Race. Yes, Again…

When I wrote the article on Libertarian Marxism, I said to myself that I bet people will not discuss the theoretical aspects of libertarian Marxism as opposed to authoritarian Marxism, rather they will latch onto the one small section of that post where I mentioned race and the UBP.

Looks like I was right.

And thats cool, I’ve been enjoying much of the discussion. But it does lead one to reflect on a few things though.

The most obvious smack-you-in-the-face issue is that while the question of class is increasingly becoming prominent in Bermuda, it is still a long way off from eclipsing the question of race. Yes, we need to address lots of other issues, be it sexism, homophobia, ageism, classism, sectarianism, authoritarianism, ecological issues, infrastructure issues, freedom of speech issues, and so on, but the one issue that seems to really get everyone in a fuss, without fail, is the question of race.

I’ve written my thoughts about race many times on this blog, both in general terms and on the more particular question of the whole UBPs approach to it. Similarly, good discussions have developed on threads that have contributed to this discussion. I haven’t gone through all of my posts in any exhaustative manner, but the following ones should be representative of much of this discourse on race:

“A Frank Discussion on Race”

“More Thoughts on the UBP – Facing Reality”

“White Fear”

“The UBP Platform – First Review”

“A Boxful of Crayons”

“Non-Mariners Race as Racist?”

“Colour-Blindness is Not the Answer”

So… As I’ve said, the above are only examples of some of this discourse. Much of what I’ve written in the above and elsewhere are variations of the same thing, and really, it does get a bit frustrating dealing with the same issue over and over and over and over and over and so on.

But its clear that we as a society have failed to exorcise the scourge of race and we’re gonna have to keep talking. Perhaps we’re talking at cross-purposes and not really understanding the others perspective. I don’t really know how to deal with that except to just keep trying to both put my position forward and to review carefully the opposing views.

This thread may become a long one. I’ll try to keep it all short, concise and broken up into smaller sections.

How do I percieve the UBP/White Bda approach to race?

*By extension I am including in very general terms under this how White Bermuda seems to approach race. I do this because it has been my personal experience that much of what the UBP says - or doesn’t say - is reflective of what White Bda seems to think. This is hardly suprising when the UBP commands near hegemonic support within White Bda, and is constituted overwhelmingly by White Bermudians - at least based on my observations of the Party and confirmation from UBPers themselves.*

I find that their approach to race is what I call a general ‘colour-blind philosophy.’ What I mean by this is that they approach everything today officially from the perspective that segregations and slavery ended XX number of years ago, and racism is a thing of the past. They continue this with affirming that they themselves are not racist.

These leads them to a general proffessed belief in meritocracy, and that there is nothing really but self-ambition to prevent ones success in life. It also leads them to view with great horror any attempts to address the very real racial inequalities that do exist today. This ranges initially from a general aversion to discussion these racial inequalities in the first place. They describe this as generally being ‘divisive.’ This progresses to near hysterical attempts to portray any attempt to practically address these inequalities as either totalitarian (as evidenced by the reaction to even assisting with developing a statistical picture of race in Bermuda, such as the CURE forms), to charges of ‘reverse racism’ and ‘Black revenge’ in the face of weak attempts of correcting institutional racism.

The Big Conversation

The approach to the ‘Big Conversation’ as a whole has been illustrative of this. The UBP and White Bermuda as a whole has been almost universal in their condemnation of this whole very small step to discussing race as divisive and by extension have sought to portray the PLP as a whole as being racially polarising. Its true that some phrases by various PLP members could have been phrased differently and have provided ammunition to this argument, but as a whole these comments have been quoted out of context or misinterpreted.

This attack has been extended to criticising the use of ‘foriegn experts’ in these discussions. These experts have been attacked on various fronts, be it that they are ’slick snake-oil salesmen,’ to their not understanding the Bermudian situation so they have no right or ability to contribute to the discourse. This of course fails to acknowledge that many of these ‘experts’ are actually leaders in their respective fields in analysing the race issue, and acknowledge they are not experts on the particulars of Bermuda but offer their insights all the same, not as dogmatists but as contributors to the process, and learn through interaction with those that attend.

And immediately when ‘local experts’ are used they change tack and delegitimise these local experts as having ‘chips on their shoulders’ and ‘known to be divisive individuals.’ One wonders sometimes when they will stop criticising and instead volunteer names of locals who would be acceptable. It seems honestly that to them anyone who would discuss the issue is divisive by virtue of discussing the issue in itself, and this deligitmises anyone in their eyes.

They also seem to have become particularly riled by the phrasing ‘uncomfortable’ in this context. There are a number of White Bermudians who have never attended these Bermuda Race Relations Initiatives (BRRI) who have told me that they had heard, or otherwise were of the opinion that, these events were white hating events, where Whites were generally being attacked as a whole and that they had no intention of going somewhere to be verbally and even possibly physically attacked. They really thought that that was what was meant by the term uncomfortable. The correct interpretation should have been that in a discussion of institutional racism in a still White supremacist society (in the sense of institutional White supremacy and not overt KKK style White supremacy), being confronted with the facts of this insitutional racism would be uncomfortable for many. And it is. Its always difficuly when one is confronted with hard facts that question much of what you believe about the world. That was all that was meant by that phrase.

I can understand that some would misintepret the phrase. Thats okay. But there are many within the UBP and White Bermuda who knew better, who had actually attended such meetings, but for various reasons, mostly of a short-term political nature, chose not to challenge these misintepretations but instead in some cases encouraged this misperception. I could even understand that there would be a mass White misinterpration of the phrase and the Big Conversation as a whole, that would be understandable from my analysis of White Bermuda. But there still should have been an effort from those in the UBP who knew better to counter such a mistaken perception.

And when the phrase was used to in the post-election interview of Dr. Brown by the BBC Caribbean, it was meant to say that there are very clear statistical information to show that the legacy of our racial past is evident today, that institutional racism is shown by these statistics, that race still correlate with class, and it is a fact that Whites as a group are better off than Blacks, and that is a problem that needs to be dealt with. That there are some poor Whites is not dismissed, but what is confronted is the very real fact that as a group Blacks are disadvantaged via institutional racism. Again there are those within the UBP who knew better to allow the misperceptions on this issue to grow, but these were not confronted by them.

Bill Cosby Syndrome

Another factor that develops from the White Bermuda/UBP approach to race is what I call the Bill Cosby syndrome. I name this after Mr. Cosby’s rather infamous ‘Pound Cake speech’ where he launched a rather critical attack on Black America. This allowed White America to also jump on much of these criticisms, safe from feeling that they would be attacked for being racist because they could point to this Black man Bill Cosby who had said these things, and they just happened to agree with them. The speech largely failed to acknowledge the role of institutional racism in these problems that he criticised in Black America, and instead led support to the White American (which is shared by White Bermuda) perception that racism is a thing of the past and the problems of Blacks today has nothing to do with racism at all, rather its down to personal choices.

