May 21, 2024, 12:14:07 AM

Author Topic: I did not know this about Jamaica  (Read 4737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JDB

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Red, White and Black till death
    • View Profile
    • We Reach
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2012, 01:51:10 AM »
Come on preacher, shame on you.  this clip has been out there for yrs, and the documentary is almost 20 yrs old, if not more.

right now jamaica cooling down and it look like trinidad wants tuh take their place.

i don't want to come across as unkind, ignorant and silly, but IMO, black/ caribbean / african ppl was not really ready for independence, bc apart from being extremely self centered, we are an ignorant uncouth kind of people, fact! and lack patriotism and responsibility to each other.

black folks need a lot a lot a lot of education!!!!!!!! i can't stress enough how much education we need horse! in reality, we not ready @ all @ all @ all for this kind of heavy responsibility, and it shows, bc we failing miserably.

governing your own self calls for responsible focused well rounded caring politicians and leaders, and most of these caribbean and african nations are filled with self serving backward corrupt dictators and politicians.

the only caribbean or african independent nation i've seen that shows any sign of capable self governance is barbados, and maybe that's bc it's britain's play ground, and they put more care into helping them remain stable for selfish reasons.   JMAO.

A couple things in relation to this post. I haven't read the others that followed.

We need to be careful about ascribing trends to race or culture that are common to human nature. Most post-colonial governments have problems. They are younger and all have to deal with self-governance issues. India and Pakistan have had just as many problems building a post-colonial society and they not black. For decades to come Egypt, Iraq and Libya will be going through the throes of finding some equitable from of self-governance.

Also the problems and history of post-colonial Caribbean countries is vastly different to post-colonial African countries despite all being black.

Caribbean countries have generally had sustained democratic order with peaceful political succession. African countries have more in common with India and Pakistan with numerous assasinations, military takeovers and failure to respect the electoral process. That is because the history of these "countries" usually involves taking completely different "Nations" of peoples and arbitrarily dropping them within large geographic boundaries, playing one side off against another for 50 years and then leaving in haste.

This is not a black or non-black thing because you see a similar effect in one of the few European examples of a similar situation in Yugoslavia in the 1990's.

The common thread could be that colonized people were second class members of their societies because they were externally governed. In making the jump to self-governance it is human nature to
a) try to get a superior position to benefit from the power vacuum and have the advantages of the former colonizer
b) fight to ensure that you do not end up in an inferior position and be at the mercy of unscrupulous, inexperienced governments

To your point about what colonial powers could have done to make things better all of these countries could have benefited from a more protracted independence process, preferably one that involved the colonial subjects being fully integrated as members of the parent society before independence but the economics of that was never going to work for the colonial powers.

Things may be compounded in Africa where you have a "big man" culture where the societies seem to me more familiar with a king or tribal leader holding all the power. As a result even in relatively homogeneous African countries you have no shortage of scoundrels champing at the bit to oppress their own people for personal gain. But even that is not unique to Africa because yuh have the Phillipines, Burma and other Asian peoples with tonnes of post-colonial strife.

In general Caribbean post-colonial countries have done an admirable job of self-government by comparison and yuh certainly tcan't say that they worse off because the leaders are black.

A challenge that may be more pronounced to post-colonial Caribbean and North American Blacks would be the effect of slavery on the family as a societal unit but that is a whole different story all together.
THE WARRIORS WILL NOT BE DENIED.

Offline Dutty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9578
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2012, 07:56:30 AM »
....Flawless.....
Little known fact: The online transportation medium called Uber was pioneered in Trinidad & Tobago in the 1960's. It was originally called pullin bull.

Offline Preacher

  • We doh smoke or drink or pop pills. When we light the mic is strickly jess skills
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2012, 11:52:56 AM »
JDB you sound like a fella from St. Joseph Boys RC.   ;)
In Everything give thanks for this is the will of God concerning you.

