Please do not shoot the messenger, ok? ------------------------------------ Dr. Gerad Tikasinghs response to Selwyn Cudjoes review of Trinidad During the 19th Century: The Indian Experience: Gerad Tikasingh November 26, 2013 at 10:02 pm Selwyn Cudjoe’s Commentary or The Black Bias Responds On November 24th, one Selwyn Cudjoe wrote a commentary on my book, and it is evident that he not only adheres to the Black Bias in Trinidad’s experience, but, characteristic of people who hold such a view, he refuses to consider any other viewpoint with an open mind. And that is one of the troubling issues in our understanding of the history of Trinidad. In paragraphs 1 and 4 of his commentary, he mentions the waves of immigration into the island, but he seemed to have completely missed the point there that the book was making. The Black Bias regards the African-descended people in Trinidad as “natives” of the island and Indians as interlopers into their domain and, hence, unacceptable. This view is still current in the country today. I believe it was Basdeo Panday who reportedly said that Blacks go out of their way to make Indians feel unwelcome, and when Indians behave as if they were unwelcomed, then Blacks react in a way to say that they are offended by Indian behaviour. Well, the historical record shows that Blacks were not natives and that they preceded the Indians merely by decades, two generations at the most; that an incoming enslaved, and later ex-apprenticed, African would have seen Indians arriving in the island. In 1844, the year before the first Indians arrived, 94% of the island’s population was immigrant in origin. Think about that: the overwhelming majority of the population of the island was immigrant. So, who were the natives of the island? This is an historical fact, plain and simple. Again, I repeat my book: Trinidad was immigrant in origin, and this should be a source of its strength, and efforts of one group of immigrants to deny and refuse to acknowledge another group of immigrants is simply shameful, and should be rejected by all decent peoples. Cudjoe seems to be somewhat confused by the terms “slave society” and “plantation society,” and he seems to have in mind the common, popular misperception of a plantation society as being very large in size: plantations vary in size. I deliberately used the term “slave society” for that was the nature of the society to which Trinidad transitioned, beginning with the French and continuing with the British: a society whose economy, along with its ensuing social relations, is based on slavery. Trinidad’s experience as a slave society was recent, not entrenched, and brief, and I compared it with both Barbados and Jamaica to make the point clear, in terms of numbers, years of that experience, and dates (time). Slavery was never a rooted institution in Trinidad. Again, the facts are there: they cannot be altered, not even by Black Bias. I wrote about the need to re-evaluate the respective roles of slavery and indentureship in the economic development of Trinidad, which Cudjoe interprets as the book’s “decentering the role of African people in the construction of society.” Again, the book was looking at the economic development of the island. Look at the facts: Trinidad had more years of indentureship than years of slavery; the sugar industry, during its life-span in Trinidad, used more indentured labour than slave labour; and those time-expired indentured immigrants played a substantial role in the extension, settlement, occupation, and cultivation of the island. Algernon Burkett himself had made this point in his book, but few of his group have followed in his acknowledgement of the role of Indians to the island’s development. With regard to the issue of the economic development of the island, Cudjoe, interestingly, in one place, calls it the “underdevelopment of Trinidad’s economy” –- completely ignoring such variables as the acreage of land being alienated, of land being cultivated, of sugar being exported, etc., etc., disregarding such statistics and referring to the island as being underdeveloped, another instance of the Black Bias at work. In paragraph 4 of his commentary, Cudjoe states that I have overlooked the contribution of slaves to the economic development of the island, and concluded that I contradicted myself in the process. Nothing could be further from the truth. The book was abundantly clear in documenting the role of slaves in the initial foundation of the island’s economy. His misrepresentation of that detailed narration of the initial foundation of Trinidad’s economy raised a recurring thought throughout his commentary. Did Cudjoe read the chapter in its entirety, or did he read here and there, skipping pages in the process and so ending with a misunderstanding of what was written in the book? But let it also be known that after the initial establishment of a sugar-based economy in Trinidad, between 1783 and 1838, ex-apprentices withdrew their labour, and planters embarked on a search for another source of labour. After all, had ex-apprentices continued working on the estates, there would have been no need to look elsewhere for labour. Cudjoe’s misrepresentation and / or misunderstanding of the book is a bit troubling as it recurs throughout his commentary. Take, for example, the fear of racial dominance that existed in the island as the 19th century came to an end. This fear was explicitly stated in the newspapers of the day (Port of Spain Gazette), as well as by governors themselves (Jerningham). Cudjoe stated that no evidence was