Confronting ethnic perceptions and stereotypes

IN THE previous six columns I have attempted to present a general picture of the perceptions which, in my view, Afro-Trinidadians and Indo-Trinidadians harbour of each other. Those who justifiably question the ethnic orthodoxy and solidarity or are seen to be out of line with them are the targets of derision.

There is also the issue of how each of these two major ethnic groups look at themselves. I will briefly comment on some aspects of their self-perception. Afro-Trinidadians hold the view that, having been the first non-European group to have settled here and the first such group to have contributed to the establishment of a plantation economy, their labours have not been sufficiently recognised and rewarded.

There is a sense of priority entitlement to the benefits which the economy and society have had to offer over the years but, instead of accessing these, the group views itself as being bypassed. Thus they regard themselves as victims in the developmental evolution of the society and as objects of disadvantage and injustice.

Elaborating on this sentiment of victimhood, Khafra Kambon would lament that Afro-Trinidadians “are the victims of conscious and unconscious discrimination”(Guardian 28/5/16).

There is, however, another aspect of the self-perception of Afro-Trinidadians.

At independence in 1962, as the then majority ethnic group, they viewed themselves as the natural inheritors of British rule by virtue of numbers, leadership capacity, educational achievement and absorption of the required values and traditions.

The political party which represented them was seen as the natural party of Government and the custodian of nationalism. All opposition was seen as backward-looking, uninformed, unsophisticated and obstructive of national progress.

Afro-creole culture was deemed to have rightfully assumed hegemonic status. There was at the time a sense of self-confidence and triumphalism.

However, some confusion, anxiety and despondency set in among the Afro-Trinidadians when their expectations and aspirations were not realised and when an Opposition grouping assumed political office. They placed undue reliance for survival and socio-economic dominance on the capture and patronage from office.

Indo-Trinidadians, on the other hand, had for over a century limited interaction with the State.

They felt self-focused in their restricted participation in the economy and self-assured in their cultural moorings. They saw themselves as survivors and as possessing some degree of resilience in the face of challenges faced by the group.

They had an inward looking perspective.

When the attempts by the political parties which represented them failed to gain office, they adopted an attitude of resignation and withdrawal and accepted their exclusion from the benefits of access to State resources. Cries of discrimination became a ritual expression of their impotence. Such a situation compelled a search for a measure of independence and self-sustainability which has been somewhat eroded by the ascension of their political party to office and subsequent defeat. Today, Indo-Trinidadians feel economically vulnerable, culturally adrift and a general sense of uncertainty.

I have decided to bring closure for now to my tentative discussion on the subject of racial and ethnic perceptions and stereotypes but I certainly hope it will not signal the end of a free, candid and hopefully rational conversation on this issue which has significant socio-political and economic ramifications. Perhaps an honest and candid discussion may diffuse some of the mutual antipathy, covert or overt.

I have sought to hold up a social mirror, however hazy or incomplete its reflection, of the perceptions and prejudices of each of the two major groups with respect to one another.

I have made observations based on my own experience, reading, interactions and enquiries and from my own p e r s p e c - tive, which, given the nature of the topic, inevitably assumes a measure of subjectivity.