UWI Annual Heritage Month Lecture

I had the privilege of delivering this year’s UWI Global Campus Annual Heritage Month Lecture. It gave me the opportunity to reflect on the process leading to Chatoyer’s formal recognition as this country’s first and so far, only National Hero, and of my own involvement  in the process. I expressed disappointment that the National Youth Council did not get the kind of recognition they deserve for their advocacy for Chatoyer as first National Hero. Theirs was a long struggle, supported by other organisations. Many persons assume that the Obelisk at Dorsetshire Hill at which wreaths are annually laid, came into being in 2002. Actually, it was put in place in 1985 when the then Minister of Culture, John Horne, unveiled the Obelisk that was provided by the Venezuelan government with a promise to follow up with a statue of Chatoyer. March 14, 2001, was declared a National Holiday with the expectation that in 2002 a formal declaration would have been made conferring that title on Chatoyer. A general election was held shortly after and the new government that came into office gave the final blessing making the Right Excellent Chatoyer our first National Hero.

Because of the advocacy of the National Youth Council the people of the country had already bestowed that Honour on Chatoyer. It had also long found its way into our Carnival festivity when in 1963 ‘mas man’ Louis Boucher depicted Chatoyer as National Hero. He did the same again in 1973. For over ten years the NYC had been having annual wreath laying ceremonies at Dorsetshire Hill. After looking at some of my notes I realised that I had actually given an address at the Obelisk in 2001. I had on previous occasions addressed youth groups at Dorsetshire Hill and in the 1990s made presentations at rallies, particularly at Sandy Bay, on the grounds of the old school.

To put this in historical perspective, one has to look at the struggles of the indigenous people to defend their land against British conquest. It became a 30-year struggle before the British became victorious in 1796. This was the last phase of a long struggle by the Kalinago (Yellow Carib) people against European incursion, assisting the islands of the Greater Antilles and later defending their own colonies against the British and French, joined in the latter part of the late 17th Century by the Garinagu, (Garifuna people, who were a mixture of escaped African slaves and the Kalinago people). While the dominant group in the early struggles was the Kalinago (Yellow Caribs) by the period after 1763 when St. Vincent became the main battle ground, the Garinagua was the dominant group since many of the Kalinagos had died from the early struggles and by exposure to European diseases.

By early 1797 most of the indigenous forces had either been captured or had surrendered. Over 4, 000 of them were held at Balliceaux to be exiled to Roatan off Honduras. By the date for their shipment away from this country, over half of them had died from diseases and the inhospitable conditions in Balliceaux. Those who escaped exile had moved into the interior to evade capture and had set up settlements.

Chatoyer who had been killed during the early period of the second war that started in 1795 had been declared this country’s national hero. The fact that this happened had much to do with developments between the 1960s and 1980s, a period that marked the Black Power Movement and advocacy for Independence. 1992 the year of the   Quincentennial of the arrival of Columbus was also important in that indigenous groups in the region reconnected and fought to recapture their own history. Kenneth John in one of his columns stated that Chatoyer was enthroned “when the Black Power Movement opened the floodgates to a new perspective on our history.”

I had written in 2002 that “A National hero is a national role model and national symbol. The declaration of a National Hero is part of reconstructing our history and defining our identity… Independence in 1979 would have given the country more space to begin to do that. A transformation needed to be made also from a colonial people to a people with their own identity as defined by them. Central to the colonial order was the education system that preached the values of Britain and adherence to colonial control. Our heroes through that system were British. Independence therefore demanded that we create our own hero (s), persons who can act as national role models and inspire our people by their feats and by what motivated them and by the conditions under which they did what they did.”

The destruction of the language of the indigenous people was part of efforts to control. We know that by the 1870s some of the language was still being spoken but by then we were fully steeped into colonialism. Today there is much talk about introducing the Garifuna language into our schools. Those who are advocates of this move need to be clear on exactly what they want to do. Language is a living thing, and more so for a people who have lost their language for over two hundred years. How are they going to go about this given the demands of this digital age? More so, education has to cater to a new social environment. Will the Garifuna language be given space on the syllabus? At what levels will it be taught? Do we have enough teachers? To whom will those learning the language be communicating? The school system has changed radically to the extent that even a subject like history is experiencing some difficulty having a permanent space on the curriculum. The matter of introducing the Garifuna language needs wide discussion and must be looked at within the context of where education is today and efforts to cater to the demands of the development of the nation.

• Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian