The modern Quiet Revolution in The Bahamas must find root in the development of a cosmopolitan society ...that has no boundaries, no barricades, no social or economic discrimination or segregation ...and no lofty height that could not be attained by the hard work, sustained commitment and discipline of the masses ...It must be a pedestal for the souls of the liberators of the 1967 revolution

A reset of the Quiet Revolution: Towards a new path

RAYNARD RIGBY

We have just marked (and for some, celebrated) the first national Majority Rule Day. Due to the lackluster treatment of the holiday, the significance of the journey to 1967 and the bravery of the faces of the Quiet Revolution must be understood and shared so as to gain a national understanding of why we should pause and reflect on that path in our nation’s struggle.

Much can be said about the successes and failures of our nation in the post-Majority Rule era. There is no denying  that we have made tremendous progress. Since then, the majority has maintained control and has dominated the national political landscape.

This is a singular success of 1967. However, for many, 1967 was (correctly) more than just about the darts and arrows of party politics, or about Pindling for that matter. It marked the culmination of a revolution. Like most revolutions which generally focus on the overhaul of a system or the removal of dictatorial regimes or practices, the Quiet Revolution was grounded in a movement towards the upliftment of a people; of the institutionalization of equal rights and the charting of a national course for the collective advancement of a people, without boundaries, borders, fear or favor.

The truth too is that 1967 was not a struggle to attain black-power-like dominance. This may be startling in light of the fact that there was a prevalent culture of class and race inequality.

The Bay Street oligarchy — the minority — was the reservoir of both economic and political power. They “ran things” and in so doing they held the keys to the future of the majority. However, one glaring and compelling evidence of the cross-race movement that gripped the march to 1967 is the fact that the founders of the Progressive Liberal Party — Henry Taylor, William Cartwright and Cyril Stevenson — were not men of the negro race (arguably they were mulattoes). However, given the class-race culture in the islands at that time they would have enjoyed a pass to enter the socio-economic sub-middle-class.

Understanding 1967 and the magic of the revolution perhaps requires us to be in the bodies and minds of the Exumians and their heroic leader, Pompey. It is to be on the Burma Road revolt at the height of the fight for social justice. It is to join the marches with the suffragists. It is to stand with Clifford Darling and the taxi union in their push for fair standards and practices. It is to hear the voice of Milo Butler as he bellowed out the unfair and discriminatory treatment of working Bahamians. It perhaps is also to stand with Etienne Dupuch and Gerald Cash in their fight in the legislature for the passage of an anti-discrimination resolution. And it requires us to think of what led young minds like Lynden Pindling, Arthur Hanna, Orville Turnquest, Paul Adderley, Arthur Foulkes, Spurgeon Bethell, Oscar Johnson and Warren Levarity, and many others, to organize and join the “people’s struggle” to take on a system that held political power for decades by standing as candidates in the 1962 general election.

The fight of the “majority” was not simply a mission for the further “emancipation” of the former slaves. It was a movement deeply embedded in the spirit of the uniqueness, talent, industriousness and sheer discipline of our history, culture and people. Its central focus was the “final” liberation of the Bahamian soul.

The truth therefore is that 1967 and the ushering in of the first black Bahamian government was a victory for the creation of a more fair and just society.  The myth that must be dispelled is the simplistic notion that the revolution was for the majority, being limited to the blacks.

The revolution was larger than that. It did not have a singular or non-representational agenda or concentration. It was a fight to usher in a sacred sanctity for the natural evolution of the Bahamian spirit. Its embodiment of a communal vision was expressed in the early days of the Citizens Committee which recognized that those blessed to live on these shores were not ordinary but were destined to be a great people, no matter one’s color, creed, religious and political persuasions, abilities and gender.

Simply put, it was a broad social “movement” that saw its constituents as all Bahamians, blacks and whites. It was not discriminatory (whether direct or reverse), but rather progressive and inclusive. It was not class or race conscious. It was liberal and forward thinking.

In today’s analysis of the events that lead to 1967, we must broaden our appreciation for its purpose and value to the development of The Bahamas. It freed a once dormant spirit and it ushered in a push towards a new socio-economic platform that saw the advancement of many Bahamians of the post-1967 generation. It is therefore undeniable that it has its singularly success in the many thousands of faces of Bahamians who advanced far beyond the boundaries of poverty.

The revolution was also transformative, yet in some areas of national life, we have lost our way. We appear (now) to place less emphasis on ensuring the creation of a nation that trends towards common goals and aspirations. We sometimes give the “air” of being a people without direction and focus, and with little national priorities. In areas of our national lives mediocrity is the order of the day. We are devoid of the old values that cemented our “village”. There is an absence of a “collective” national vision. The nation appears to be stagnant and there is a growing sense of hopelessness. Our national leadership seem to enjoy a deficiency of nationalism and we appear to be lost, lacking an agenda towards the further modernization of this nation state. We have lost our progressive edge.

