With all this talk of referendums, constitutional reform, Anguilla Day,Independenceand now the long awaited White Paper, one is forced to stand back and reflect, given all that has happened and continues to happen to our belovedAnguilla. As the saying goes, “You have to know where you’ve been, in order to know where you’re going.”
In order to accomplish this, I went back some ten years ago and dug out a couple of articles by Dr. Lincoln V. Lewis, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, and Dr. O.M. Linda Banks, for the Walter G. Hodge Memorial Anguilla Day Lecture. Though, each article was written three years apart, they both touched on aspects of the Anguillian resolve. While the plight ofAnguillahas been chronicled quite extensively, I was struck by the two articles: Dr. Lewis’ Comparison of The Anguillian and American Revolutions, and Dr. Banks’ The Impact of the 1967 Anguilla Revolution on the Anguillian Psyche.
It is no secret that we face some of the same challenges now as we did then, some forty odd years ago. Writing in his piece, Dr. Lewis said that he was struck by the stark contrast between the two revolutions in two major aspects. The first was that, in Anguilla the revolution resulted in dependence onGreat Britain, whereas the American Revolution resulted in independence fromGreat Britain. Secondly, the Anguilla Revolution was peaceful, with no loss of life, while the American Revolution was marked by much violence and great loss of life.
While Dr. Lewis lists freedom as a motivating factor behind both revolutions, each country had its own goals. In Anguilla’s case, freedom from Statehood, and the American Colonies, greater control of their economic destinies. Both revolutions were not without their share of setbacks. Friction among the leadership of both revolutions. There were serious reservations about Anguilla’s independence from Great Britain. In his book, Under an English Heaven, Donald Westlake wrote, “The Island Council was split down the middle on the issue. One group led by Wallace Rey favored independence, while another group led by Atlin Harrigan wanted to stay in the Commonwealth and go on trying to attractBritain’s attention. The tie breaking vote was held by Ronald Webster.” Westlake concluded that Mr. Webster went for independence.
Though the similarities between the two revolutions are numerous, it is the intent of this piece to look atAnguillaand where we are as a nation. Dr. Lewis continues his piece in which he draws parallels between Atlin Harrigan and Ronald Webster of the Anguillian Revolution and the two heroes of the American Revolution: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson was a steadfast leader for independence while he opposed the pro-British policies ofHamilton, the same positions that found Ronald and Atlin on opposite sides.
Dr. Lewis deserves much credit for pointing out the stark contrasts and similarities of these two countries. The fact is that each country has its share of respected leaders and heroes most of whom we remember in one way or another: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of the American Revolution; and Ronald Webster, Atlin Harrigan, Walter Hodge, Wallace Rey, and Peter Adams of the Anguilla Revolution.
If a democracy is to function for the people, then it is incumbent upon that democracy to have a free press. Dr. Lewis noted that the influence of the press played a significant part in both revolutions. One final comparison was Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death.” And Peter Adams’ statement to the United Nations: “Anguillians prefer death to oppression of St. Kitts,” and one by Atlin Harrigan who wrote in the Beacon, “Any recommendation that means a return of Anguilla to the State of St. Kitts-Nevis, would only go into effect with the vast majority of Anguillians wiped off the face of the earth.”
Having had a glimpse of where we’ve been, the question one has to ask now is where are we going? When Dr. Lewis gave his speech, the theme was “Community Mobilization to Build Our Nation.” Can we truly say that we’ve invested in our communities? Dr. Lewis so deftly pointed out, that back then we faced the scourge of violence that threatened the social fabric of the island. East against West, North against South and so on. Have we become so violent that we’re afraid to leave our homes? We are bystanders to whatever is happening. We see and don’t see. We fling stones and hide our hands.
I’m struck by another Walter Hodge Memorial, Anguilla Day Lecture, this time delivered by Dr. O.M. Linda Banks (2005) in which she talked about the “Impact of the 1967 Revolution on the Anguillian Psyche.” Dr. Banks’ contention was that the ’67 revolution had changed the attitudes of Anguillians from the good old days of jollification, and Christian principles among them, to the present times when they have developed such negative traits as being greedy, envious, abusive, materialistic and lacking in Christian values and principles. A similar argument was made more recently by Vivien Vanterpool in his article, “Independence,Anguilla’s Ultimate Goal” (June 15) in this paper, in which he wrote “We are to rid ourselves of the envy, greed and corruption which exist in our society and become a united people under God.”
Dr. Banks further contended that the Anguillian psyche had not changed at all. That it had always been that way, long before the ’67 revolution, coupled with the fact that we are unlike anyone else in that we are landowners, which makes us unique, and as Dr. Banks puts it, “gives us a spirit of independence and a strong sense of nationalism.”
