Question

The greater manifestation of culture in Caribbean society depicts insularity more than it does plurality

Answer 1

Culture is the mutual information, convictions and estimations of individuals from society and might be passed on from many ancient ages to present modern societies.

The Caribbean as an unified region that confers a sense of common citizenship and community is a figment of the imagination. To be sure, there is a geographical expression called ‘the Caribbean’ often associated with a site, a sea, and several islands. There are also many people who describe themselves as Caribbean persons, claiming an unique identity which has its own cohering characteristics that distinguish them from others.

And there are many tourists and other foreigners who can swear that they went to this Caribbean place and met real Caribbean persons. They will all convincingly attest to a Caribbean reality. The truth, however, is that the Caribbean even as a geographical expression is a very imprecise place that is difficult to define. Some analysts include Florida, the Yucatan, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Venezuela, while others exclude them altogether. It is not only an imaginary region but one that is arbitrarily appointed to its designation. It will be difficult to pinpoint precisely where this Caribbean place is, for no country carries the name Caribbean either separately or in hyphenated form.

In this Caribbean place, however, and wherever we choose to locate its boundaries, it is usually visualized as an area populated by a diverse polyglot of peoples. There are whites, blacks, browns, yellows, reds, and an assortment of shades in between. There are Europeans, Africans, Asian Indians, Indonesian Javanese, Chinese, Aboriginal Indians, and many mixes. There are Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Rastafarians, Santería, Winti, Vudun, etc.

They speak in a multitude of tongues—Spanish, English, Dutch, French, English, and a diverse number of Creoles such as papiamentu, sranan tongo, ndjuka, saramaccan, kromanti, kreyol, as well as Hindustani, Bhojpuri, Urdu, etc. In whatever combinations of race, religion, language, and culture they cohere and coexist, they dwell on small islands and large, some poorly endowed with natural resources, others abundantly. Perhaps, no other region of the world is so richly varied.
Remarked Caribbean scholar, Michel-Rolph Trouillot: “Caribbean societies are inescapably heterogenous...the Caribbean has long been an area where some people live next to others who are remarkably distinct. The region—and indeed particular territories within it—has long been multi-racial, multi-lingual, stratified, and some would say, multi-cultural.”

In all of this diversity, the concept of a Caribbean people and the construction of a Caribbean identity is caught up in many contradictions. It is easy to assert a Caribbean identity if that person does not have to meet his/her compatriots and have no hope of this ever happening.

It is because of this fact that we can maintain the fiction of a collection of persons with an allencompassing Caribbean identity, for in enlarging the ambit of one’s interaction beyond the village or town one is quite likely to encounter Caribbean ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ whom one will instantly disown. It is in part because of this reason that Benedict Anderson titled his renowned book on ethnicity Imagined Communities. Argued Anderson: “The ethnic or communal identity is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellowmembers, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”

It is easy to understand that persons from an imaginary region designated the Caribbean may want an identity, especially one that is much bigger than a relatively small island. An identity imparts some sense of security in size and numbers. It bestows belonging, and the larger the tribe the greater the warmth imparted. However, some of these designations can be dangerous when ascribed collective identities assume the form of hegemonic cultural claims that omit or marginalize other communities. Identities are potentially dangerous constructs and can be manipulated for oppressive ends, as Edward Said has pointed out.

One postulate that has provided some credible light argues that the human creature is a boundary-bound animal living in society. Essentially, it is argued that, while the human person lives and finds meaning and belonging within the bounds of ethnocultural groups, this membership is ineluctably cast in ‘we-they’ separate antipathetic relationships with other groups.

To belong at once entails to be included in an ethnic community and to be separated and differentiated from another or several. Put differently, the human is defined inherently as a groupbounded creature whose deep identity needs for belonging can only be met in a comparative if not oppositional relationship of inclusion/exclusion with other groups. Identity formation and sustenance is relational, often oppositional and conflictual.

Ethnic group members may visibly display their distinctive boundary markers in symbolic and physical emblems in contact with others. If identity is deemed a dialectically constitutive dimension of survival, then it is in part constructed by inventing ‘the other.’ The ‘we-they’ dynamic, in this view, is deeply embedded in human psychology.

While at times it may be benign relative to ‘the other,’ it can easily in new circumstances of unusual change and upheaval become conflictual, even turned into a marauding monster. The ‘other’ is always needed in identity construction, and over time and space, in new situations, the ‘other’ is continuously being made and remade. The point suggests that ethnic group conflict may not be artificially contrived as a situational strategy merely in search of pragmatic instrumental needs to satisfy, but a ritual structure riveted into social and human behavior that is not easily amenable to erasure or radical modification.

I believe that the Caribbean is suffused with an assortment of ethnic tensions that demonstrate the dangers of making indiscriminate ethnic identity claims. The many sites of ethnic struggles are located in relationships of ‘we-they’ claims to power and privileges.