We need to press the reset button to recreate that sense of national purpose, unity and singular call to arms. Our nation’s detour of that purist path must cease and we must restore that once compelling national psyche housed within us.

We must also abandon that elitist attitude that we have achieved all that abounds. We must embrace a new political dispensation that restores us to the paths trod by the revolution. This begs for a recognition that the revolution’s message is relevant and necessary in today’s “modern” Bahamas.

It appeals for a national recommitment to the core and sacred principles of that glorious era so that the new and growing “minority” can be freed from the chains that enslave them. These are the “new” chains of institutionalized poverty, rampant social dislocation and disorder, a glass ceiling that deprives them of social promotion, a system that appears to be ignorant of their plight, struggles and way of life and a society which is shrinking in intellectualism and dynamism.

There is no denying the reality that the tenets of the 1967 revolution can find much space in the modern Bahamas. We have not outgrown her core principles. We should still cry out for bold and progressive leadership which is glued to the idealism of social justice, equality and economic liberation.

We must fill the vacuum for an agenda and plan that is holistic and nationalistic and that has at its core the creation of a society grounded on the foundational pillars of shared prosperity and community. That sense of community though is not restricted to an egotistical definition of national heritage and identity. It is an all-embracing journey that ties together the virtues of productivity, industry, integrity, knowledge, love and peace transcending a narrow interpretation of who is Bahamian.

The modern revolution must find root in the development of a cosmopolitan society that has no boundaries, no barricades, no social or economic discrimination or segregation, and no lofty height that could not be attained by the hard work, sustained commitment and discipline of the masses. It must be a pedestal for the souls of the liberators of the 1967 revolution.

Our work is not yet complete. We must find our voices and courage to stand firm to secure the dreams of the future generations of Bahamians. Our country must be restored to that nobler path of prosperity, peace and love.

 

• Raynard Rigby is an attorney-at-law and former chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party.

January 22, 2014

thenassauguardian

Many of the progressive dreams of Edmund Moxey and others were interwoven with the struggle for majority rule and became synonymous with the early Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)... It is telling, therefore, that the majority of those elected in 1967 as a part of the first PLP government eventually left the party... including Ed Moxey

Jumbey Village – Montage of a Dream Deferred

Front Porch

By Simon

Edmund Moxey’s contribution to the social, cultural, economic and political advancement of Bahamians found magnificent expression in Jumbey Village.  The new documentary on the creation and destruction of Jumbey Village chronicles some of our post-independence history.

Some of the dreams of Ed Moxey became manifest.  Still, many of his dreams were deferred, like a raisin in the sun, calling to mind the memorable poem by Langston Hughes.  In his book-length poem suite, “Montage of a Dream Deferred”, Hughes asks, What happens to a dream deferred?

“Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?

Or fester like a sore– And then run?

Does it stink like rotten meat?

Or crust and sugar over– like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?”

Many of the progressive dreams of Edmund Moxey and others were interwoven with the struggle for majority rule and became synonymous with the early Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). It is telling, therefore, that the majority of those elected in 1967 as a part of the first PLP government eventually left the party, including Ed Moxey.

Over the years other progressives left, including Dr. B. J. Nottage who later returned to the PLP, and Hubert Ingraham who did not. The PLP today is a shadow of its progressive roots. Its core leadership is non-progressive and reactionary, constantly stymieing the progressives in the party.

The National Committee for Positive Action (NCPA) was formalized in 1959 as a pressure group within the PLP to bolster the party’s progressive agenda and the struggle for majority rule.  The NCPA proved successful in its efforts, playing a pivotal role in the electoral success of the PLP.

Yet, the group’s ambitions were greater than winning an election.  With the majority secured they intended to transform life for the mass of Bahamians.  Some of their ideals were secured by the PLP, such as independence, the creation of various national institutions and early strides in areas such as education.

Disillusioned

Still, many of the progressives in the PLP, including much of the core of the NCPA, became quickly disillusioned by the cult of personality emerging around Sir Lynden Pindling, which was antithetical to their vision of collegiality.  The progressives were also troubled over the foot-dragging on urgent needs such as the urban redevelopment of Over-the-Hill.

Jumbey Village and other community projects were a part of Ed Moxey’s dream for the economic, social and cultural self-empowerment of Bahamians.  The physical demolition of Jumbey Village was emblematic of many other progressive dreams which were destroyed and denied by a once progressive PLP that lost its bearings and became enamored of power for its own sake.

It is one of those twists of history that some progressive movements which uproot the reigning oligarchy begin to mimic the very system they replace.  The PLP began mimicking the culture of economic and political entitlement of the Old Guard.  Today’s PLP Black Knights are in some ways yesterday’s Bay Street Boys.  They constitute the new oligarchy.

