April 27, 2024, 05:52:17 PM

Author Topic: Observer Editorial  (Read 5513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18076
    • View Profile
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #30 on: December 24, 2012, 09:28:07 AM »
I agree with a bit of what Ramcharitar says here. I was always confused by Jamaica's motto given their ethnic composition. I feel vindicated that as referenced in the piece done by Prof. Cooper (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/opinion/who-is-jamaica.html?_r=0) some Jamaicans are as well.

I'm also as wary about ethnocentrism as Ramcharitar is about Afrocentrism. So much that I can actually understand why he’d be concerned. The long standing issue of overlapping national and regional identity is further complicated when you inject the ethnic component. It is irrefutable that as Cooper says the roots of their music, religion, politics, philosophy, science, literature and language are African. In fact the same can be said for all of what we call the West Indies save Belize, Guyana and Trinidad where that is only partially true.  In T&T it is increasingly contentious to even acknowledge achievements of any group historical or current because it seemingly denigrates the policy of ‘unity in diversity’ as the PM calls it.

He attempts to conflate Cooper’s depiction of an African Jamaica with an African Caribbean using UWI as the conduit. He posits that one should use his mischaracterization of Cooper’s piece as the lens to view the comments made in the Observer editorial so that one could see the dangerous ethnic agenda that informed it. This is conjecture at best where two articles, two authors, two distinct set of issues are dubiously unified by the coincidence of country of origin. Strangely he didn’t address either article reasonably to the extent that both in my view have come out factually unscathed by his contribution. That is not to say that they’re beyond scrutiny but he loss points when he start to label things as hate speech and racial ignorance. What he calls ‘hate-speech’ is very much hyperbolic if you actually read Cooper’s article which is very much centered on Jamaica and never attempted to extrapolate that reality beyond that space.

Like Ramcharitar I have distrust for ethnocentric studies and for some of the same reasons. The issues of hidden agendas and lowered academic rigour are compounded by the fact that in my view these disciplines have no productive value outside of their own perpetuation. Ironically Ramcharitar fails uphold these standards in this desperately pseudointellectual piece.  Not once did he establish any such agenda with evidence or refute the historical claims made by Cooper. Neither did he disprove that ethnic stocking as defined by the Observer Editorial exists. I have no idea what he was trying to achieve by demonizing carnival culture either.

As a general proposition, that motto need not be associated with racial or ethnic diversity. If yuh go to Benfica you'll see it adorning the club's paraphernalia.

I'll say more about Ramcharitar's comments at a later date.

Offline dcs

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5032
  • T&T 4 COP
    • View Profile
    • Warrior Nation
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #31 on: December 24, 2012, 10:52:50 PM »

Trinidad Express
Ethnic stocking:another view
by Michael Harris
Story Updated: Dec 24, 2012

There were many in this country who took comfort in the bashing the Government received in a Jamaica Observer editorial about two weeks ago.

The editorial stated, in part, that "The real problem in the energy-rich republic is not substance abuse, but the abuse of substance. By that we mean the abuse of the substance of government business because of the ethnic stocking of public offices and the widespread perception of corruption."

Although I am among the fiercest critics of this Government, I could take neither comfort nor joy in that editorial. Rather my reaction was one of deep concern, both at the fact that such an editorial could be published and at what it actually stated.

The editorial was an open, blatant and completely subjective attack on the T&T Government and made no pretence at objectivity or analysis.

The fact that the Observer does not speak for the Jamaican government makes its actions only marginally less serious and reprehensible. The newspaper is not, or purports not to be, a tabloid rag. It is a serious newspaper whose considered views are read in capitals around the world.

From such an institution there is expected to be a far greater sense of responsibility. I cannot recall another instance in which a major newspaper in one Caricom country has, without any provocation, launched such a scathing attack on the government of another Caricom country.

It is a most unfortunate development which, if it were to set a precedent, would serve to swiftly destroy the already fragile bonds which hold Caricom together.

But my concern is not that what was said was not true but that it was not the whole truth. And by giving only a partial view of the truth it does a great disservice to the citizens of this country and the citizens of Caricom in general, who are struggling to understand and cope with the nature of our politics.

Firstly, "stocking'' is neither new nor a phenomenon peculiar to T&T. Indeed, among Caricom countries, it was in Jamaica that it was first institutionalised as a fact of political life.

In the days when the two major Jamaican political parties, the PNP and the JLP, regularly rotated in office every two terms it became an accepted fact that with every change of government there would be a root and branch removal of public servants from key positions, with many of the previous incumbents being left to languish in a form of internal exile.

"Stocking'' was being practised in Jamaica long before it reared its head in this country. Not that T&T was in any way smarter or immune from that vicious form of political corruption. The fact that this country came late to the game of "stocking'' is attributable simply to the long period of hegemony enjoyed by the PNM. Since there was never a change in the party in office over the first 30 years of our independence the phenomenon simply never arose.

But during those 30 years another development did occur which, when finally there was a change of government, would lead to the "stocking'' phenomenon being practised with a vengeance. This other development was the systematic emasculation and politicisation of the public service which was perpetrated by Dr Williams and the PNM.

When the PNM was finally removed from office, the NAR found its work hampered and subverted at every turn by public servants whose allegiance, by and large, was to the PNM. Minister John Humphrey grew so frustrated that he demanded the removal of his permanent secretary. Once this was acceded to "stocking'' began.

Since then every time a government changes there has been "stocking''. The NAR did it, the PNM did it, the UNC did it and now the People's Partnership is doing it.

