Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Reparation for garrison victims</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Henley Morgan
Thursday, March 22, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>This year marks the bicentennial of the abolition of the British slave trade. When Prime Minister Tony Blair tacitly admitted to the evils of slavery and Britain's role in perpetrating the wicked practice, he opened the door for claims of reparation or payment from the former colonies.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the United States, the Virginia Assembly recently voted unanimously to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery. The descendants of slaves, who first arrived at Jamestown in 1619, predictably are setting about making a case for reparation. What I find interesting about the approach being taken by some black Americans at the forefront of seeking reparation is the consideration that there should be a cut-off point in terms of those who would benefit. The prevailing thinking is that the claim for payment should exclude those under, say, 20 years old who would have benefited from the modern civil rights movement which all but ended government-sponsored racism.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I have a burning question. In Jamaica's claim against Britain for reparation, what is the cut-off point at which we could agree that the country's underdeveloped state (excessive public debt, poor education system, unequal distribution of wealth, endemic poverty, environmental degradation, high crime rate, etc) is due more to mismanagement and related internal factors than to the lingering effects of slavery?<P class=StoryText align=justify>Were I the one representing the British Government in this matter, I would be inclined to use the advent of universal adult suffrage (the right to vote) in 1944 as the cut-off point. Under pressure of rebuttal at which Jamaicans are experts, I probably would relent and choose instead 1962 when Jamaica gained its independence. If that ploy failed too, my next move would be to build a case around the 40 years (one generation) of government-sponsored action towards creating political garrisons. My closing argument before the World Tribunal on Reparation for Victims of Slavery (fictitious name) on behalf of the British Government would go something like this:<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Members of this Honourable Tribunal, the fact of the disenfranchisement of generations of Africans and their descendants by the abominable act of slavery is no longer in dispute. We are gathered here for the sole purpose of determining the level of compensation and over what period such compensation is to be computed. Having tried unsuccessfully to argue that the advent of universal adult suffrage in 1944 and achievement of independence in 1962 marked significant milestones in the political development of Jamaica, when control of the nation's destiny passed to Jamaicans, we are forced to take another route toward establishing a cut-off date beyond which the ills of slavery cannot be said to be the major causative factor for the unrealised goals of peace, prosperity and justice.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"We have searched for an occurrence in modern Jamaican political history which bears some of the characteristics of slavery and could produce similar negative results. The creation of garrisons by politicians who co-opted the government machinery, most notably the Ministry of Housing, provides a working parallel. We are presenting as exhibits the Report of the Committee on Political Tribalism (July 1997) along with several other reports from national committees established to examine the problem of crime and violence. These documents, along with newspaper columns and reports on speeches given by politicians, speak far more eloquently on the subject than we could.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Suffice it to say, the deliberate creation of political garrisons mar
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Henley Morgan
Thursday, March 22, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>This year marks the bicentennial of the abolition of the British slave trade. When Prime Minister Tony Blair tacitly admitted to the evils of slavery and Britain's role in perpetrating the wicked practice, he opened the door for claims of reparation or payment from the former colonies.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the United States, the Virginia Assembly recently voted unanimously to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery. The descendants of slaves, who first arrived at Jamestown in 1619, predictably are setting about making a case for reparation. What I find interesting about the approach being taken by some black Americans at the forefront of seeking reparation is the consideration that there should be a cut-off point in terms of those who would benefit. The prevailing thinking is that the claim for payment should exclude those under, say, 20 years old who would have benefited from the modern civil rights movement which all but ended government-sponsored racism.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I have a burning question. In Jamaica's claim against Britain for reparation, what is the cut-off point at which we could agree that the country's underdeveloped state (excessive public debt, poor education system, unequal distribution of wealth, endemic poverty, environmental degradation, high crime rate, etc) is due more to mismanagement and related internal factors than to the lingering effects of slavery?<P class=StoryText align=justify>Were I the one representing the British Government in this matter, I would be inclined to use the advent of universal adult suffrage (the right to vote) in 1944 as the cut-off point. Under pressure of rebuttal at which Jamaicans are experts, I probably would relent and choose instead 1962 when Jamaica gained its independence. If that ploy failed too, my next move would be to build a case around the 40 years (one generation) of government-sponsored action towards creating political garrisons. My closing argument before the World Tribunal on Reparation for Victims of Slavery (fictitious name) on behalf of the British Government would go something like this:<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Members of this Honourable Tribunal, the fact of the disenfranchisement of generations of Africans and their descendants by the abominable act of slavery is no longer in dispute. We are gathered here for the sole purpose of determining the level of compensation and over what period such compensation is to be computed. Having tried unsuccessfully to argue that the advent of universal adult suffrage in 1944 and achievement of independence in 1962 marked significant milestones in the political development of Jamaica, when control of the nation's destiny passed to Jamaicans, we are forced to take another route toward establishing a cut-off date beyond which the ills of slavery cannot be said to be the major causative factor for the unrealised goals of peace, prosperity and justice.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"We have searched for an occurrence in modern Jamaican political history which bears some of the characteristics of slavery and could produce similar negative results. The creation of garrisons by politicians who co-opted the government machinery, most notably the Ministry of Housing, provides a working parallel. We are presenting as exhibits the Report of the Committee on Political Tribalism (July 1997) along with several other reports from national committees established to examine the problem of crime and violence. These documents, along with newspaper columns and reports on speeches given by politicians, speak far more eloquently on the subject than we could.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Suffice it to say, the deliberate creation of political garrisons mar