Trinidad & Tobago's Racial Saga

22, May 2000
We have sought over the past weeks to examine historically the various prevailing levels of consciousness of our peoples in Trinidad and Tobago, in particular Africans and Indians, dependent on the nature of their immediate environments; the fundamental socio-economic activities therein and most of all their specific relationship to the dominant objective force in modern society, namely capital.

We discussed the sociology and psychology of being "urban" or "rural", the vision and programme of demands that would arise from either being free of tradition or being tied to its ancient, conservative vestiges; of being independent economically or being shackled to a plantation system; or being a "salaried" state dependent.

We established that in each of these instances one's position in the overall arrangement, or within the various processes, of reproducing wealth accumulation (namely capital) determines one's perspective and one's view of the world.

For decades, it became fashionable to say the power-holders adhered to a policy of "divide and rule" but seldom did anyone examine how this strategy was accomplished.

We ended the last column by establishing that colonialism allowed one set of people a close proximity to the centres of political power, all the better for them to eventually capture that power, while it allowed the other economic independence.

In T&T, colonial capital allowed Africans the one, Indians the other. The purpose was not to allow either both political power and economic independence.

The one with the natural tendency towards revolutionary and progressive consciousness was not to be allowed economic independence, because such a combination would only intensify combativeness; but the conservative traditionalist could be allowed economic independence.

However, in the course of our history, there have been moments of significant crossovers, to use the cultural jargon, that brought a fusion and generalisation of new levels of consciousness, that brought a unity of our people and thereby significant development in their ongoing struggle for greater democracy.

But outside of these special moments, the subjective emotionalism took over.

In 1975 we said the following: "From very early, alienated from the centres of power, the Indian Ð in relation to the urban-based African Ð developed a typical rural inferiority complex and a minority psyche, while the African developed a majority psyche and a spirit of domineering superiority or empty bravado.

Undoubtedly they were suspicious of each other's intentions, feared each other and faced each other much as the "snake" and the "bully" Ð to use the terms deemed appropriate by both peoples to describe each other's style of behaviour and approach to survival.

One was "introverted", fearful about self-preservation in a Caribbean region 85 per cent African-populated and therefore sticks to his own kind, naturally supports his own kind and brands as an outcast any who cross the race line.

He clings to his religion and cultural traditions as crucial lifelines; defends them

vigorously and, even at times, irrationally, given modern realities. He is patient and works hard for the further development of his tight-knit family and, by extension, his race.

He sees PNM political power not only as representative of middle-class Africans but of the entire African race in T&T Ð regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary, far less the PNM itself.

For him, it is this political power which makes even the most deprived African in T&T a "bully" in relation to him. In reaction, he jealously guards his family unit and its economic activity, no matter how minuscule, as well as its independence because in his view it is all he has on which to count.

Precisely because of such an approach to survival, there has been an amazing Indian economic upthrust in T&T, particularly after Independence in 1962 when on the overall the society was forced to open up.

As a result the Indian, in the context of modern capitalist generation and reproduction, senses today there is a substantial lot for him to defend here, which has served to intensify his conservative tendencies.

Every single aspect mentioned is typical of a minority grouping fearful about its self-preservation, fearful and suspicious of every new development as being just another effort to "de-Indianise" them and even though they may no longer be a minority in T&T in terms of numbers, the minority psyche persists and still informs all their tactics.

"...The other is extrovert, a loud-mouth, with an open personality, is very often not tight family-wise or race-wise, generally does not stick to his own kind or support his own kind per se as any unwritten principle, has no static tradition to defend.

"All that he has culturally is that which he has developed in the course of open warfare for survival in context of the relationships within modern Caribbean existence. He is largely free from the throttle of ancient vestiges, despite the resurgence of traditional African religious practices, is generally not conservative and has no patience with anything that is not progressive.

"He is strongly individualistic, works for the State and as a salaried person is dependent on the largesse of the State for his personal development and betterment.

He tends to personalise the power of the State and feels what is good for the State should be good for everybody and therefore would bully everyone into accepting such a perception.

"He does not attach any special significance to his African-ness and therefore would likewise bestow no significance to the Indian-ness of Indians, thereby lending fuel to the Indian fear that the role of the State and its agencies is to bully them into a process of 'de-Indianisation'.

He has gone nowhere despite the coming of political independence and is jealous of what he sees as developing Indian economic power, a power that was always denied him since the early days of emancipation.

He too makes no distinction between Indian middle-classes and the masses of Indian workers and farmers and sees them all as a race group who wishes to take over.

"Even if he himself is somewhat alienated from political power, he feels he must defend the state power against any Indian takeover, more so because of ever-rising Indian economic strength. So, as the Indians guard their economic crumb, so too he guards his impotent political power.

Now, as the Indians have naturally been moving from rural to urban and up the ranks of the Civil Service, positioning themselves quite rapidly in great numbers, the African panics because suddenly wherever he turns in his traditional and most familiar grounds, the Indian is there, the Indian was not there last night, but is there this morning...

"...The point cannot be over-emphasised that these are all the subjective, emotional, outward manifestations of an objective situation created by the past dictates of colonial capital.

Yet one will be stupid to ignore the subjective since it can inform our approach but to only base our assault on the subjective, on attitudes, mentality and psyche, etc will mean our wasting energies on symptoms, on the leaves and outgrowths of the political and economic structures. To only attack attitudes and mentality is to 'spin top in mud'..."

We must attack and change structures.

View response