This in itself leads to the problem of how to reconcile how it is that as a group these Blacks seem to make all the wrong personal choices. This leads to statements (that, quite frankly I hear all to often in the company of White Bermuda) that Africa and the Caribbean should have stayed as colonies, because look at them now… How they do not see that as being a racist statement I still don’t understand. The White have two solutions to this dilemma. A very small minority lapse back into overt racism (I am talking here of America; while I’m sure there are some White Bermudians who share this solution, our population is too small to allow it forming any organised grouping) such as the myriad of White Power groupsucles one finds throughout the States. The majority point towards the exceptions such as the Oprah’s, the Cosby’s, Tiger Woods, Colin Powell and the like. To me these are exceptions that prove the rule of insitutional racism. To the colour-blind philosophers they are proof that merit and personal choice work today and not racism. They can do so only be ignoring the very real statistical facts of instutional racism that confront them daily.

Obama

Lately this Cosby Syndrome is needing renamed to the Obama syndrome. And indeed his rise in US politics is particularly useful for insight into Bermudian politics. It is no secret that the UBP as a group seems to be rooting for Obama. Similarly they are using the example of Obama for their own political ends in Bermuda. The PLP quite frankly has walked right into this one, and is still stuck in that trap, something they did through a combination of blind allegiance to identity politics and traditional affinity with the US Democratic Party (much of the PLP’s recent group of leaders were particularly influenced by the exampel of Clinton, that Tony Blair of the US).

You see, Obama does represent alot of what the UBP represents. They have no problem with Blacks per se. Only certain types of Blacks. Blacks who are willing to be upfront about the race problem, that acknowledge instituitional racism and say that the ending of overt bigotry was only one small step in correcting the problem of race, those types of Blacks they have a problem with. They call them confrontational, divisive. Blacks that don’t make Whites uncomfortable for the past, that serve as mouthpieces for White thought, they have no problems with that. I realise many will take offence for the term mouthpieces. I’m not saying that these Blacks don’t genuinely believe the ideology they are representing, I’m sure they do. But their ideology just happens to fit with and legitimises the White worldview, and those that question the White worldview, their philosophy of colour-blindness now, those they don’t like.

You can have a parliamentary party who’s candidates are majority Black. But as long as the Party itself is dominated by Whites and fails to confront the race question and instead continues the colour-blind now philosophy, well, to me its a White Party espousing White worldviews.

Obama is recieving so much White support precisely because he is not challenging the White worldview of colour-blindness now. His candidacy is effectively ‘racial reconciliation on the cheap’ for much of White America who can say they ar enot racist because they support a Black man for President. By this slieght of ideological hand they can ignore the fact of institutional racism.

Confusion

The confusion ultimately stems from a confusion over what is meant by racism. Most Whites, and even a good number of Blacks see racism only in its overt in-you-face KKK style bigotry. That is only one form of racism. That was Jim Crowe. What we have today is institutional racism. While one can experience it subjectively, its hard to prove, they always have so many different excuses for what one experienced. It can only be proven really through statistical analysis. We have that analysis. It can and is shown that Bermuda, as well as America, has some serious problems of institutional racism of a White supremacist nature. Our racism today is covert, a more sophisticated Jim Crowe. We have James Crowe III, Esquire.

By adopting a colour-blind now philosophy one avoids dealing with the institutional racism that we do have. And by failing to confront the very real problems this approach only legitimises the system and puts obstacles in the way of dealing with it.

I am always amused at how White Bermuda, and White America as well, employs MLK. So many of them can parrot off his speech “I have a dream” and say thats what they believe, and that attempts like affirmative action are reverse racism and contrary to this ‘dream.’ This approach to MLK is a combination of ignorance and selective reading (cherry-picking if you will) of MLK. Much of this is due to the selective presentation of MLK through US media which does cherry pick MLK’s thought. Its true that MLK had a dream that one day we would achieve a colour-blind society. But what is not advertised, what one has to go and read and search out because tehy don’t advertise it, is that he also wrote about how to achieve that dream, that simply adopting a colour-blind philosophy without dealing with the inequalities of the past would not achieve that dream. MLK wrote passionately in favour of some form of affirmative action and reparations as tools with which to construct this colour-blind society.

Taking a Break

Anyway, there’s alot more that needs to be written, and I’m pretty sure much of the above will spark a bit of debate here. But quite frankly I need to go and get dinner, so I’ll let this start the discussion, and add more in the process of that discussion.

But I did want to add just a few more things though. Specific to the blogosphere.

Christian’s Politics.bm, and to a lesser extent (in the sense of posting frequency) IMHO.bm provide a rather good example of the more sophisticated approach to the race issue from White Bermuda/UBP. This is especially so in their criticism of the Big Conversation and support for Obama.

The site Bermuda Sucks is rather a free for all of discourse. But there are a few issues that need to be put on the table with that site. Vanz, who posts on this site from time to time, and posts on that site as “Tigga” (I post as “Crimson Dynamo”) has made an interesting social experiment with that site.

What I udnerstand he does there, for which he is attacked, is largely a holding up a mirror to some of it. I have disagreed with his tactics, essentially saying that two wrongs don’t make a right and that he only provides ammunition for the anti-PLP posters.

But what he does is he essentially holds a mirror up to that site, as far as I can tell inr esponse to two posters there. One of them is the character ‘Rummy’ who in his stye of writing Tigga apes. Rummy comes across as a general troll, often with nonsensical comments (I’m sur ehe’ll respond here eventually). But his bad use of dialect, well, I consider it essentially racist. the other character is Sal, who has his own blog which you will find on my blogroll as “Sal’s Blog.” Sal also posts here, and I’m sure he’ll respond as well. Sal hasn’t posted on that site for some time, but does post now on its spin-off, BIAW. Sal is about the closest thing I have come across in Bermuda as an out and out bigot.

The fact that both Sal and Rummy are barely attacked to the same degree that Tigga is speaks volumes of the psyche of many. Whiel Sal no longer seems to post there, past failure to respond to him in anywhere near the manner that Tigga has had to deal with, is intepreted along the lines of institutional racism. The same goes for Rummy. Until this situation is addressed that, and similar blogs, will be regarded as racist, even if the overwhelming number of posters there are not overtly so themselves. Its institutional racism, and Tigga’s actions have illustrated that point splendidly over there, as much as I have issue with his actions there myself.

Libertarian Marxism

Following the ‘Monday Interview’ concerning myself and this blog, I have been asked several times what exactly is meant by my self-description as a ‘libertarian Marxist.’ This was perhaps the most common question posed to me following the article, the second one being why do I advocate socialism/Marxism in light of the collapse of ‘actually existing socialism’ and its obvious nightmare-like qualities for humanity.

‘Actually Existing Socialism’

First, I’ld like to respond to the second question, about why I advocate what was seen in the USSR, PRC or even in Cuba.

The quick answer is that, quite frankly, I don’t.

When people hear the word ’socialism’ or ‘communism’ or ‘Marxism’ they have certain preconcieved notions of what these ‘isms’ entail. Due to obvious reasons, namely, they called themselves socialist/communist/Marxist, people tend to think of the authoritarian States such as the USSR, the PRC and Cuba. This was reinforced, especially in Bermuda with our proximity and dependency on US media, by Cold War propaganda and its associated ‘Red scares’ that sought to portray these ism’s as totalitarian monstrosities, often exagerating the very real totalitarianism that these societies did become for propaganda reasons.