It is certainly true that the "stocking'' being practised by this Government is more blatant and indiscriminate than any before. The most incompetent persons are being placed willy-nilly in positions of serious responsibility. The PM herself is on record as telling board appointees that the most important quality she demands of them is not competence or integrity but loyalty to the Government.

But this has nothing to do with "ethnicity'' per se. It arises from the fact that the UNC, the dominant partner in the coalition, is not so much a political party as it is a permanent election campaign unit which results in the fact that, once in government, there is no way to resist the demands of the troops for pillage and plunder.

That such "stocking'' manifests itself as "ethnic stocking'' is the inevitable outcome of a system in which the two major parties are based on race, mirroring the racial polarisation of our society. To suggest (by omission) that the PNM did not indulge in "ethnic stocking'' is an egregious falsehood. As Selwyn Ryan would say, moving one party out of office is to "unstock'' a race.

It is only when we understand this that we can come to appreciate that the most fundamental requirement is to destroy once and for all the political party system based upon racial mobilisation and to found a genuine national party, one in which every creed and race is equitably represented.

The racial delineation of our politics is our burden to bear and our problem to solve. And we certainly do not need the Jamaica Observer pushing its nose in our business and compounding even more, with its distorted viewpoint, an already difficult problem.

I would like to extend to my readers my best wishes for a peaceful and joyous holiday.

Offline dcs

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5032
  • T&T 4 COP
    • View Profile
    • Warrior Nation
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #32 on: December 24, 2012, 10:54:29 PM »

Finally somebody did some homework and put it into proper context as far as I am concerned.

Offline lefty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5889
  • would u like to buy an 'O'.........
    • View Profile
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #33 on: December 25, 2012, 05:04:45 AM »
yeah he did, somewhat but what of the thousands with no position to influence gov't policy that were simply axed for no reason..................he is right to say that every gov't does it, but while the pnm targeted higher ups and middle management, these people have gone after damn near every post in a gov't institution under the guise of "attempting to stop sabotage steups .............what ah ojt could really do to frustrate gov't policy, most must simply fall in line
« Last Edit: December 25, 2012, 05:08:13 AM by lefty »
I pity the fool....

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18076
    • View Profile
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #34 on: December 25, 2012, 09:19:49 AM »
Despite the obvious merits of Harris' analysis, it is nonetheless not free of fallacy. It is either disingenuous, misguided or presumptively misleading to assert that a lengthy period of electoral success by one party (the PNM) de facto signified an absence of stocking. In addition, the article too easily conflates stocking with ethnic stocking.

For Harris to absorb the first observation he should consider Barbados under Dipper Barrow and Antigua under Old Man Bird. With respect to the second observation, Harris does slightly better in characterising the synergy between race and politics in Trinidad & Tobago, but he should consider Guyana under Burnham in cementing a disinterested view about stocking as tacit policy versus stocking as a reflexive, informal outcome.

Finally, who really expects Jamaicans to be experts on Trinidad & Tobago? That the Observer distilled a view of the Trinidad & Tobago political context that is holistically deficient, does not render the contribution malicious either in part or in its entirety.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2012, 09:24:12 AM by asylumseeker »

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18649
    • View Profile
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #35 on: December 25, 2012, 09:51:58 AM »
That such "stocking'' manifests itself as "ethnic stocking'' is the inevitable outcome of a system in which the two major parties are based on race, mirroring the racial polarisation of our society.


As long as the parties have the bases centered around ethnicity, nothing will change. This has been since the very first election in TT. people vote on their gut feelings and affiliation. In TT and guyana, it is based on race, religion. There are exceptions to the rule but the majority of Indians will never go over to the PNM and vice versa with Afro TT. But like Harris said stocking is done everywhere. In JA and the rest of the English speaking Caribbean, it it based primarily on party affiliate. They are predominantly Afro creoles.  But TT and Guyana, it is based on party and racial affliliation. JA don't have that type of dynamics. Their racial history is slightly different from ours. I bet you if JA was 50% Indians the tune would be different. Why are there more Indians in TT, Guyana, Suriname than the rest. We had no say in that. The Brits, French and Dutch did that because they only interested in profits.  When our masters say "march" we marched. We they say "die'. you dead.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #36 on: December 25, 2012, 10:45:05 AM »
Despite the obvious merits of Harris' analysis, it is nonetheless not free of fallacy. It is either disingenuous, misguided or presumptively misleading to assert that a lengthy period of electoral success by one party (the PNM) de facto signified an absence of stocking. In addition, the article too easily conflates stocking with ethnic stocking.

For Harris to absorb the first observation he should consider Barbados under Dipper Barrow and Antigua under Old Man Bird. With respect to the second observation, Harris does slightly better in characterising the synergy between race and politics in Trinidad & Tobago, but he should consider Guyana under Burnham in cementing a disinterested view about stocking as tacit policy versus stocking as a reflexive, informal outcome.

Finally, who really expects Jamaicans to be experts on Trinidad & Tobago? That the Observer distilled a view of the Trinidad & Tobago political context that is holistically deficient, does not render the contribution malicious either in part or in its entirety.

Bravo!    :applause: :applause: :applause:

So does it have obvious merit or is it ingeniousness, full of fallacy, misguided, or misleading?

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #37 on: December 25, 2012, 10:48:05 AM »
political discrimination is a far cry from racial discrimination. nonetheless, both are wrong and creates discord.

Harris to his credit does state that under this government it is more blatant, and indiscriminate and I can add reckless.

« Last Edit: December 25, 2012, 10:52:25 AM by truetrini SC »

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18076
    • View Profile
Re: Observer Editorial
« Reply #38 on: December 25, 2012, 07:20:44 PM »
I'd settle for misleading.

 

1]; } ?>