offered. Did he not see the appropriate citations? I also seemed to have offended his sense of political correctness by the use of the word “Negro.” That word, until recently when political correctness came into vogue, was once an acceptable and respectable term of identity; it carried no negative connotations in the past. To speak of “Afro-Trinidadians,” or any other similarly politically correct term of identification, in a historical work dealing with the 19th century would be strange, if not weird. Cudjoe questions the accuracy when I wrote that planters, at the beginning of indentured immigration, had no thought of supplanting one group with another, and he refers to another writer, M. Kale, as if that writer were saying something contradictory. This just demonstrates that Cudjoe seems anxious to object rather than to understand. In the beginning, planters had no long-term notions about the continued use of Indians as labourers – they simply did not know what would happen and how Indians would work out as labourers. How could they know? One just has to read the historical record to understand this, and, again, I believe I provided the appropriate citations. In the end, planters did become wedded to Indians as labourers; there is no contradiction in this. In paragraph 9, Cudjoe seems offended when I suggested that Thomas Hinde’s objected to Indian immigration on racist grounds. At the time, people from the nearby islands were immigrating into Trinidad on a daily basis and, furthermore, the island paid the full expense for many of them. No one raised any objection to this immigration – it was all perfectly and fully acceptable. Yet, Hinde objected to this first attempt at Indian immigration. Cudjoe is offended by my pointing this out and he referred to the white government as being racist. Since when does racism in the first instance excuse racism in the second? If racism against one group is wrong, then, is it not wrong when practiced against another group? Incidentally, and just for the record, the book contains one chapter that is devoted to a description and analysis of the society and which pointed out the underlying racism in the society. In his comments on the book’s reference to the issue of squatting, Cudjoe states that, well, the British “stole” the land from the Spanish, who in turn had “stolen” it from the Amerindians. I am not sure what is the point he is making here, nor about the use of the word “stolen.” It seems like a blind reactive statement. Cudjoe goes on to refers to this as “upside-down thinking.” This seems nonsensical. Does he mean to suggest that squatting by the ex-apprentices was acceptable because, in his frame of reference, one country “stole” the land from another country? If so, then Indians who worked on the sugar estates should not have saved up their earnings and legally purchased land, and, according to Cudjoe’s mode of thinking, they should have behaved as ex-apprentices did, and simply go squat on Crown land or other people’s lands. Cudjoe then goes on to misrepresent me and put out that I said “blacks were never important” when I referred to the fact that Blacks exercised their newfound freedom and moved away from the estate. This is a blatant misrepresentation. Nowhere in the book did I say such a thing. Quite the contrary. I pointed out how Blacks used or defined their freedom, and that this was perfectly understandable. However, while Blacks acted out their version of freedom, the flip side of that coin was its impact on the sugar estates – but that was the planter’s problem, not the problem of Blacks. Emancipation and the end of apprenticeship impacted both parties differently, and each party reacted according to their respective interests. What is difficult to understand about that? His misrepresentations saturate his commentary. Take for example: “Nowhere in Tikasingh’s telling of the story does he mention that it was the withdrawal of the Africans from the estates, their squatting on Crown lands; and their demanding higher wages that set the stage for the coming of the Indians so much so that they could receive a wage; save up their monies, and then begin to purchase land.” Did I not lay out this story? It seems that Cudjoe is beside himself: willing to object to anything without taking the time to understand. Or take another example: “What Tikasingh does not say is that immediately after apprenticeship lands were priced so high and available plots so large that Africans could not acquire land for housing or for agriculture.” Really? Did I not discuss the restrictive land policy of the pre-Gordon years? This misrepresentation and /or failure to understand and / or willingness to object without understanding just goes on and on. One is tempted to say that Cudjoe’s commentary is a reflection of the Black Bias at work. Much of his commentary appears to be a blind and wild reaction to unassailable evidence, something that happens when an unreasonable attitude comes face to face with the facts. It calls to mind Hinde’s reaction to the local government’s decision to bring in Indians. There is a readiness to criticize without understanding, and a determined unwillingness to consider another point of view. But the historical record is there, and one has to go back and look at the historical sources to free our minds from unsupportable mental constructs. Once that is done, the path may be opened towards making progress in the social relations between our population groups. Gerad Tikasingh
Posted on: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:55:40 +0000