I think that Dr. Banks’ argument is as relevant today, as it was when it was presented seven years ago, now more so than ever. Dr. Banks posed the question: why has there been an increase in social problems? She continued, “Does that mean that some characteristics which are acceptable for a revolutionary period are unacceptable after the revolution? Or are they being acted out in a different manner today?” I think that the Anguilla of yesteryear is long gone and theAnguillaof today did not take into account that it would have all of these young men who would have gladly died for our cause had it come to that. That group, while a bit rambunctious and wicked, did not resort to the use of guns. That group knew what we fought for and, though they may have acted like fools at times, you always managed to get to them and got them to behave. It is the second generation, the ones who for whatever reason whether social or economic, fell through the cracks of the newAnguilla. The literature suggests that when young men aren’t nurtured whether in school or at home, they usually have that need filled by people who are their peers and they usually resort to gangs. These young men may have failed in school, had a bad family situation, and feel unwanted, leaving them no other choice than to seek out those who are like themselves. Their self esteem is restored. The gang provides the missing attention. They are unable to cope with the way things are. The Anguilla of 30 year mortgages, theAnguillaof telephones, water bills, electricity bills, the internet and speed limits and so on. These are our young men who, when opportunities were presented to them, for one reason or another, did not take advantage. Now they are acting in the only way they know how. Could it be that this rash of violent behavior is a cry for recognition? What have we done to remedy the situation? Are we reaching out to these young men to find out what their concerns are, or are we just willing to incarcerate them?
We’ve gotten a glimpse of from whence we came and the question one has to ask now is where to? We have come quite a ways and we still have quite a ways to go. To use Dr. Lewis’ words: “Today we witness violence all over the world.” Violence is rampant in theUnited States. Just Friday, July 20th, James Holmes, a 24-year-old graduate student at the University of Colorado, dressed in army gear, walked into a theatre in Aurora (not far from Columbine High School, the scene of another massacre, in which 12 were killed and 26 injured), with four high powered guns and 6000 rounds of ammunition, enough to supply a small nation. When all was clear, twelve people lay dead and 59 were injured. Dr. Lewis quoted Stokely Carmichael, the notorious Black Power militant in the 60’s, who said: “Violence is American as apple pie.” He had hoped that in the future to be able to say that “non-violence is Anguillian as peas and rice.” Unfortunately, we’re still waiting for that day and, given the recent events and the trend in which we’re heading, that phrase will be wishful thinking.
So there you have it. We have so many things happening concurrently, that we really don’t appear to know where to start. Both Dr. Lewis and Dr. Banks laid out a comprehensive argument of who we really are. When our backs were against the wall, though we had disagreements among ourselves and we displayed those as Dr. Banks puts it, negative traits, we did come together for the better good. So the overarching question to ask now is, what’s next?
The talk of referendums is still in the air. We still hear about self-determination, independence, constitutional reform and the latest, the White Paper, all of which hold ramifications which, if not handled properly, may result in dire consequences. All of these events are important, each in its own right, but we can’t begin to take these on until our house is in order. The bible in Matthew 7 says to, “Remove the beam from your own eye before you remove it from your brother’s eye.”
Once we put our house in order, things will fall into place. Once we have leaders who actually lead, who are not afraid to stand up and take responsibility for their actions, good or bad, leaders who listen to and talk to their constituents, leaders who legislate for the good of the people and not for the good of themselves, leaders who legislate for the many not only the few, leaders who will not force legislation on a segment of the population against their will, leaders who are transparent, forthright and without a hidden agenda. These are the leaders that were still waiting for. And it is a point of contention that until the house is cleaned, it won’t happen.
While both Dr. Lewis and Dr. Banks have presented two different views of Anguilla, in Dr. Lewis’ case, a look at the resolve of our leaders – and Dr. Banks’ look into the Anguillian psyche pre and post revolution, it becomes clear that we are still a stubborn and unpredictable people who at times vote against our own best interests, but when our backs are against the wall will rise to the occasion, a trait that indicates that there is still hope and determination.
We are still as Vivien Vanterpool says, flinging stones and hiding our hands. We make decisions, hiding behind committees, simply because we don’t like someone, or what they stand for. And yes Teacher Arthwin, you are correct in calling those who would do or condone this practice, cowards. If we don’t like someone, we beat around the bush and get back at that person’s family. If we don’t like an idea or a concept presented by someone else we make damn sure that it dies in infancy. The Education Bill, the Jazz Festival, and the Walter G. Hodge Memorial Lecture just to name a few. Until we stop hiding our hands, we’ll continue to behave in a manner unbecoming of a people upon whom we have come to expect so much more. It’s the “if I can’t have it, neither can you syndrome.” If we didn’t propose it, we’re not going to do it. That’s the attitude of small time thinkers.
I would be remiss if I didn’t address what I believe to be a great disservice to the people ofAnguilla. The discontinuation of the lecture series – usually presented on or close to Anguilla Day – the Walter G. Hodge Memorial. This series, while it honored the memory of my father, also highlighted the political and economic developments inAnguilla. Over its ten-year lifespan, lecturers ranging from judges, Don Mitchell, to barristers Dame Berniece Lake, and everyone in the Caribbean Diaspora, presented lectures on the socio-political development of Anguilla. The lecture series, was originally sponsored by the Social Security Board, which have now seen it fit to discontinue their sponsorship. Not only have you insulted a great man. You’ve robbed the young people ofAnguillaof the opportunity to learn about who we are as a people and where we need to go. You will impugn the memory of a great man, but you will immortalize others whose contributions pale by comparison. I say shame on you.
Like Teacher Arthwin says, we need to get our house in order. We are our brother’s keepers and until we begin to act that way, we’ll continue to wander around for another 40 years, like the Israelites, looking for our Joshua. When we have our Joshua we will then look to him or her for direction, and when he/she asks where to, we can answer with a resounding booming voice: home!
Tyrone Hodge