Most of these are low keyed and institutionalized in the Caribbean, but a few periodically break the bounds otheir normal routine and become quite explosive and dangerous. The very fact of racial as well as linguistic, subregional, and religious diversity embedded in the pattern of settlement and in the social structure of the twenty-odd states of the Caribbean populated by some thirty-three million people predisposes them to patterns of ethnic formation and self-consciousness engendering controversial claims which periodically trigger crises in ethnic contentions.

Below the veneer of Caribbean homogeneity lurk numerous identities around the axes of race, culture, language, religion, region, etc. Political mobilization has played on these cleavages so that ethnic sensitivity and assertiveness pervade these states like blood the body.

In public discourse few issues are definitionally free from ethnic motifs, and in some instances these are flagrantly and inflammatorily articulated. Practically every week, in the southern Caribbean in particular but also elsewhere, some sort of interethnic strife surfaces from the cleavages in the plural societies of the region. I shall provide a few cases to set the scene for what is to come.

The territories that I shall target for the first set of illustrations are the southern Caribbean complex of Trinidad, Guyana, and Suriname. In this area, a peculiar ethnic demography describes the presence of Asian Indians, Africans, Chinese, Syrians, Lebanese, Jews, Portuguese, Europeans, Amerindians, and various mixes and combinations. Despite this ethnic heterogeneity, structurally there is a bipolar dominance of persons of Asian and African descent.

The intense division between these two communities has had serious repercussions on nonwhite solidarity against external forces as well as internal challenges of development. It was Walter Rodney who, in his appeal to ‘Black Power’ as a means of mobilization “to throw off white domination and resume the handling of their own destinies” in the Caribbean, made clear that his category of Black people included persons of Asian descent who shared a common Caribbean experience in colonial oppression.

Internal fissures, especially the African-Indian division, have always provided the conditions for ethnic conflict and in any project of solidarity have had to be contained. In June 1993 Ms. Hulsie Bhaggan, an Indian member of the Trinidad and Tobago parliament, charged the African-dominated ruling regime, the Peoples National Movement (PNM), with complicity in ‘ethnic cleansing.’ At the time a spate of crime had hit central Trinidad where Indians predominated and this occasioned Ms. Bhaggan’s outburst that Indian women were being terrorized and raped by African men.

She charged the government with complicity by indifference in failing to respond to the plight of the victims and inquired whether the ruling regime “was going to preside over ethnic cleansing and the establishment of a Bosnia in Trinidad.”

their normal routine and become quite explosive and dangerous. The very fact of racial as well as linguistic, subregional, and religious diversity embedded in the pattern of settlement and in the social structure of the twenty-odd states of the Caribbean populated by some thirty-three million people predisposes them to patterns of ethnic formation and self-consciousness engendering controversial claims which periodically trigger crises in ethnic contentions. Below the veneer of Caribbean homogeneity lurk numerous identities around the axes of race, culture, language, religion, region, etc.

Political mobilization has played on these cleavages so that ethnic sensitivity and assertiveness pervade these states like blood the body. In public discourse few issues are definitionally free from ethnic motifs, and in some instances these are flagrantly and inflammatorily articulated. Practically every week, in the southern Caribbean in particular but also elsewhere,
some sort of interethnic strife surfaces from the cleavages in the plural societies of the region. I shall provide a few cases to set the scene for what is to come.

The territories that I shall target for the first set of illustrations are the southern Caribbean complex of Trinidad, Guyana, and Suriname. In this area, a peculiar ethnic demography describes the presence of Asian Indians, Africans, Chinese, Syrians, Lebanese, Jews, Portuguese, Europeans, Amerindians, and various mixes and combinations. Despite this ethnic heterogeneity, structurally there is a bipolar dominance of persons of Asian and African descent.

The intense division between these two communities has had serious repercussions on nonwhite solidarity against external forces as well as internal challenges of development. It was Walter Rodney who, in his appeal to ‘Black Power’ as a means of mobilization “to throw off white domination and resume the handling of their own destinies” in the Caribbean, made clear that his category of Black people included persons of Asian descent who shared a common Caribbean experience in colonial oppression.

Internal fissures, especially the African-Indian division, have always provided the conditions for ethnic conflict and in any project of solidarity have had to be contained. In June 1993 Ms. Hulsie Bhaggan, an Indian member of the Trinidad and Tobago parliament, charged the African-dominated ruling regime, the Peoples National Movement (PNM), with complicity in ‘ethnic cleansing.’ At the time a spate of crime had hit central Trinidad where Indians predominated and this occasioned Ms. Bhaggan’s outburst that Indian women were being terrorized and raped by African men.

She charged the government with complicity by indifference in failing to respond to the plight of the victims and inquired whether the ruling regime “was going to preside over ethnic cleansing and the establishment of a Bosnia in Trinidad.”