These preconceptions of what one means by socialism/communism/Marxism are perfectly understandable in light of these totalitarian nightmares, what I personally qualify with the prefix ‘authoritarian,’ as opposed to my own ‘libertarian’ socialism/communism/Marxism.

This causes one some difficulties, precisely in that everyone on hearing that you’re a socialist/communist/Marxist automatically assumes you’re an advocate of these totalitarian nightmares that are legitimately discredited. Some people who ideologically agree with libertarian or various democratic forms of socialism choose to avoid self-identifying with these ism’s altogether as a result and use all manner of euphemisms in their place.

Personally I try to reclaim the words socialism/communism/Marxism to describe what I understand by them through reading Marxist theory first-hand and as what I understand the mass of people who actually brought about both successful and unsuccessful revolutions were fighting for. I admit that at times I use euphemisms for certain terms, for short-term tactical purposes, but do not shirk from identifying with the ism’s themselves either. I occassionaly use the term ‘progressive labour’ (always with small capitals to differentiate from the Progressive Labour Party) for democratic socialism, ‘emancipation’ and ‘reparations’ often are used by me in the sense of revolution both political and social, for example.

I’ll go into detail in a separate thread later about my specific criticisms of ‘actually existing socialism’ or what I see as authoritarian socialism/communism/Marxism, but for this thread I’m going to try and stick to describing what I concieve as libertarian socialism/communism/Marxism.

Okay, so what do you mean by ‘libertarian’ then?

Alot of the confusion about my self-description as a libertarian Marxist seems to stem with a confusion with the term ‘libertarian’ as it is used in the sense of US political discourse. In the US the term is generally used to cover various forms of anarcho-capitalism, examples (of various degrees) would be the Objectivists, Minarchism and more than anything else the Libertarian Party of the US. There are controversies between these and other ‘libertarian’ positions, but I think in general one can describe them as all being pro-free market and anti-State, or at least advocating for a minimal State, hence my description of them as essentially anarcho-capitalist to various degrees.

With the dominance of this US understanding of what ‘libertarian’ means it is no wonder that many people regard my self-description as oxymoronic, as I would be by definition anti-capitalist.

However the term ‘libertarian’ itself was first used in the political sense by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque in 1857, and was used as a synonym for ‘anarchism.’ It was used to oppose ‘authoritarianism’ in general. In the late nineteenth century the word was used in place of anarchism in France due to the anti-anarchist ‘lois scélérates’ laws that made the word ‘anarchist’ illegal. It is from this origin that I use the term in self-describing myself as a libertarian Marxist. It is simply another way of saying that I am an anti-authoritarian Marxist, and believe that socialism itself can be instituted by non-coercive means and must be based on direct democracy, along with the end of sexism, racism, sectarianism, etc.

Practical Applications

There are different schools of libertarian socialist thought, of which I particularly identify with Council Communism, or Marxist-Luxemburgism, although I am partial to aspects of Social Ecology and Anarcho-Syndicalism, as well as regarding myself as an Eco-Socialist.

While I do advocate running in elections I have no illussions to the ability of bringing about socialism within the confines of liberal democracy. Rather I see elections as particularly useful for challenging the status quo and developing revolutionary consciousness. I do not support the idea of a vanguard Party in the Leninist sense, or the social-democratic sense for that matter, that seeks to act ‘on the behalf’ of the people.

All previous attempts to delegate power on behalf of the working class have only resulted in the formation of bureaucracies and the economic and political expropriation of the working class. Such ‘labour’ Parties have been coopted by the system, and now express non-labour interests, something that has an objective basis itself in the development of the system, and a subjective basis in the imposition (or acceptance of) capitalist methods of thinking and organising into the labour movement. Without political AND social revolution leading to popular economic and political democracy the system will perpetuate itself.

I remain a member of the Progressive Labour Party, and believe that its original ideals and the popular conception of what it stood for, were essentially that of democratic socialism. I have no illusions that the PLP today is anything more than a Blairite ‘Third Way’ form of social democracy, with a distinct anti-White supremacist tendency as a result of our racial history. I continue to attempt to defend the prinicples of progressive labour/democratic socialism within the Party through a continual and consistent critique of it from a libertarian socialist position. I do not envision winning the Party over to libertarian socialism, but feel it is my duty to advocate within and without the Party for libertarain socialism with the aim of developing such revolutionary consciousness in Bermuda.

I am constantly amused at those who would portray me as being ‘used’ by the PLP, or something to that effect. About the only real ideological position we share today is a commitment to ending institutional racism. On pretty much all other questions we are miles apart. Its important to stress here that I don’t think I’m necessarily miles apart from much of the grassroots, but more miles apart from the ‘official’ Party Line position. I will, and do, counter what I see as covert/institutional racism, especially as argued by many pro-UBP supporters, and the UBP itself. Simulteonously though I constantly critque the social-democracy of the PLP.

This is not the only option, of course, and I know others that regard themselves as socialists who choose not to work within the Party. Thats fine, and I certainly emphasise with their decision. Nor is work within the Party something fixed. But from my analysis of the current situation I conclude that it remains the best strategy for the immediate future. As the situation changes, be it from my own actions, or by external factors, I will have to reevaluate my position. My objective, ultimately, is to develop revolutionary consciousness through a critique of the capitalist system as a whole, against imperialism, against false consciousness and against those various ideologies that support and maintain the system (such as patriachy, sexism, racism, mysticism, nationalism, etc.), and to encourage self-organisation and popular economic and political democracy as a whole.

How I came to my position

In the ‘About’ sections I give a brief summary of how I came to socialism from growing up in Bermuda. One of the key formative events though was when I went to Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, where I and a handful of others founded the Trent Socialists. The main currents, or rather, influences in that organisation when we founded it were Isreali Kibbutzimism and two Trotskyist groups, the International Marxist Tendency and Socialist Action (Canada). I remain in contact with and friends with many within these respective groups, and acknowledge their contribution to my own theoretical development.

Around this time I was taking a history course elective, and focused much of my research into the 1918 German Revolution, which allowed me to study the works of Rosa Luxemburg. At this time I also became involved with the Worker-Communist Party of Iran (long story…) and became acquainted with the writings of their founder, Mansoor Hekmat. It was through a combination of studying the works of Rosa Luxemburg and Mansoor Hekmat that I came to question certain aspects of Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyist theory, notably their conceptions of power and the vanguard party.

I have since devoted much of my free time to studying the histories of various revolutions, notably the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions, the 1918 German Revolution, the 1919-1920 Italian Revolution, the 1936 Spanish Revolution, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the events of 1968 (Paris and Prague) and the Grenada Revolution. I have also devoted much of my time reading (in addition to Marx and Engels) the works of Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci (in particular his pre-prison writings), Anton Pannekoek, Otto Rühle, Paul Mattick, György Lukács, Karl Korsch, Evgeny Pashukanis, Mansoor Hekmat, CLR James, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm and Maurice Brinton (from whose group ‘Solidarity - for workers power’ inspired part of this blogs name). I have done so in order to better understand the events of the revolutions and the workers councils, as well as to develop my conception of socialism/communism/Marxism.

Just a few comments on the Rg ‘Monday Interview’

I just wanted to expand or clarify a few issues from raised by todays ‘Monday interview’ concerning myself and this blog that was published in todays RG.

In the picture concerning the Anti-Racism Rally the caption reads:

“In December 2006, anti-racism rally organiser jonathan Starling stepped in after Portuguese activist Robert Pires angrily approached the podium after speaker, former Senator Calvin Smith made controversial comments and was heckled. Mr Starling asked Mr. Smith to finish his speech.”

The Rally was actually held on July 14th, 2006. This date was chosen partly due to its closeness to the attack that inspired it, and also due to the symbolism of the July 14th storming of the Bastille with the idea to storm the bastille of racism that still holds sway in our society, and the call of the French revolution for liberty and equality for all, that inspired the revolutionaries in Haiti. I had asked the honorary French representative to speak, and he really wanted to, but due to the short notice of organising the event it proved impractical, similarly with many others who wanted to speak but who had scheduling conflicts. Readers should recall the event was largely organised within 72 hours, which is not always conducive to getting all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed. The caption itself may be misintepreted as implying that I asked Brother Calvin Smith to end his speech. Rather, I asked that he avoid the hecklers and not to get distracted from his original point, and to finish his speech as he had intended. just wanted to make sure there weren’t any misperceptions on that.

On the reference to me not liking drunkards, that is true. But it shouldn’t be mistaken as implying that I have a puritanical approach to alcohol. Those close to me are having a good laugh at that implication. I advocate responsible consumption of this drug, and while the occassional drunken episode happens to us all, I generally view drunkeness as a symptom of a wrong approach to alcohol consumption, and I do not enjoy the company of drunkards.

It notes that I support Independence. This is entirely true, although I fear I mangled myself on this issue. Firstly, I advocate the formation of a British Federal Republic, ultimately with the inclusion of the entire Commonwealth into a Federl Republic on a voluntary basis, no doubt with the federal capital being moved to india should that occur. Realistically I see Bermudian independence and subsequent unification with a Caribbean Federal Republic as a more likely development. All the same I think former colonial citizens should at the very least recieve home fees and visa-free travel to the UK as ‘…the least they could do for the crimes committed during the empire.’

I do support full and expanded conscription, but with a radical change to the existing model that is the Regiment. I envision combining it military training with first year college level technical and academic education and a National Service type system. I find the focus of the existing model on field infantry tactics as pointless as they are useless from the perspective of defending Bermuda from an invading military force. Only an urban guerrila resistance approach to such an invasion would have any realistic chance of defeating an invasion, or, at the very least, increasing the cost of such an invasion to such a degree as to make it prohibitive for the invading force. Greater emphasis on post-hurricane reconstruction and coastguard services are also necessary.

When the Soviets came they were full of ideas and passion for the idea of ’socialism with a human face’ as gorbachev called it, and the debates raged over glasnost, perestroika and the like. Many were oncerned that the gains of the revolution might be lost and capitalism restored in a counter-revolution. The vast majority were for a democratic socialist society and not for capitalist restoration. As we all know, the counter-reveolution succeeded and the ‘katastroika’ of capitalist restoration still haunts the former Soviet peoples today. but their passion for a democratic socialist society was very influential for me all the same.

What exactly is a ‘libertarian Marxist?’ I knew this might cause confusion. I could have used different words to describe my position, but all of these would have had problems. Basically I am for a non-authoritarian socialism that is dependent on both the social and political revolution. I find the authoritarian socialism of the former Soviets of Maoism as essentially fascism with socialist rhetoric. Libertarian connotes opposition to authoritarianism. In the West we know the word more for its use to describe anarcho-capitialism/libertarian capitalism. I could have used the term anarcho-socialist, but was worried that people would confuse this with individualistic/nihilistic anarchism. I could also have used the terms ‘Left Communist,’ ‘Council Communist’ or ‘Marxist-Luxemburgist’ but these are relatively specialised political terms and I thought they would unnecessarily complicate things.

I hope that makes for a greater clarification of these issues. I’ll be happy to further discuss any of these below.

What the…

I gotta say I was shocked to hear about this stabbing. Eighteen. Only eighteen. I really do feel sorry for him and his loved ones.

I also feel sorry for his attackers. If the news spreading by word of mouth is anything to go by, the incident was over a gold chain. If his attackers felt it neccessary to murder him over a gold chain, I really do feel sorry for them.

Of all the things for our people to emulate from other countries, this thuggishness is not one we as a society should be tolerating. This isn’t New York, Baltimore, DC or LA. This isn’t London or Birmingham or Newcastle. But you wouldn’t know it sometimes when you hear about things like this. Over a chain.

You got to stop and wonder, has our society gotten so alienated that the cost of a teens life is a couple bills that would buy you a chain.

I’m sure, yeah, in the heat of the moment one says stupid stuff, one gets into a fight and all. I can understand that, to a degree. Can’t understand fighting over a chain. I can understand fighting to defend yourself, even over a chain. Thats more a matter of dignity - although I’m sure the victim would have given up the chain if confronted with death. I reckon that he, and not even his attacker expected that. Sometimes in the heat of the moment one does stupid stuff. I’m sure the knife was being carried by the person because it made him feel big. More secure. I’m always worried about people who feel the need to carry weapons because they insecure about something. Many may be too afraid to actually use it, but others, well, their insecurity leads them to use it when put in certain situations.

I hope the guy gets help. He’s gonna need it. Over a chain.

Not sure what the social response to all this will be. There will be some flurry of outcry, like this one. There may even be another rally against violence. There will be church sermons and press releases from the police and politicians about youth, crime, knives. There will be some religious fanatics calling for a return to Christian values. There may even be some politicians who, while not making this particular case into political football, will do so on a more general level.

There will be crying and alot of ‘what ifs…’ There will be a police crackdown.

But will there be any change to the system? Will there be a concerted challenge to the mass consumerism that teaches our youth to define themselves with irrelevant material junk? Will there be a challenge to the instant gratification ideology spread by this mass consumerism? Will there be a challenge to the ideology of ‘might is right’ of thugishness? Will there be a challenge to the insecurities that beset our youth and lead them to a perfect storm like this one?

No idea.

I apologise for the rant. I didn’t know the guy, I don’t think. But stuff like this really irritates me. Over a chain.

My condolences.

The Long Slow Death of the UBP

It was curious reading and watching the latest rumblings of discontent from that political relic that is the UBP, with Mr. Wayne Furbert blasting the Party he used to lead and Mr. Kim Swan attempting to defend it. This of course was capped off with the return of Mr. Jahmal Simmons’ critique of the Party’s underlying racial problems, complete with a truly pathetic attempt by UBP Deputy Leader Cole Simons to rebuff him.

Before I write anything in depth I would just like to reiterate that I have nothing personal against Wayne, Kim or Jahmal.

To a degree I really do find myself agreeing with Christians’ take on Mr. Furbert’s latest comments. Quite frankly I thought Mr. Furbert had already washed his hands off the UBP and was sitting as an Independent. How many times can he threaten like this without it getting old?

