THE EDITOR: It is very rare that I choose a public forum to respond to backward or divisive statements made by African persons locally. The last time was in response to Brother Marvin’s defence of his Jahaji Bhai composition. Normally, I would choose one of the many other available avenues to quietly enlighten or chastise. But today I read a report of statements made by Reggie Dumas at a recent “Indian” seminar at UWI. If the reporting is correct, then we (the African community) may have more of a task on our hands than we thought — after the work of the last 35 to 40 years. Perhaps it would suffice to state, in the simple, mono-syllabic words of those days, a few facts for my brother’s benefit. You see, Reggie, persons like myself do not confuse race and nationality when we refer to ourselves as Africans. We acknowledge our heritage (the richness of what we got from where we came from) by stating that we are African, by race. Also, we are fiercely nationalistic in our claim to be just as much “Trini to the bone.” We see them as being dual parts of our identity as human persons. In those early days, we sought to strengthen ourselves by immersing in the knowledge and then the practice of the culture of our ancestors — for which many often praise those of other racial origins.

Many, like myself, chose not to trace our lineage to any specific country or village on that continent. Instead, we acknowledge the wisdom of the quotation: “I am African not because I was born in Africa, but because Africa was born in me!” But permit me to share a little experience with you. In 1976 I first set foot on my ancestral land. I stood in a hotel lobby in North Africa and saw two brothers whispering and pointing at me. One was from the Gambia and the other from then Zaire. My queries revealed that they were debating my origin — not whether I was an African, but whether I was Fulani or Yoruba! In Egypt in 1984, they merely asked, “Are you Nubian?” My affirmative answer led to an invitation into their home and to tea. However, my brother, your comments do not annoy me — disappoint me a little, perhaps. More, they make me sad that, in some ways, we are still where we were three decades ago. They challenge me to continue to teach, by letter and my life, the value of my heritage and the inescapable facts of my being. But then, I am not “black people” who need repackage to not offend other people. I will define myself, I will be myself. Okay my brother? No attempts at heavy philosophy. No parading of history or grandstanding with big words. Just a few small truths — to help you grow? Pity, too, that you chose to lend yourself to giving credibility to underdeveloped minds that would compare our TT to Nazi Germany and label you one of their “oppressors.”  Fortunately, it seems that there were also some there whose heads were screwed on right.

APOESHO MUTOPE
TANA, Tunapuna

THE EDITOR: I have always supported the view that the pen and the word are mightier than the sword. There is no substitute for the good old fashioned debate in which arguments are based on well-researched evidence, proper presentation, characterised by skilful debate and repartee over the years 1956-2003. The traditional Opposition, whether it was the PDP, DLP, ULF or UNC, has never been short of talented, skilful parliamentarians. In fact, they have had more than their fair share of talented debaters from Ashford and Mitra Sinannan, Simbhoonath Capildeo, Lionel Frank Seukeran, Balgobin Cassandra Ramdeen, Dr Monty Forrester, Peter Farquahar, Lilias Wight, Nazim Muradali, Hans Hanoomansingh, Shaffie Shah, Raffique Shah, Stephen Maharaj, Taj Hosein and more recently Basdeo Panday, Trevor Sudama, Ramesh Maharaj, Winston Dookeran, Bhoe Tewarie, Kelvin Ramnath, Nizam Mohammed, Kamla Persad Bissessar, etc, all capable of making valuable and constructive contributions to our national parliament on the numerous issues that confront the national community, and God knows that there is no shortage of issues, from crime, the environment, unemployment, energy, education, Caricom, national unity to global trading, all issues requiring the maximum effort of our elected and nominated members. Yet for some unexplained reason, our traditional Opposition has, over the years, preferred to indulge in Speaker bashing, allegations of discrimination, alienation, and character assassination.

A careful examination of Hansard over this period will clearly support these allegations. Unfortunately Speakers over the years have been targetted and/or reserved for their most destructive pieces of political artillery, from E Mortimer Duke, Arnold “the Tiger” Thomasos, “Poor” Matthew Ramcharan, their own colleague, Nizam Mohammed, Madame Occah Seepaul, even Hector Mc Lean got his taste of the Speaker’s medicine and new Mr Barry Sinannan. The only one that has escaped their wrath was Mr Rupert Griffith. Their most powerful and dangerous pieces of political missiles have always been reserved and directed to Indo-Trinidadian Speakers whom they assume had betrayed their cause, whatever that is supposed to be. Matthew Ramcharan, a decent, respectable citizen was humiliated. Occah Seepaul got the full works deservedly or not and now with Barry Sinanan, their venom knows no limit. Over the years, it has not been confined or directed exclusively to the Government benches. They have attacked each other with full force, washing a lot of their dirty linen in public, fighting and destroying each other. The worst period that I recall was 1961-1966 and 1966-1971. As a regular visitor to our parliament, I vividly recall some of the utterances of Simbhoo Capildeo who called Stephen Maharaj a murderer, accusing him of giving Bhadase Maraj the drug, Petadeen, which he said was killing Bhadase. Simbhoo told Stephen, quote “When Bhadase dies, I will come to the funeral and say you kill him, you kill him, you kill him.”