The rump of the old UBP did join the nascent Free National Movement (FNM).  But the core leadership of the FNM were among the more committed progressives and even so-called radicals who sacrificed much to bring about Majority Rule.

The departure of the Dissident Eight left the PLP less progressive, more reactionary, and engulfed by Sir Lynden’s cult of personality.  One prominent observer and politician remarked at the departure of the Dissident Eight that the party was losing its soul.

The brain trust of intellectually-gifted individuals who left the PLP included men with impeccable progressive credentials and commitment to the movement like Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield, Warren Levarity, Sir Arthur Foulkes, Dr. Curtis McMillan and Carlton Francis.  The haemorrhage continued with the culturally-inspired Edmund Moxey and peaked with the departure of Hubert Ingraham.

Over the course of its 25-year rule the PLP became stagnant in terms of its intellectual culture, policies and programs.  The dream of the urban redevelopment of Over-the-Hill died.  This included the innovative urban and infrastructural plans by Columbia University and others, as well as the urgent need to upgrade the sewerage system Over-the-Hill.

Much of today’s urban plight and blight is the consequence of the failure to act by successive Pindling administrations. There were some efforts, but no real plan for transforming the urban landscape of traditional grassroots neighborhoods.  When Sir Lynden left office after a quarter century there were residents Over-the-Hill still relying on outside toilets.

The Urban Renewal program of the Christie government included a number of good elements.  Still, the program was a hodgepodge of ideas dating to the administrations of Sir Lynden and Mr. Ingraham. Mr. Christie’s efforts were welcome. But they were neither groundbreaking nor truly transformative.

Reactionary

Perry Christie has not proven to be a progressive.  Worse, he has demonstrated a reactionary worldview.  He is an ardent supporter of the death penalty.  In terms of economic policy Mr. Christie seems stuck in the past with an outdated mindset for economic development.

He advocated the large-scale anchor project concept of a by-gone era including the outrageous Mayaguana land giveaway.  He agreed to give Baha Mar far more concessions than any Bahamian government should have countenanced.

Mr. Christie successfully campaigned to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment to secure equality for women in terms of automatically passing on a certain right of citizenship.  Yet when he had a chance to make this right he did not reach for a legacy.

And he failed to introduce National Health Insurance.  It would have been a landmark accomplishment for him and the progressive movement.  Though Mr. Christie once served as minister of health, it was an Ingraham administration that significantly advanced access to free pre- and post-natal care for pregnant women.

Nor did Mr. Christie advance any major infrastructural projects Over-the-Hill.  Following the recent massive water works a lower income senior citizen in her 70s remarked favorably about the clear water gushing out of her pipes.  She has lived in Grants Town her entire life and has always voted PLP.   She never thought she would live to see the day when she would get that kind of water pressure  and clean water in Grants Town.

She is thankful to the government.  But she will never vote for the FNM. Better said, she will never vote against the PLP.   The pull is visceral, almost religious in nature.  It combines the iconography of Sir Lynden as Moses and the theme of liberation from Exodus in the Hebrew Scriptures.

For some, the idea of voting against the PLP is a betrayal of their self-identification as a black Bahamian.  This individual and social psychology is not only a Bahamian phenomenon.

Dependency

It is a mindset that behavioral and social psychologists as well as political scientists and sociologists have studied in many cultures.  It often involves a cycle of dependency and strong identification by some with a strongman leader, powerful organization or power structure.

In failing to transform Over-the-Hill during its 25 years in office, the PLP in significant ways betrayed many of its core grassroots supporters.  It is an observable fact that both Sir Lynden and Perry Christie failed to significantly improve conditions in South Andros, and Centreville and Farm Road respectively over the many years they represented these constituencies.

This, despite serving in government for decades, and as prime minister.  It is in marked contrast to the work Prime Minister Ingraham has done to dramatically upgrade the public amenities and services throughout Abaco.

Though the PLP created important national institutions, it generally failed to do likewise when it came to national cultural institutions.  In the post-independence period when Bahamians were forming a greater sense of national and cultural identity, important cultural institutions were absent.

Such centers of critical consciousness and cultural expression are necessary for nation-building.  Their absence during that formative period helped to retard our national development.

It was not until the FNM came to office that core institutions such as the National Art Gallery, the Antiquities, Monuments and Museum Corporation, the National Museum, and the Centre for Performing Arts were launched.  There is much work to be done to advance the missions and the reach of these institutions.  But they represent impressive strides.

So too are ideas recently advanced by Mr. Ingraham including a heritage tourism initiative, a public arts project, a parks and recreation authority and an oral history project, ‘Our Bahamian Stories’.

These all contain elements of Edmund Moxey’s dream.  But his dream is bigger still. He understood early that a place like Jumbey Village could help us to raise our children and uplift the Bahamian people.