The UBP seems to be skilled in stumbling from one internal crisis to another.

The Rise of the PLP

Alot of the UBP’s current crises stems from its historic defeat in 1998 to the PLP. Under Freddie Wade the PLP had adopted a modernising programme eerily similar to the New Labour project initiated in the UK under Neil Kinnock, John Smith and executed by Tony Blair. The basic arithmetic of this plan was that the working class would vote for the PLP no matter what, and so in order to win the PLP would have to break the hold of the UBP over Bermuda’s middle class Blacks, the swing voters. In order to achieve this the PLP altered its rhetoric and policy, and in the end there really wasn’t much policy differences between the UBP and the PLP, just as New Labour stole the political centre from the Conservatives, so too did the PLP take the ground from underneath the UBP.

This project was of course helped in Bermuda by the infighting within the UBP following John Swan’s gamble on independence and his resulting resignation and the ‘burger wars.’ The UBP ultimately gave away the 1998 election as it lost much of its core support, disgusted with the UBP’s actions and willing to give the PLP (whose platform really wasn’t all that different from the UBP by then anyway) a chance.

Once the PLP was victorious in 1998 the UBP was essentially doomed to a downward spiral of increasing irrelevance. The UBP had only been successful in capturing the ’swing voters’ - middle class Blacks - through a combination of internalised skepticism of the PLP being able to govern effectively, patronage (in as much as being associated with the economic and political powers that be was advantageous) and the unequal voting system at that time. With the PLP in power it essentially lost all of these advantages.

The PLP showed that, at the very least, it could govern as equally bad as the UBP. Similarly, with winning political power the PLP gained access to the levers of state that could lead to economic change. The UBP still retains the majority of economic power, essentially, but the aspiring Black middle class, opportunists as they are, would now realise the benefits of being associated with the PLP. Association with the UBP could still be of some use due to its relationship to economic power, but with the solidification of ascendant PLP hegemony in the past decade, it became ‘better’ to be associated with the PLP. The restructuring of the constituencies served as a final fatal blow to the UBP. Neither one of these in themselves would neccessarily have meant the terminal decline of the UBP, but combined, their decline has been irreversible.

Of course in Bermuda, as most things still do, race is a key factor here. The UBP, based on opinion polls and general observation, has an almost complete domination of the White vote, somewhere around 90% support. Of the Blacks they probably still retain some minority support, say perhaps 25%. The PLP is almost completely supported by Blacks, with only a few (1-2% White support - the non-UBP White voters seem to not necessarily translate into increased White PLP support). The number of Blacks supporting the UBP has been, and continues to decrease. I see no reason for this decline in Black UBP support to reverse. I also see the potential for the PLP to actually increase its White support by a handful of percentage points over time, partly due to mutually opportunistic reasons.

The Problem in the Political Equation

The problem with the ‘New Labour’ political equation that the PLP embarked on in the 1990s is that it assumed the support of the working class as absolute. Aside from a few generally housekeeping modernisations there have been suprisingly little progressive changes in areas that directly benefit the working class. I am not saying there has been none, but that the changes have been too little, too late. By assuming the working class support as absolute and generally disregarding their interests, the contradiction arouse that the traditional grassroots of the Party have resorted to industrial actions towards the ‘Labour Party’ and the perception has grown that the PLP today is increasingly elitist.

These criticisms seem to have struck a nerve with the current leadership with a flurry of generally pathetic attempts to argue that the PLP is still labour and not elitist, as seen in the recent pieces by Minister Derrick Burgess, PLP Chairman David Burt and PLP Senator Marc Bean. The only articles of any worth in my opinion are those of Julian Hall. Premier Dr. Brown has also be seen to react to this with a few PR bits and the latest You Tube propaganda.

David Burt and Minister Burgess essentially attempted to argue that the PLP remains organically connected to the organised labour movement, and that many Union related individuals serve as PLP MPs or apparatchiks. This ignores the fact that since its very first minutes the Party has been an uneasy alliance between labour and left-wing intellectuals and Black middle and upper class who were disadvantaged under the existing system. These different factions had different end goals, but one common enemy. The ‘left’ sought a national democratic revolution, the dismantling of both racism and the oligarchy and the expansion of popular economic and political democracy. The ‘right’ sought an end to the racist oligarchy, but not necessarily oligarchism itself. It could, and has, reached an understanding with the oligarchic system, but continues to push for increased ‘modernising’ of the oligarchy to become more representative of the country’s racial demographics.

For various reasons, the demoralisation of the ‘left’ following a series of electoral defeats at the hands of the UBP, and an internalised colonial mentality beholden to social hierrachies, the Party came to be dominated intellectually by the ‘right’ albeit with the occassional leftist rhetoric, as well as by an aristocracy of labour. As long as the PLP remained in Opposition it was forced by necessity to be closer to its grassroots in political expression; in many ways the grassroots provided the ‘muscle’ or ‘battering ram’ for the Black middle and upper classes goals. Once power was achieved the division between right and left was accelerated, and the leadership and the grassroots have become more divided as a result. Post 1998 PLP has shown itself to be ‘talk left, walk right’ in most things.

Just as John Smith in the UK is often lamented by Leftist elements within the UK Labour Party as being closer to ‘Old Labour’ than the New Labour model he advocated as an electoral tactic, so is Freddie remembered here. There are some that argue that had Freddie lived, the first PLP term would have been ‘business as usual’ in order to ensure stability, and that subsequent PLP terms would have realised more of the Party’s original ideology. This is always possible. Personally I doubt it. Freddie was one of the key architects of our version of ‘New Labour.’ Dr. Ewart Brown, who was brought in by Freddie very much as part of this electoral strategy, is perhaps the best representation of New Labour PLP, but style notwithstanding, the substance of New Labour is the same. I believe Freddie would have not alienated the labour wing as much as the current leadership, but I really don’t feel that there would be that much difference between a PLP led by Dr. Brown and a PLP led by, say Paula Cox. Stylistically, sure, Paula Cox would be more akin to Gordon Brown I think in style, but really there is little that separated Blair from Brown and Brown and Cox - as far as one can see - on a substantial policy position.

We are currently seeing in the UK the working class choosing not to vote at all, or making various protest votes or even giving some support to far right groups, all of which gives the Conservatives a chance to win the next UK general election. The Tory leader is very much Blairesque in style (and substance) which has given him an advantage over Gordon Brown’s lack of style (but shared substance).

It is not likely that we will see the same changing fortunes for the UBP here though. The historical memory of the Bermudian working class is too long to forgive the UBP any time soon, and while there may be some misgivings towards the PLP now, one has to agree that the Party is still organically connected to labour. In that I agree with David Burt and Derrick Burgess; my disagreement with their positions are how great is the strain on this connection and how does this ignore the fact that the Party has historically had a division between a working class grassroots and a Black bourgeois. [The only comment I have on Marc Bean's article is that I agree, members should be consistent in their criticisms, privately and publically. I feel alot of the bluster is internal Party jockeying for power using the very real disconnect between the 'left' and 'right' as so much ammunition for their own opportunistic ends rather than actually seeing any real potential for change.]