Even the intervention of Speaker Thomasos could not stop the onslaught. Their struggles for power and leadership of a party, characterised by the absentee leadership of Dr Rudranath Capildeo and an ailing Bhadase, on the one hand, and the ambition of Jamadar, Lequay, Maraj, etc on the other. Talent and debating skills gave way to antagonism and character assassination, Friday after Friday, the Speaker had to be equipped with a political breast plate. The no vote Parliament of 1971 reduced our Parliamentary Opposition to a comical level with Roy Richardson and Dr Horace Charles bringing comic relief to the Speaker. Come 1976 and the ULF, the battle lines were drawn again. I don’t know who left the artillery in the will for Panday and the ULF, but before it was probated and fully effected, Panday and Shah were at each other’s throat. The rest is well known to us, over the years, the traditional Opposition has continued to sacrifice their knowledge and debating skills and considerable experience on the altar of what they seem to consider as effective political artillery, blackmail and disrespect for the Speaker’s chair. The Senate President has had to face allegations of discrimination, alienation and suffer total disrespect for her authority, while they continue to indulge in these outdated practices. The Government, with more than their fair share of non-performers, many lacking in effective debating skills, invariably gets off free as they continue to enjoy the comical behaviour with the likes of Kelvin Ramnath, Robin Montano and Wade Mark etc. All members, especially the experienced Ramnath, can do much better and are completely unconscious of the fact that the most destructive weapon outside of the nuclear family known to mankind is television. As I said before there is no shortage of issues for constructive debate: national security, education, the environment, energy, drugs, money laundering, crime, BWIA and other state enterprises, sport and constitution reform. I will give my own views on this matter in my next article. Come on Bas, stop the kite flying and get on with the people’s business. You will not only gain respect, you may even gain support.

FERDIE FERREIRA
Diego Martin

 

THE EDITOR: With so much being made these days of the issue of sex and sexuality, and especially in view of the recent activities of Sven Miki Grant and his associates, I feel compelled to add my own thoughts to the increasing list of divergent views on the matter. The concept of sex is not limited to the physical. It embraces also the emotional, the mental and the psychological. Sexual intercourse, or coitus, represents the closest any human being could ever get to another. When one engages in it, therefore, there is the expectation, whether it is conscious or subconscious, that the coitus represents a lifelong, mutual commitment made between two persons. If this expectation is not realised, there can arise feelings of betrayal, disillusionment, heartache and/or anger at being exploited. These feelings can be intense, and the concommitant misery can be permanent, irremediable. So it is advisable that coitus be entered into only after such commitment has become absolute. Making and maintaining it requires personal integrity, maturity, loyalty and responsibility. All of this makes it beyond anyone who is not yet of legal age or who has not mastered the art of self-control. God is not silent on the subject. He has recommended legal marriage as the best setting and only outlet for coitus. He has also provided additional guidelines, such as the following:

1) “Flee from fornication.” Cor. 6:18 (Fornication is coitus outside of marriage.) 2) “For everything there is an appointed time.” Eccl. 3:1 (There is no reason to be in a desperate haste to have sex.) 3) “Through love slave for one another.” Gal. 5:13 (Persons engaging in coitus must each be willing to do the things that titillate the other.) 4) “Treat others as you would like them to treat you.” Luke 6:13. (Coitus should be attempted only by mutual consent.) That, as a recent advertisement claims, 46 percent of women have never experienced an orgasm is a telling indication of the great number of people who fail to heed especially the last two bits of advice mentioned above. The modern diversity of opinions on the subject of sex has resulted in a confusion that is potentially harmful, even pernicious, and ultimately needless. I therefore suggest to Sven Miki Grant and his associates, as well as to any others of their ilk, that their method of sensitising the public on this issue would be even more effectual if it could be bolstered by their candidly and accurately representing to the people the opinion of the One from whom came the concept of sex and all that it entails.

D CHARLES
Carenage