The defence of calypso

As far as the calypso genre is concerned, this vilification seems par for the course. However, should Indo-Trinidadians seek to retaliate by deriding Afro-Trinidadians in their chutney compositions and social commentaries, then the consequences for inter-ethnic civility and harmony would be all too obvious.

Chalkdust’s calypso has other negative connotations. First of all, he is an educator and a professor at that and therefore is seen as an exemplar whose composition would be deemed to be literarily and socially acceptable.

Secondly, I understand that Carnival and calypso now form part of the primary and secondary school curriculum and students would look up to the masters of the art for guidance and inspiration. Many might come to the legitimate conclusion that, in order to win a competition, one should incorporate smut and graphic sexual innuendoes in one’s lyrics.

However, there are many in positions of authority and influence whose perspectives and values are in full support of Chalkdust’s composition and they have a right to their opinions. The judges of the Calypso Monarch competition seemed to have been particularly impressed by Chalkdust’s offering when compared to the renditions of other finalists.

Then one Ryan Hadeed, writing in the Sunday Guardian of 19/3/17, effusively congratulates Chalkdust on his winning calypso, which he deemed to be “of the calibre of social and political satire of traditional calypso” and “that even scathing criticism can be entertaining.” I wonder if such criticism was directed at his own group whether he would be similarly amused.

The Express editorial of 7/3/17 provided the stoutest defence of Chalkdust and his winning calypso.

It said the calypso was pandering to “an audience whose primary objective is in entertainment.” Thus it appears that it does not matter what you sing or what message you send, once the audience is entertained, you have fulfilled your purpose. Where others might deprecate the vulgarity and poor taste of the lyrics, the editorial saw it as “a demonstration of the talents of the calypso artiste.” Those who are not impressed or indeed repulsed by Chalkdust’s calypso are deemed to suffer from “an absence of that sense of humour, which has helped to define us as a people and as a nation.” In other words, those who have attacked Chalkdust and his composition are somehow not only without humour but are anti-Trinidadian and anti-national.

Then comes the fulsome accolade: “Learn from Arithmetic was simply another demonstration of this long-established, largely emblematic and distinguishing feature of our national identity.” There may be many thousands of citizens who do not possess and cannot be associated with this characteristic of our alleged national identity. It does, however, beg the question as to who defines national identity and on what authority.

Finally, the defence rests on the pillar of free speech. The editorial proclaims that “our cherished adherence to the principle of free speech is firmly grounded here.” Needless to say, freedom carries with it responsibility. We must be reminded that free speech is not an absolute right. It is limited by the rights of others, by concern for the dissemination of hate and incitement to violence against individuals and groups, by respect for the reputation and character of others and by the moral responsibility to communicate with a degree of civility that preserves a modicum of inter-personal and inter-group harmony.

In an ethnically diverse society, such an obligation would seem m o r e n e c - e s s a r y whatever art form is employed as the medium of communication