As the Party is still organically connected to labour, labour can still influence the Party. As such the working class will continue to support the PLP rather than go to the UBP. Also, the Black middle and upper classes are becoming increasingly bound to PLP hegemony, leaving the UBP doubly electorally disadvantaged, both in total potential votes, and for obtaining candidates for their electoral tactics. [I have written on this many times before, a Party that opposes in principle the idea of affirmative action - 'merit over melanin' - but is overwhelmingly a White Party in membership but with a predominantly Black candidates list is both hypocritical and patronising in its approach to race and politics.]

The above fact alone renders the UBP a doomed Party. Politically they offer little substantial policy differences with the PLP, something that is being made embarrasingly obvious by recent PLP backpedalling on its election platform (with subsequent adoption of elements of the UBP platform…]. If the UBP is to win power ever again a number of factors will have to come into play, barring some catastrophic self-destruction of the PLP.

I believe that the UBP will have to both wait several political terms (say three at a minimum) in order for a new generation to both forget the UBP of old (real and percieved) and to grow weary of the existing PLP; and it will have to resolve the contradiction that is its entire approach to race. As long as it fails to practice what it preaches, especially in terms of opposing melanin over merit but in practice actively employing it, but also on its transparency and democratic structure, the UBP will have very little chance of future success.

Wildcards

I remain of the conviction that the UBP continues to be the ‘glue’ that holds the PLP left and right together. I believe that should the UBP dissolve, or at the very least split, it would serve as a catalyst for radical (in the sense of fundamental) political change in Bermuda. Without such action, political change will still come, but it will be delayed and its form will be unpredictable. [This is a belief I think held by others also. See Denis' thread here for example.]

There are elements of the UBP that would be a better fit with some elements of the PLP, and it is not inconcievable that a UBP split would allow a new political equilibrium that would shatter the current dynamics largely bound by race.

The main dangers that I see in the continued retardation of Bermuda’s political development is the risk for the social pressures currently affecting the working class to be expressed in xenophobic or even fascistic outbursts, as well as increased social alienation with its related social disorders.

It is also possible that a new leftist group could form in order to challenge the PLP and attempt to make make it more accountable to its working class base. I personally see a development along these lines occuring, but not necessarily in the sense of an organised political party, but rather in the form of some sort of hybrid between a political party and a grassroots social movement.

Ultimately I feel that the UBP is in a terminal decline and the sooner its members decide to pull the plug the better. As long as the PLP does not threaten the bottome line of international business, or true neocolonial masters, the UBP doesn’t have a chance. In the event of a left wing resurgence within the PLP by its rank and file, it is possible that a new Party, most likely a new Liberal Party would evolve in short order with the blessing of financial donations. At least this would break the racial dynamic and allow for progress in our political development.

As for the current UBP leadership, as much as I like Kim Swan personally, I really don’t see him as an effective leader of the UBP. I was suprised at both his and Cole Simons elevation to the top UBP positions. I intepret their election as a combination of no-one else really wanting the job at the time, the more capable contenders demoralised by the fall of Dunkley, and the potential future leaders being too fresh to lead effectively. While I see the UBP ultimately dissolving or being eclipsed by a new Party, I view the current UBP leadership as an attempt to give one of its newer MPs a chance to get enough experience in order to take over as a more capable leader, no doubt before the next election. In fact, I’ll give Kim Swan at most a year and a half before the knives are out.

And while in the past the UBP has excelled at stabbing in the back, I predict in the future it will take to stabbing in the front. And then hopefully it will go out, be it with a murmur or a bang, and a new political equilibrium can come about.

Major Announcement…

Well, I hope everyone has had a great holiday weekend. I’ve actually been working pretty much straight, which is great overtime pay, but I’ve tried to attend as many parties and whatnot as I could. I particularly enjoyed the Sally Basset play which has inspired me to return to an old piece of work I started on but never finished, and I also enjoyed the Chewstick night down at Horseshoe and a bbq with friends.

Been reflecting on the the consumption of alcohol though. I’ve always been taught to view alcohol as something to complement my food and not really something to drink for the purpose of getting drunk. I admit I’m a bit of a conniousser at times, preferring my liqour neat and straight up to enjoy the complex flavours of my rum, whisky and tequilas, and truly appreciate my wines and beers (I’m a big fan of Spanish reds and syrahs, and stouts). I admit I have from time to time indulged a bit too much, but as a whole tend to have a high tolerance. But I really do not enjoy drunkards. They are very similar to jet-ski’s really, fun for a short time and then really quite boring. Certainly not a fan of being in their company.

Anyway, back to the major announcement…

A number of people (Vance, Denis, Alsys in the online community, and many offline, friends and coworkers) have known of this, but I’m leaving the island.

My last day of work is the 29th of August, then I move out of my apartment and crash on someones sofa for a couple of days. I’m hoping to stay to attend the Labour Day march, which is one of my favourite holidays (though I still hope it changes to MayDay someday).

I have decided to make good on a promise I made to myself some six or seven years ago and return to school. I had expected to have done so earlier, but the thing about life is that stuff comes up and things got pushed back. But I realised if I didn’t take the gamble and try for this year I probably never would do it. So I went ahead and applied to some universities over in the UK, as they had the programmes that I was interested in.

After a period of great anxiety and suspense I started getting some feedback from my applications, first from my second choice, Exeter (MSc in Conservation), then my third choice, Kent (MSc in Biodiversity and Conservation) and finally, just as I was about to give up hope and confirm with Exeter, my first choice Edinburgh confirmed my acceptance. On my birthday of all days! I certainly enjoyed a couple pints that day…

The programme I got accepted into, and will start in mid-September is a MSc in Ecological Economics. For those interested in what this entails, the programmes page is here, and the The International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) has some good info on what it all means.

I think it compliments the development of my ideas during my undergrad which led me to a transdisciplinary synthesis between my joint majors of ecological/evolutionary biology and socio-cultural anthropology, along with my electives, heavily consisting of comparitive development studies, psychology and to a lesser degree history, political science and philosophy. I also think that it goes very well with the developing situation both on a global level and in our own small island nation.

I have an idea of my thesis, but I won’t divulge that too much at the moment. Similarly I have a general idea of my direction following this Masters, but I’ld rather not go into that at the moment. My main focus is going to be on the immediate objective of doing an

I’m a little nervous about the huge life changes that this move involves, selling all my possessions, winding up business stuff here, shipping off my books, music and clothes. I’ve been out of academics for just under a decade now, and I’ll be going back as a mature student which I find a tad amusing and oxymoronic. And I’m going to miss all my friends and coworkers, as well as my animals that I look after (my fish, the seals, turtles). I’m most concerned about what to do about the stray cat that has adopted me as a living god (or as my friends say, has adopted me as a slave…), but i’m working on that.

But despite the nervousness, and the saying goodbye to friends, coworkers and non-human dependents, I’m also tremoundously excited about the course and living in Edinburgh. I’m confident I’ll do well in this course, and I’m excited about meeting new friends and learning a new city. My family is Scottish, and most of them live nearby to Edinburgh. I also have two very good friends also leaving at the same time, and while they will be in London, I look forward to visiting them, as well as other friends who now live in the UK.