Offline just cool

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8065
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2012, 04:06:17 PM »
JDB, one thing yuh need tuh know before we continue any further. this was just an observation, an opinion or theory for that matter, and not a fact, although my opinion was based on certain facts, yet still, it's just an opinion.

i've also noticed in your post ah few observations of your own that may not necessarily be so, for instance the comparison you made with countries the like of pakistan, egypt and iraq to the british slave colonies.
while these counties were colonized by the british along with countries like china and india, these places were not plantocracies.

the caibbean on the other hand were geared towards one thing only, plantation revenues. when the colonizers went into the caribbean region 500 yrs ago, they all but obliterated the native population, they then brought in african captives to work the fields and create revenue for the crown.

these africans were stripped of every thing that made them who they were! their language, culture, education and freedom was thrown in the garbage for ah whole new life style, one of ignorance and servitude.

the later colonies of which you speak were not as unfortunate, they were independent nations for centuries  governing themselves way before their colonizers came calling, and even though they were conquered and colonized, they were allowed to keep every aspect of their existence. as a matter of reason, they gained from their occupation, bc they were exposed to a different way of life, while keeping and having the freedom to practice their ancient ways.

a lot of the ppl in the later colonies were well educated in the way of the crown, hek, there was even an aristocracy amongst them, who lived side by side and robbed shoulders with their colonizers.

the later colonies were not occupied for too long, maybe  150 yrs tops, unlike their fellow caribbean colonials who were not only occupied, but was own by the crown, lock stock and barrel for many centuries.

it's only in the late 1800s the emancipated slaves were given and opportunity to be properly educated academically, and not until the later half of their colonization they were learned in the ways of governance.

both emancipated slaves and the indentured worker population were kept ignorant and uncouth. it's only after the turn of the century the colonizers saw it fit to offer ample education and ethical rehabilitation opportunities to learn the ways of their colonizers.

 the negro and the coolie was too raw uncouth and backward for their taste, and britsh wanted to out do their counterpart french colonizers in civilizing their population, so they embarked upon this venture.

the both population of african freemen and indentured workers were never verse in the ways of governance, it's only until the late thirties that state workers the like of police officers and fire men were given to former slaves, from barbados, grenada and some trinidadians in all the colonies, but before that , they were exclusively given to british and white settlers.

while in places like china and egypt, those ppl were given the opportunity to run their own show, with the colonizers @ the helm.

as for the africans, well you were spot on with your assessment, but you forgot one major detail. the african colonization posed ah huge problem to the british. the africans fought the british tooth and nail for close to a century, they also fought the french and the portugues with little pockets of resistance here and there.

the british viewed the africans as hostile subjects and kept them as disenfranchised and backward as possible, just like the slaves on the plantation in the colonies of the caribbean.

back then, some tribes warred the occupation, while others were all for it, bc of the perks given to them by the colonizers in return for capturing and subduing resisting tribes.

i believe the africans you speak of are of the french and portugues africans nations, but the ones who were under british rule "for the most part" observed the democratic process with the odd exception of Edi amin and robert mugabe, even though most english african nations were just as corrupt as the others.

africans had little in terms of education and opportunity, they were also given less responsibility in areas such as governance, unlike the chinese, indians and egyptians. fellas like jumo kenyata and kwame enkruma never forgave the british for the lack of care and infrastructure to their respective countries despite the riches their country yield to the crown, and even fought to get them out pre independence with little success.

BTW, the only reason i mention "black ppl" and them not being ready for independence in preachers post, is bc of the deplorable state that jamaica was in only less than 15 yrs of being on their own, and i simply implied that caribbean and africans were ill prepared to rule their own destiny just yet, and they needed serious rehabilitation.             positive.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 06:36:55 PM by just cool »
The pen is mightier than the sword, Africa for Africans home and abroad.Trinidad is not my home just a pit stop, Africa is my destination,final destination the MOST HIGH.

Offline gawd on pitch

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2012, 09:33:58 PM »
Let me make my position clear on this independence matter, bc i don't want to be misunderstood, whcih seems to happen around here quite frequently.

now i not exonerating the colonialist in any way, IMO, they are the ones who deserves 2/3 of the blame if not more, for the deplorable state of most these former colonies.

IMO the british should've implemented transitory governance, for @ least 50 yrs, teaching and instilling and implementing pride, efficiency and patriotism in a ppl who had none, and let us not fool ourselves, there were ppl who were living in these colonies that had ties to other places and not necessarily to the colony it self, and did see themselves as being trapped by the state and not so much part of it.

chinese, portuguess, and indians ppl for instance were there less than 100 yrs and still had dreams of return to their native land,  even some africans who were freed just over 100 yrs were made to feel less than welcomed, and struggled immensely just for a daily bred, had no real love and pride in the state.

it's not like china, india or certain countries in africa who had thousands of yrs of history and ties to their country, and yet still, they still found themselves in turmoil bc of power hungry dictators and selfish mad men, but @ least they had pride in their state.

the west indian had no clue as to what he was doing and had no financial support, and under these circumstances the british had no right to grant independence! like i said, the transition should have taken @ least 50 yrs, with an interim government meticulously mentored and supervised by the colonials with tip top financial support and transparency,

but off course this didn't happen, and we all know why. the crown was taking a hit in the pocket, not that they were losing, but they weren't making enough to hold on to this burden, and with the advent of the industrial revolution, cash crops were rendered obsolete, and technology, oil, and manpower on the main land became king.

right now, it's ah shame how much catching up these former plantation slave colonies have to do, no thanx to the mother country of course.