There is planned for Big Pond a regional park.  Might the plans for that park include elements of the original concept for Jumbey Village?  The best way to honor Edmund Moxey is not solely in tributes.  The better way would be to revitalize and institutionalize his dreams.

Though the fruits of some of his dreams were destroyed, the seeds of his vision are still alive and can bear fruit.  It is possible to transform a dream deferred into realized hopes.  But it is too bad that we had to wait for so much to explode around us before we remembered the vitality and the urgency of the dreams of patriots like Ed Moxey.

Apr 03, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamians have to learn that they cannot change their history to accommodate their political agenda

History can't be changed to suit politics
tribune242.com editorial:


A CALLER to the Krissy Love radio talk show last week - in a discussion as to whether the image of Sir Stafford Sands should be on our $10 bill - said that to understand Sir Stafford one would have to understand the times in which he lived.

"Sir Stafford Sands was a creature of his times," said the caller. "It was the times in which he lived that made him think the way he did and do the things that he did." In his opinion Bahamians were not sufficiently mature to accept that position, but in fact that is the way all history should be understood -- in its own context, in its own time. To do otherwise would distort the facts.

The times in which Sir Stafford lived were times of racial prejudice.

A person of colour could not go to such public places as theatres, hotels, restaurants or even Bay Street barbers who cut only the white man's hair. Sir Stafford bought into the idea introduced to these islands in an earlier generation by American hotelier Henry Flagler, who in 1898 built the British Colonial Hotel (then a wooden building) and convinced the Bahamian power structure of those days that white Americans, particularly those from the south, would not frequent the islands if there was a mixing of the races.

And so to protect the tourist industry that he had taken from a short term winter resort to a year-round money spinner, Sir Stafford was intent on keeping the hotels, and any area that a visitor might frequent, exclusive.

This was a matter over which Sir Stafford and Sir Etienne Dupuch -- who in 1956 was threatened with arrest on the floor of the House when he introduced a Resolution to break down racial discrimination in public places -- battled for most of their political lives. Eventually Sir Stafford saw the light, but as Sir Etienne was to write of his friend on his death, it was too late when the scales fell from his eyes.

"If you want to see a monument to the business genius of a man...look around you in the colony today," Sir Etienne wrote in 1972. "Still... he was not a wise man in the all-important area of human relations. The time came when Stafford saw the light. But it was too late..." However, it was not too late for these two strong men in their personal relations. They each respected the other, and in the end the two arch enemies closed their lives, the closest of friends.

Sir Stafford was an enigma. There were those who called him a racist. There were others, mostly persons of colour, who would resent such a suggestion. There were two sides to the man.

One caller to the Krissy Love show was one of the many who could say with all sincerity: "I don't think he was that much of a racist. He was good for black people." She said her aunt was a nanny for Sir Stafford's daughter, and she as a child wore many of his daughter's hand-me-downs. "He was good to us, we were so poor."

There was another, a constituent in his City district, who told of his concern for his constituents who had outside toilets and how he gave them money to improve their situation.

In 1940, said another caller, "our economy was rock bottom -- there was nothing in this country, there was no way out for us." She said Sir Stafford took his own money and went around the world to build the country's tourist industry and because he was white he was able to bring people in. He took the police band on his trips with him. "They were all blacks," she said, "he ensured that they had good rooms in hotels, he ensured they were treated with respect and he joined them in their rooms. His own money paid for these trips."

She told how he took care of the entertainers and how he made certain that such Over the Hill nightclubs as the Cat and Fiddle and Silver Slipper prospered.

Troubadour Nat Saunders was on the show and admitted that as far as entertainers were concerned the UBP government was better for them than their own black government. On another occasion and in a different context, entertainer Leroy "Duke" Hanna said: "Sir Stafford Sands projected us, all of us, the great bands headed by people like Freddie Munnings Sr, the musicians, the dancers, the singers, the showmen...Sir Stafford made sure we were there on every tourist campaign trip. Culture was tops and well appreciated under Sir Stafford and his colleagues. But it just started dying after 1967..."

Yes, it started dying as the race card was being played loud and clear to create hatred and suspicion for the purpose of dividing Bahamians and winning elections.

Today, the PLP and those tainted with their racial hatreds have come, in the words of Mark Antony at the bier of Julius Caesar, not to praise him, but to inter the good that he has done in this country with his bones, so that whatever evil they might have perceived in him can grow, prosper and be enshrined for posterity. However, Sir Stafford touched and uplifted so many Bahamian lives that we do not think that Fred Mitchell and his ilk will be able to strike him from the $10 bill in the future.

As one caller told Krissy Love, Bahamians have to learn they cannot change their history to accommodate their political agenda. And, what we must also remember: The history of the Bahamas did not start in 1967. Many sacrifices were made by many Bahamians before then to make the successes of 1967 possible.

May 13, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International