Peter Espeut | Celebrating Independence

The reason Spaniards established colonies in the New World was to enrich Spain with gold and silver bullion, and to create wealth through trade in spices and exotic eatables (to diversify a mostly bland diet). Spain shouldn’t have it all, and so England sought colonies in the Americas to get a share of the wealth, mostly by operating plantations to grow crops which could not survive in Europe.

For most of our history, those who governed Jamaica were focused on what was best for themselves and their society and economy back home. Economically useful plants and animals were brought here along with the capital – and, of course, labour – to generate wealth that would lead to stately homes, fancy carriages, seats in the House of Commons, and possibly a peerage. The population of this island were treated as factors of production, not human persons with potential and talents to be developed, and with intellects to be exposed to the wisdom of the ages.

In those days, the vast majority of those born here did not have the right to vote; it was unthinkable! Prior to 1944 only people with property had the right to vote. You needed even more property to qualify to stand for election. This created a government of propertied elites – plantation owners and merchants – who were able to design and organise a society to suit their financial interests. Since the vast majority could not vote, the Jamaican colonial government did not have to take the people’s interests into account. And they didn’t.

Plantations needed cheap labour, largely unskilled, definitely unlettered. But more importantly, plantations needed a docile workforce – they might have used the word “governable” – with few ambitions to “move up” and to challenge “the system”. After Emancipation – the 188th anniversary of which we celebrate next week – a suitable education mechanism was developed, focusing on discipline and manual training. The non-conformist churches, which had successfully challenged slavery at home and in the colonies, were of great assistance in this effort.

Earlier, the breakaway of the American continental colonies and their eventual declaration of independence (1776), the French Revolution (1789) which abolished the monarchy, and the successful Revolution of Haitian slaves (1791) leading to Haitian independence (1804), challenged the British way of life and threatened their plans for colonial Jamaica. That Jamaica did not go the way of the USA or Haiti is testimony to the strength and depth of the British grasp on their empire.

NO JAMAICAN IDENTITY

In those days there was no “Jamaican identity” separate from being British; if there was anything “Jamaican” it was inferior to its British equivalent. There was an island called Jamaica, but no Jamaican “nation”. Jamaica became a “nation” when we began to realise that we really were something unique and different and valuable, with our own culture – our own music and food and language. And it was Jamaican people who lived this Jamaican culture, and therefore who were of value.

Over the decades, the vast majority of Jamaicans went with the colonial flow. There was some notable resistance, but not much! We have lionised the Maroons who won their freedom, and then joined the system. There were slave revolts, but most were betrayed, and “loyal slaves” helped to put them down. We have canonised several who resisted – Nanny of the Maroons (she refused to sign the treaty) and Deacon Sam Sharpe who resisted slavery – and Paul Bogle and George William Gordon who resisted post-Emancipation plantocratic government. And Marcus Garvey who taught that blackness was beautiful. Jamaican resistance to oppression has been largely individualistic through religion – escapist Christianity, Myal, Revival, and Rastafarianism.

It was while our colonial masters were distracted with World War II that we were able to wrangle the right for all to vote. This was the real turning point in our history, for now persons seeking elected office had to appear to be concerned about the welfare of the majority, not just of the elite; and had to reach out to the masses. Jamaican politics was born!

And after less than 20 years of party politics, Britain happily granted us political independence.

SO-CALLED INDEPENDENCE

As the date of our 60th anniversary of political Independence draws nearer, many are using the occasion as an opportunity to examine the last 80 years of political parties in Jamaica, and the last 60 years of so-called “Independence”, and to assess the progress or lack thereof over the period.

To do an honest assessment we must separate progress that has come from outside, distinct from advancement due to local initiative. Science and technology have advanced over the period; humanity has been to the moon and back, while computers, telephones and cameras have integrated. Jamaica has advanced over the last decades in response to new inventions. Which country has not! We cannot claim credit for that.

To do an honest assessment we must separate the achievement of dedicated and disciplined individuals from collective national outcomes. Jamaicans of world class have run faster and sung sweeter than the rest of the nation and the world; they personally deserve the credit.

We had charge of our education system over the last 60 years, and of how the economy is structured. Many leave school barely literate. The majority are still treated as factors of production, and the economy is still structured for the benefit of a few, many if not most of whom do not live here. Even though politics panders to the people, parties are funded by wealthy businessmen, who still call the political tune. Crime and corruption are high.

It cannot have escaped us that those of our neighbours who remained British colonies (e.g. the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands) are materially much better off than we who next week will celebrate 60 years of political Independence. Is there some way in which we, the independent ones, are better off so that we can really celebrate? Or is it all symbolic?

What will we do to make the next 60 years better?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com