically both idioms co-existed by thriving on different 'things'. It seems one looked inwards (maybe even demarcated boundaries) and the other thrived on broader public expression (thus co-opting the space that
was? available to the 'other'), and hence found it easier to aggrandize its position with the assistance and democratization of social elites (Minshall
et al).
(Perhaps you could contend 'public expression' should read 'public acceptance' ... I could vibes that). Whose responsibility is it for expanding the motif? Can it be done secularly without religious outrage and political consequences? I think you guys have touched on the challenge going fwd.
Obviously, this ent nutten definitive ... just adding variables.