I’ve never lived more than a couple of weeks over there, so I reckon there may be some cultural adjustments to make; for example a good friend of mine, and englishwoman, has been training me of late in British slang. I’m not too worried about the weather, having studied previously in Peterborough, Ontario at Trent University. I’m looking forward to indulging in one of my favourite hobbies of hiking and camping, as well as attending some good football games and catching up on relations.

Before I leave I’ll make some a more formal farewell, but I would like to particularly thank my place of work, the Bermuda Aquarium, Museum and Zoo for their support, as well as the Garden Club of Bermuda who have given me some financial assistance. There are many more individuals that have been vital for this decision, and will be of great assistance in the coming days as I prepare to leave. I would like to thank them in advance, and more properly later.

So, what does this mean for the future of this blog?

To be frank, I don’t know.

It is my intention to keep it running as is. I acknowledge I won’t have as good a read of the ground from overseas, and will have to filter through the electronic media (papers and blogs) and communication with comrades on the ground. I imagine that my posts will increasingly tackle on more abstract questions revolving around race, sex, democracy, political parties and the like, and less on the parachioal squabbles that pass for politics in our nation. I also imagine I’ll write a bit about the situations in Scotland and the UK, especially on topics related to Scottish devolution and possible independence and the UK Labour Party/New Labour, as well as political tactics in general.

I will also welcome ‘open mics’ from comrades on the ground; I’ll facilitate the method of doing so shortly. Basically I envision comrades emailing me with the post, I’ll review it and post it on their behalf without change, but with a disclaimer or something.

For the rest of this month, I’m not sure how posting will go as I set about getting ready to leave. And once I’m in Scotland, my first priority will of course be to attend to my studies.

This may see an increase in postings, as I will have greater access to computers and the internet, and perhaps more free time than my current working hours allow. Or it may see the opposite, I’m really not sure at the moment.

I would ask all of my readers and active participants to have some patience over the next two months while I figure out how it will work.

Thankyou.

Friendly Societies March

Mr. DeCouto of FreshieBlog commented on the attendance of the Friendly Societies March on Monday evening. I also attended the march, walking a few people behind Mr. DeCouto most of the walk. It was a very informative tour, detailing alot of the City’s important Black History sites. Of course, it couldn’t detail everything, and being billed as a ‘Friendly Society March’ alot of its focus was on the Friendly Societies, which although important, wasn’t, for me, as interesting as important labour struggle sites.

All in all though it was an excellent tour though, and its organisers should be commended for the idea. They did have a little trouble with the audio equipment and its operation, that made it a bit difficult to hear at times, but it was good all the same.

Mr. DeCouto also noted the very obvious different levels of attendance of the two Parties. I can’t lie, I also observed that the UBP (MPs and candidates) were very much in force while the PLP really had a very dismal showing. There were numerous PLPers there, but of PLP formal representation I recall only Minister Dale Butler, Senators Thaao Dill and Marc Bean, and Minister Walter Lister (who came very much towards the end due to understandable reasons). Those PLPers who were present definitely noticed the absence of the rest of the formal PLP. I understand there was a conflict with the CupMatch reception at Camden House for the respective CupMatch Teams, and it would be understandable that several wouldn’t have been able to attend anyway due to personal reasons, but one would have expected a greater turn-out for such an event.

As for the UBP’s turn-out, yes, it was good to see them there. They do have alot to learn afterall, and I’m sure many of them learned a thing or two on the walk. One must be careful hoever that they don’t continue to get stuck on a very superficial approach to race. Their turnout on a march like that is good and all, but I think they truly fail to grasp what institutional racism really is. The PLP on the other hand, its formal representatives at least, quite frankly disappointed a few of its rank and file in the decision of most of its representative to not attend.

By Any Means Necessary…

I’m just doing a little housekeeping, updating the local blogroll due to some recent changes in the Bermudian blogosphere.

Firstly, the blog formerly known as ‘A Radical in Bermuda’ has decided to change its official name to ‘By Any Means Necessary’ and provides his reasonings for doing so here. In accordance with this decision I have changed the name of his blog on my blogroll. His other post ‘Bermudian Politics and this Blog’ raises some interesting questions though about the level of discourse and the importance of the new technologies, that blogs are one representation of, in the shaping of political discourse and thought.

In his post he writes about his disgust with the ‘…absolute pettiness of Bermudian politics and the general inability (with the exception of a few people) to see beyond the imposed artificial dichotomy of green & white and green, gold & blue.’

There is alot of truth to this statement. Anyone who has ever bothered to attend a sitting of the House of Assembly would be aware of some of the truly schoolboy antics that pass for our representatives allegedly attending to ‘the people’s business.’ It truly is beyond banal at times. And the level of discourse is often dragged down by the most vulgar of comments and arguments that seem to distract from any serious thorough-going analysis and argument. Perhaps this isn’t too suprising, after all, its always fun to have a good passionate row even if its over something totally irrelevant.

All the same I remain committed to the idea that with patience and persistence it is possible to advance political discourse and develop class consciousness. There will always be those who will seek to divert such attempts, be it because they simply enjoy wreaking havoc or because they are afraid of the consequences of such discussion. Often times I feel the diversions stem more from miscommunications and different life experiences and approaches than any committment to distraction. In these cases it is important for both sides to do their best to understand where the other is coming from and not react to percieved attacks.

It is my firm belief that more people are willing to engage in rational discussion than there are those who would seek to prevent doing so. It’s hard, and I know many get frustrated dealing with the pettiness, but I believe it is worthwhile.

There are also issues with anomynity. I generally have a greater respect for someone and their argument if they are willing to sign their real name to it, to have the courage of their convictions. But one cannot simply dismiss an argument because the presenter chooses to use a false name. It may reduce the credibility, but one must still deal with the argument presented all the same. There are many reasons why people choose to use these false names. For some it is simply a fun alias, and these people are not afraid to sign their real names also, and most people familiar with Bermudian blogging know who these people are already.

Others choose to use these false names out of fear of reprisals. On a small island such as our own it is a very real potential to be ostracised or otherwise harrassed if you choose to stand up for what you believe in, especially when this conflicts with the status quo or established power and tradition. Our history is full of examples of such reprisals, be it from the mutinies and strikes that accompanied the wreck of the Sea Venture, the slave rebellions, or more recent threats to oligarchic hegemony (from Monk to Mazumbo and beyond). As such these false names, and the features of the blogs, are important in that they allow discourse that would otherwise be silenced, either by fact or by perception of repercussions.

The problem with them is that it is very easy to abuse the sense of liberation that they provide. I call this a ‘Lord of the Flies’ phenomenon, where the ‘hunters’ hidden behind the mask of their warpaint are liberated from the social conventions they normally would have been bound by. Some users of false names exploit their ‘warpaint’ to launch unnecessary personal attacks on others, detracting from discourse. Others use multiple aliases to manipulate or derail discussion. Others are just generally annoying, revelling in the distractions they can make hidden behind their aliases.