Greetings brothers,

I spend more time posting on the Track and field thread than any others. After reading some posts here, I had no choice but to participate in this discussion. Excuse me, if it seems as if I am going all over with this one. I try to give the big picture like many of us on here.

Just Cool, you are a very knowledgeable brother. Your idea that the British should have incorporated a transitory form of self governance is quite practical. But I have to argue against that proposal. There is only 1 thing that Britain could have done, if they wanted self governance and pride for the people in the Caribbean... That would be to give reparations, of course.

After studying the move towards independence for Jamaica and Trinidad, it is quite clear that the former West Indies Federation was a purposeful experiment that played into British interests, and went horribly wrong for us (people of the Caribbean). The British never gave Jamaica and Trinidad independence, they took it from the British. The federation did not benefit Jamaica and Trinidad. It benefited the British and the smaller Islands more. This was through:

Governance: representational as opposed to proportionate (this meant that every territory had one vote regardless of the size of its  population). The smaller territories tended to put their votes together against Jamaica and Trinidad when the subject of opening the Federation's economy came up. The leaders of Jamaica and Trinidad felt that the leaders of the smaller islands stifled their economic growth. 

Economy: The British determined how the WIF spent their funds. But even worst, there were no customs or tariffs unions among the territories. Oh yeah, and no common currency. This also stifled the economy of the WIF from developing.

Nationalism: More West Indians felt more "Bajan" or "Jamaican" than West Indian. Also, there were only two real institutions that served as instruments of West Indian nationalism, the Cricket team, and the University. There was nothing else to really celebrate West Indian nationalism like no holiday. Plus the flag was ugly...lol.

West Indies Federation was a political union without an economic one. This is backwards. Most regions unify economically before unifying politically (European Union perfect example).

Nationalism started growing in Jamaica and Trinidad as a way to severe the ties with the old West Indies Federation/ Identity. Jamaica was of course in the driver's seat when it came down to promoting nationalism in their boundaries. The referendum in Jamaica was certainly symbolic of that. Bustamante (Jamaica) did what the people in Jamaica wanted (Even though it was not a landslide victory). Whereas with Williams and Trinidad, there was no referendum. Williams was still willing to give it a try. But, he realized it could not work without Jamaica ( actually, he felt that Trinidad would be burdened economically and Trinidad's resources would be use to fund the WIF). He pulled Trinidad out of the federation after the Jamaican referendum. In a way the referendum in Jamaica lead to Trinidadian Independence.

Nationalism is such an interesting topic in Caribbean politics and society. I think Jamaican nationalism and pride is rooted in them being a homogeneous society. Also, for those of you who been to Jamaica, you probably seen how many of the streets, areas and other places are named after Jamaican heroes .. Garvey, Marley, Nanny, etc.  In Haiti, its the same thing. They have statues and have commemorated places where their heroes and ancestors fought against their oppressor.

In Trinidad, you have to dig kind of far to find those symbols of pride. Its not right in your face as it is in Jamaica and even Barbados. I think this has more to do with Trinidad being a multicultural society as opposed to a homogeneous one. Also their is a certain racial apathy that comes when there is a move to recognize or boost African/Black pride/accomplishments in Trinidad. Carnival is a perfect example of that. Early Carnival days (or Emancipation celebration) celebrated Africa and the ancestors. Later on, there was a push by the colonial government and corporations to remove Africa from this celebration. This was accomplished by turning our emancipation day into a Carnival. The dates were changed to coincide with the Roman Catholic festival. The colonial government and corporations eventually started awarding the bands that incorporated Christian and European themes into their mas bands.

