Consumed by racial sterotypes

Let us suppose that Maha Sabha leader Sat Maharaj said in public, “The Prime Minister is a African, and I am saying without fear of favour, I don’t care for none of them. The black people think they rule this country. This is our country. Let us take back our country!” The resultant outcry would surely be heard far and wide. Mr Maharaj would be condemned and vilified in the strongest possible terms, even by other Indo-Trinidadians. Yet the statement made by Public Services Association president Jennifer Baptiste Primus about “Syrians” at this year’s Labour Day rally has not received similar criticism, save on a few radio discussions and some letters to the editor.

There are three reasons why Ms Baptiste Primus’s bigoted attack didn’t receive more attention. First, she is not a national leader who carries influence outside her specific portfolio. Second, her target was an ethnic group which has always been a target of calumny, whether justified or not. And, third, Ms Baptiste Primus is of African descent, and there seems to be a tacit idea that racial statements made by Afros are less racial than those made by other ethnic groups. Indeed, a statement issued by the trade unionist David Abdulah on behalf of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions and NGOs (FITUN) supported Ms Baptiste Primus, even going so far to say that the “Syrian” community’s dominance of PoS business “regardless if whether this was obtained by dint of hard work and sacrifice” creates problems in a small, multi-ethnic society.

It would, however, seem a more tenable view that a dismissive attitude to hard work and sacrifice is a far more pertinent cause of social problems than the economic success of Trinidadians from the Syrian-Lebanese community. A similar tolerance was given to National Association for the Empowerment of African People president Selwyn Cudjoe’s statement that the decision to hold the Principles of Fairness conference last Saturday was “racist.” But to perceive a three-hour conference in the midst of a three-day weekend of Emancipation Day activities as racist reveals a racial sensitivity — or a racial agenda — that can only be destructive. Yet Professor Cudjoe’s racial niggling has not been roundly condemned, not even by the organisers of the conference. The hollowness of this whole affair, however, is well exemplified by the withdrawal of artist Leroy Clarke, who had initially agreed to do a reading at the conference. Mr Clarke’s excuse was that he was not aware of the conflict between the conference and Emancipation events — a rather astonishing lapse from a person who champions all things African.

Then, on the other side of the coin, business-man Arthur Lok Jack, has come under fire for saying at the same conference that Afro-Trinidadians were less inclined to go into business than Indo-Trinidadians. Panellist Dr Olabisi Kuboni claimed that her achievements were the result of generations of her own family being involved in “enterprise.” But Dr Kuboni’s existence does not change the sociological accuracy of Mr Lok Jack’s statement. And, far from being a bigoted statement, Mr Lok Jack’s argument was made on the premise of trying to get young Afro-Trinidadians more involved in business. This sort of thing reveals the long road our society has to travel before we can sideline racial issues while tackling the real problems the country faces — issues like crime, poverty, inefficient public transport, failing health systems, and deficient education. It is only when we begin to tackle those problems effectively that we will be truly emancipated.