It is against this background that I would like to examine Harris's contention-meant to be complimentary-that Sir Ellis was the last of the great Afro-Saxons of the 20th century. He argues that although they were "eminently capable as Afro-Saxons...in leading us to self-government and political independence, they proved to be equally incapable of providing the kind of leadership required under conditions of independence" ("Last of the Great Anglo-Saxons," Express, January 9).
I am not too sure about what Harris wished to convey in his last observation but one only has to look at countries such as Ghana and the catastrophe that is taking place in the Cote d'Ivorie, its neighbour, to understand the important job these stalwart Trinidadians/Tobagonians did in laying the foundation for modern Trinidad; keeping the society together; generating economic prosperity; and crafting a political stability they have bequeathed us, as a nation.
Harris contends that these Afro-Saxons had so successfully imbibed a notion of "schooled to rule" from the British public school that it "dictated a style of politics and governance in which the people could not be trusted to be masters of their own destinies." Although Harris may be on to something here, he must tell us how this notion manifests itself in the general populace; what evidence he has to demonstrate his thesis; and what would have been the outcomes if these leaders trusted their people. In the process, he may even be able to demonstrate one example where this noble condition obtained.
Most of these Afro-Saxon leaders (political, economic, legal, or otherwise) in Trinidad and other colonial territories came onto the national stage when their countries were led by the British. Initially, they opted to persuade the colonial powers that self-government was the only way their people could go forward. In 1930, CLR James wrote "The Case for West Indian Self-Government" although it was published a few years later. In January 1930, Jomo Kenyatta, the leader of the Kikuyu Central Association of Kenya, travelled to the Colonial Office in Britain to present his case for Kenyan self-government.
Although there was much agitation in all of the colonial counties to obtain self-governance, most of these societies (and we are talking of the British territories) needed leaders who understood the political culture of the "mother" country to strengthen their demands for self-government and eventually independence. Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1971), the great champion of Ghana's independence, studied in the US and did preparatory work in London before he returned to Ghana to lead his country into independence. Kenyatta studied anthropology in Britain, wrote Facing Mount Kenya, a study on the Kikuyu, before he returned to Kenya to lead his people to independence. Nnamdi Azikiwi (1904-1996) attended How-ard University, Lincoln University and the University of Pennsylvania where he received a Master's degree before he returned to Nigeria to lead his people to independence.
All these leaders studied outside their countries before they returned home to serve their country. I wonder if Harris is willing to call Nkru-mah, Kenyatta and Azikiwi Afro- or African-Saxons because they studied abroad and, in the process, acquired accoutrements and even tastes of those foreign countries? Are they less African because they sought higher education abroad which, in many instances, their home countries could not provide?
Although Harris has sought to temper his characterisation of Sir Ellis and others by suggesting that the term "Afro-Saxon" is not meant to be derogatory, no one familiar with its connotation is inclined to see it as being complimentary. Even if it were complementary it does not capture the essence of these men or any other significant attributes of their personality and national identify. It cannot be interpreted as anything but derogatory.
An Anglo-Saxon is a member of one of the Germanic peoples (one does not say tribe) who settled in Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries. It is used to describe someone whose language and culture typify the Angles and the Saxons, the two major groups that make up the Anglo-Saxons. The variation of the term Afro-Saxon, which Lloyd Best used to describe Sir Ellis and others, does not and cannot capture Sir Ellis' national identity, his intellectual formation and academic achievements because it seeks to emphasise-or to give equal weight to-his Africanness and what Best sees as his English accoutrements.
No one in his correct mind will characterise Williams, James or Sir Ellis as having more in common with the Anglo-Saxons than they do with Afro-Trinidadians. No one would say that Williams, James and Sir Ellis were more English than they were Trinidadians nor were their cultural accoutrements that made them more Saxon than African. Such a description neither speaks to their uniqueness nor their cosmopolitanism. No one dares say that their academic excellence makes them more English and less Trinidadian/Tobagonian. This would be an insult to common sense and our national psyche.
No one is born out of his time or his place; each of us being circumscribed by his place and his time. Trinidadians and Tobagonians who were born during the first quarter of the 20th century can rightly be described as the first Trinidadians and Tobagonians who sought to "educate" themselves (not school themselves) as they strove to understand themselves, their society and the larger world in which they lived. They took different paths to those objectives and, in the process, emphasised different peculiarities, none of which made them less nationals than Best or Harris. They were, in the best sense, Trinidadians and Tobagonians.
The historical task of these first Trinidadians/Tobagonians was to build a nation, create a democracy, and lay the foundation for a modern prosperous nation. They did that with elan and style so that in the 21st century a Hindu national could come to power with the support of Afro-nationals and claim leadership of the society without there being any rupture in our political or ethnic fabric. In our land today, the seeds of our fathers are being manifested in the works of their children.
Ghanaians have a proverb that says: If you have not been out of your home you cannot say that your mother's soup is best, which suggests that before you speak about the tastiness of your mother's soup or your uniqueness you should experience other people's soup or their culture. Ghanaians have another proverb that says that one must come out of one's house before one can learn about others. Mzumbo, James, Williams or Sir Ellis could not have realised their fullest potential if they had been educated only at home.
I do not know what Harris expects that post-independence leaders should have done to acquit themselves as he suggests. Perhaps he has a model in mind or knows a priori how leaders ought to act to create the ideal post-colonial states. He suggests that now that era of the great Afro-Saxons has ended, we must now look for an appropriate model to achieve the "perfect" state and to discover what it means to be fit to rule under the conditions of independence.
Trinidadians and Tobagonians have been doing a good job in the 50 years since independence. It goes without saying that the character of the state will change as the majority population takes its rightful place in ruling the society. This is prophecy not description. But to suggest that these noble patriots missed the boat because they studied abroad is a position that I am not ready to support.
Sir Ellis was as African as Mzumbo. Like Mzumbo, he was a Trini to de bone. Let us not mar that achievement with any hyphenation that takes anything away from this exemplary Trinidadian. And let us also give thanks for a life well lived.