I am not opposed to people using their aliases, as I feel the benefits of allowing discussion that may not occur due to real or percieved repercussions should their identities be known far outwieghs the cons that are the flies in our midst. I expect that posters will do their utmost to avoid being distracted or reacting to the antics of those who would exploit the liberatory powers that aliases and blogs provide.

With that said, I look forward to continuing discourse on this site and working to develop revolutionary consciousness by any means necessary, this site being one of those means.

Xenophobic Diversions from the Class Struggle

A number of people have already criticised the decision of the Government to restrict access to free daycare to Bermudians only, excluding foreigners who fall within the recently worked out poverty line.

Daycare in our present society is a right and not a priveledge. It falls within that category of rights that all citizens and residents of our island should have access to regardless of price, namely quality education, quality healthcare (with an emphasis on preventative care), quality shelter and basic foodstuffs and clean water. Sadly much of these remain unobtainable today for many of our working poor, despite living in what we are so often told is one of the richest countries in the world. Yes, our worst conditions are hardly as bad as those found in poorer countries, but if cannot be denied that in general in Bermuda in the early 21st Century, access to ‘quality’ education, healthcare, daycare, shelter and even foodstuffs, is largely determined to ones ability to pay.

While it is no doubt the case that many of the working poor in Bermuda are Bermudians (and this is sad in itself that we still have working poor), it cannot be denied that there are guest workers who are also effectively working poor, who face the same problems as working poor Bermudians, but whose problems are compounded by the fact they are foriegners here without access to some of the support networks Bermudians in their conditions have. Furthermore, they are often confronted with stereotypes and racial discrimination. I am thinking here of the poor Portugeuse, the poor Filipinos, the poor sub-continent East Indians and the like. [Most of the anglo-euro-americans do not fall within the working poor...]

Access to daycare should be a right of all residents in Bermuda, regardless of income. Priority should go to those who need it but do not have the means to acheive it, with a phased introduction to of free quality daycare for the working poor irrespective of their nationality. That the number of foriegn workers who may fall into this category is relatively small only makes it even more repulsive that they are singled out for this discrimination - the fact that they are mostly Asian guest workers could even lead to accusations of racial discrimination quite frankly.

These leads to a question of the xenophobic tendencies latent in our society. Most of these do have some basis in very real fears, such as the fact that the foriegn workers are willing to work for lower wages and thus depress the overall wages of the working class, or of a feeling of being a minority in ones own land, or in the case of some guest workers, a reaction to cultural imperialism. But the guest workers are more often similar victims, and the real villains are the capitalists that bring them in to divide and conquer (a classic example is the bringing in of Azorean peasants following emancipation to break the demands of an emancipated Black working class). Xenophobia only benefits the capitalists and divides the workers.

It is necessary to combat the growing trends of xenophobia in our society before we see its evolution into the xenophobic riots seen recently in South Africa, albeit on a smaller scale in our island.

Its not about UBP or PLP. Its about basic human rights and doing what’s right. And providing quality daycare on the basis of need alone and not nationality is an example of that.

Dennis Pamplin’s Arrest

I think most people are now aware of the arrest of Dennis Pamplin, the husband of former Opposition Deputy Leader, and current Shadow Minister of Works and Engineering, Patricia Gordon-Pamplin. Mr. Pamplin has been arrested on charges relating to importing up to $15 million of cannabis to Bermuda. The RG has an article on it here that details the charges and the story behind it.

Obviously Mr. Pamplin should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, and I hope that he recieves due process. However, I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the circumstantial evidence really doesn’t look good, especially with his arrest last year (August 2007) in drugs-deal related charges. Furthermore this arrest will only fuel further speculation regarding who really controls the drug trade in Bermuda, speculation that has long alleged that the ‘Big Men’ of the drug trade here are really the rich and powerful families, many with political connections and links to the old Forty Theives. The farce of the Operation Cleansweep certainly strengthened these perceptions.

As I recall Operation Cleansweep, it had a slight racist tendency of targeting ‘black’ areas and dealers, mostly small drug operations. However, as it progressed it is understood to have increasingly led the police to investigate several high-profile Government (then the UBP) politicians, the only one that I recall being made public, John Irving Pearman, although other names were whispered of. Shortly after this development the then Commissioner, Colin Coxall, was forced to largely abort the police investigations and was ‘encouraged’ into early retirement. While the police report he had presented to the then Governor led the Governor to reccommend the resignation of Mr. Pearman, as far as I am aware no further action was taken, and investigations concerning the ‘Big Men’ were effectively wound up. Interestingly, it was Ms. Gordon-Pamplin’s sister, Pamela Gordon, who was the Premier at the time of this farce, and in many ways was responsible for the farce that Operation Cleansweep was.

Anyone with a better memory of the above, please feel free to correct my account, or add to it for the benefit of discussion.

I understand that Mr. Pamplin lives in the US for most of the time, and his relationship to Ms. Gordon-Pamplin is quite frankly none of my business. All the same I find it hard to believe that if Mr. Pamplin was involved in the alleged business of drug importation and dealing that Ms. Gordon-Pamplin could have been totally ignorant of his involvement. While his actions are his alone I don’t think that Ms. Gordon-Pamplin can escape this incident without increased speculation about her involvment.

Reflecting on it, I really do think that it might be best for her to resign her seat in the House of Assembly for the timebeing. This issue will only serve as a distraction for them, and if he is found innocent, then she can be appointed to the Senate until the next election. Thats my initial thought at least.

This will also I think raise connections to the now infamous drug sting involving former Opposition Leader Micheal Dunkley. Not to sure about any real connection, but the perception will certainly be there.

My general view on drugs…

On drugs in general I am actually for the decriminalisation and then legalisation of marijuana. I really don’t see that it is any worse of a drug than alcohol or tabacco, and should be controlled legally just as they are. I even believe that Dockyard could be converted into a ‘Little Amsterdam’ enclave to the great benefit of tourism (why fly to Holland from the States when a sub-tropical paradise is much closer?), and it is one location where it could be controlled quite well. Personally I don’t smoke, either tabacco or marijuana. My ‘drug’ is alcohol, mostly in the form of stouts, red wines and rum, all in moderation of course (I have always viewed alcohol as something to compliment a meal and not something consumed by itself for the purpose of getting drunk). I am however quite opposed to the ‘hard’ drugs, such as cocaine, herion and amphetamines. But I am open to the decriminalisation of mescaline and psilocybin.

As to the use of drugs here, I do think that it is extermely widespread. There is a perception that its consumption is limited mostly to the lower classes, the ‘usual suspects’ of ‘back-of-town.’ In my experience (and I affirm here, I am partial only to alcohol and have never really had any urge to experiment with other drugs despite the ease with which I could have), I am of the belief that drug use is no more widespread in back-of-town than in Fairylands or in Paget as opposed to Warwick. I’m even of the opinion it may well be more consumed in Fairylands and Paget than back-of-town or Warwick, although the more obvious addicts are concentrated in the back-of-town area. And I have no difficulty in accepting that the true ‘Big Men’ of the drug trade here are rich and politically powerful people.

While I have no interest in a witch-hunt, I do hope that any discussion arising here could be of benefit in really uprooting the cancer that is drugs in our community.