I think this thing called Trinidadian pride/nationalism once rode on the cultural and sporting accomplishments of Black/African Trinidadians on the world stage. However, with the power shift (political and cultural), Trinidadian pride and nationalism will be redefined. Jamaican pride/nationalism on the other hand, always have and always will ride on the cultural and sporting accomplishments of Jamaicans. Unlike Trinidad pride/nationalism, Jamaican pride/nationalism will never have to be redefine.

Sorry if I offended anyone
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 09:38:42 PM by gawd on pitch »

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18658
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #35 on: April 26, 2012, 03:48:14 PM »
G.O.P good analysis. Also add Guyana and Suriname to an extent in the same shoe as TT.

Offline Preacher

  • We doh smoke or drink or pop pills. When we light the mic is strickly jess skills
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #36 on: April 26, 2012, 04:23:19 PM »
GOP thanks for teach us something.   :beermug:
In Everything give thanks for this is the will of God concerning you.

Offline gawd on pitch

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2012, 07:41:59 PM »
G.O.P good analysis. Also add Guyana and Suriname to an extent in the same shoe as TT.
Indeed Deeks. Dont be surprised if Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad push for deeper regional integration among each other in the future. This would create a sub regional block in Caricom.

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18658
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2012, 08:11:54 PM »
G.O.P good analysis. Also add Guyana and Suriname to an extent in the same shoe as TT.
Indeed Deeks. Dont be surprised if Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad push for deeper regional integration among each other in the future. This would create a sub regional block in Caricom.

I would think so for obvious reasons.

Offline gawd on pitch

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2991
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2012, 08:57:50 PM »
G.O.P good analysis. Also add Guyana and Suriname to an extent in the same shoe as TT.
Indeed Deeks. Dont be surprised if Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad push for deeper regional integration among each other in the future. This would create a sub regional block in Caricom.

I would think so for obvious reasons.

Depends on who is in government in Trinidad. Trinidad is key.

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2012, 01:47:17 PM »
thanks deeks and jc for the links earlier in the thread.

two points/questions:

the first is on just cool's point about the lack of pride. i read this to mean lack of national pride. the discussion thus far has centered on evidence of pride in the form of a history of rebellions and uprisings. is there not a significant difference between a rebellion and a nationalist movement? the former is a fight against something while the latter is a fight for something.

this difference is not insignificant. when a nation fights for something it is much more focussed on a common future than a fight against an oppressor. the two are not the same. big countries like usa have their fight for something (war of independence and the civil war). even middle countries like canada make a point of enshrining their battles for something (i.e. vimy ridge), making this part of the national foundation.

second point deals with the assertion that more time is needed for t&t to find this pride. benchmarks (e.g. give t&t two more generations, give the people more education) are proposed but some caution is needed here. t&t have had since the 1930s to find this pride in self. meanwhile, countries like singapore which lead the world in some measures of progress, have world-class leadership, national pride, etc. ... and they've done it despite only finding political stability since the 1960s! will more time improve the situation or set t&t further adrift? if people continue to look to history to find that common thread/goal/purpose as a nation and find nothing more than "massa day dun" how will more time help?

Offline Preacher

  • We doh smoke or drink or pop pills. When we light the mic is strickly jess skills
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
    • View Profile
Re: I did not know this about Jamaica
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2012, 08:46:08 PM »
Ribbit I see where you are going but consider that you might be over simplifying the Singapore comparison.  Remember the whole is equal to the sum of it's parts.  So I'm sure Singapore has their reason, methods, etc and we have ours.   This talk has been really informative for me. It has helped me to fill in some gaps.  The truth is we've done exceptionally well considering our population and history.  We've done well in our region and I also think as a self governing nation and with education.   We haven't been perfect and only those living with you does see your faults.  But I believe, and it's only my opinion, that our struggle is based in how do we move from a developing nation to a 1st world nation.  I really believe that is what's being born here.  It seems like the populace has moved already to that 1st world mindset and the other pieces are trying to fall into place.  I think the base is there.  A good litmus test is this site.  We're super excited when playing big teams, with actual visions of pulling of an up set.   When and if we loose man does be real vex.  :)  We show real belief and real hope, the root of this is bride.  :)   Ey look JC quit we team like 50 times.   We are just hungry for the next level.  And I believe that speaks for all aspects of Trinidad and Tobago life.   T&T had done a lot for it's region in every way you could think of.  Singpore is doing well but everybody deck different. 
 :beermug: 
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 09:35:08 PM by Preacher »
In Everything give thanks for this is the will of God concerning you.

 

1]; } ?>