Confronting ethnic perceptions and stereotypes

ANOTHER perception among many Afro-Trinidadians is that Indo- Trinidadians generally do not subscribe to accepted principles of behaviour and values of integrity.

In other words, they are without scruples in pursuing any objective to which they are committed.

They are deemed to operate by the maxim that the end justifies the means. In common parlance, “they would do anything to get what they want.” As Selwyn Ryan put it some years ago, Indo-Trinidadians seem to be “ethically challenged”.

Associated with this perception is the notion of amorality that is deemed to underpin the actions and choices of the majority of Indo- Trinidadians which may be rooted in the view that Hinduism (adhered to by the majority) propounds moral elasticity and relativism and not moral certitude.

Moreover, the religion is pagan in its rights and rituals and steeped in arcane mythology. Thus, in the thinking of the Afro-Saxons, Christianity affords moral superiority and virtue and is a cornerstone as well of the proselytising agenda of the Pentecostals and other newborn Christians.

It is therefore not surprising that, in the 18-18 tie of the 2001 general election, former president Arthur NR Robinson would select as prime minister Christian Patrick Manning of the Afro-Trinidadian-based PNM over Hindu Basdeo Panday of the Indo-Trinidadian-based UNC.

Afro-Trinidadians, on the whole, regard Indo-Trinidadians as lacking in patriotism and deficient in nationalistic fervour. Their loyalties are not deemed to lie with their country of birth. Thus they see themselves apart and not an integral part of the society.

Because of their inward-oriented focus, they are perceived to be committed to the welfare of their own group to the exclusion of Afro- Trinidadians and other ethnicities.

Thus, according to this view, the capture of political office by an Indo- Trinidadian-based party will spell disaster for Afro-Trinidadians who “would be made to eat grass” and “beg for their bread”.

These fears are amplified at election times and play a defining role in determining electoral choices for large numbers of Afro-Trinidadians.

How they actually fared during the two periods (1995-2001 and 2010-2015) when an Indo-Trinidadian- based party held office should be objectively examined.

Then there is the conviction among Afro-Trinidadians that all Indo-Trinidadians are corrupt and dishonest and are committed to devising ways to steal from the public purse as well as private organisations.

The campaign associated with activities of ministers and senior officials of the former People’s Partnership administration would seem to reinforce this view although, to date, no prosecution has been initiated.

The consequence of such stereotyping by Afro-Trinidadians would suggest that an Indo-Trinidadian- based party should be prevented from accessing office for fear that the public coffers would be rapidly drained to subserve private interests.

Suffice it to say that the majority of Indo-Trinidadians ought not to be labelled as corrupt yet the stereotype image of the group persists which is bolstered by the activities of a few.

There is also the indisputable fact, taking a historical view, members of all ethnicities from the two major parties have been tarnished with the corruption brush.

However, the conversation about corruption is not how to reform systems of governance and government to minimise the national incidence of corruption but rather which ethnic-based party has engaged in more schemes of self-enrichment for its hierarchy.

From the point of view of Afro- Trinidadians, Indo-Trinidadians have no limits to their appetite for corruption while members of their own party do not engage in such wanton feeding frenzy and extreme kleptomania and are more likely to spread the access to and benefits of corruption.

Indo-Trinidadians, however, while conceding that members of their own party are corrupt, rationalise it by saying that “the Government still getting things done.”