Of course, there's the popular notion that calypsonians per se are the people's philosophers and all that malarkey. But can we really buy all that jazz when among them there are all sorts of cross accusations of this, that or the other one "singing for his supper" or simply being "opportunistic calypso mercenaries" whose calypso jingles are up for sale to the highest bidder?
In fairness, I might point out that there are also those who see themselves as defensor fidelis (defender of whatever political faith) and unofficial leaders of whatever political constituencies they lay claim to. Admittedly, on occasion, lyrics are produced to make politicians cringe-as David Rudder suggested-and the better calypsonians can sometimes capture, in song, the prevailing public sentiment or mirror the current public mood.
In my humble view, that's what happened when "black consciousness" was heightened locally, in the aftermath of the "Black Power" challenge to the Dr Eric Williams regime. There was a calypsonian who succinctly captured the mood of the day. Ironically, "he was born a pope, christened a duke and was on four successive occasions crowned a calypso king."
Hear Duke: "It was a day of all days to remember/ When we marched in the rain with our premier/ One aim, one voice, one shout/ Freedom, independence for one and all." That was to precede his "Black is beautiful/ Sing it loud/ Black is beautiful/ I'm black and proud." I think that I can vouch for the fact that Duke had a genuine interest in what he called "black history," according to his lights and he was not simply bandwagon-riding or grandstanding. One also recalls his apartheid stricture, "How many more must die, Mr Botha, How many more?"
In the wings was calypsonian Black Stalin-no relation to the Russian dictator Marshal Joseph Stalin, I assure you-who was less interested in promoting "black beauty" than in defending what he considered "black political and economic interests." Black Stalin happened to have been the self-styled spokesman for his "black people" and, as far as I know, no one is known to have begrudged him that thankless task.
Although Stalin acknowledged Dr Williams's political authority, he addressed the Doc publicly as the man to be held accountable for sharing the public largesse. Unlike the Black Power leaders, he was neither making a play for political power nor threatening to overthrow Williams by hook or by crook.
All he wanted was that the Doc should "run something" or let the people have a fair share of our God-given resources, of which Williams was only the custodian. To return to Duke's "Black is Beautiful" mantra. As the music world mourns the loss of that international treasure, Whitney Houston, I'm reminded of what the person who discovered her and nursed her singing career said, "We've waited a lifetime for such a voice, face and smile."
And they've now been taken away from us. Both Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson's fan bases straddled races, nationalities and colours. Which, by the way, leads me to ask: What colour is black and why and in what, if any, context does it really matter? Does it describe an undifferentiated collective and what, if any, are the historical and sociological ramifications?
Arguably, the question of colour is an emotionally charged one, riddled with ambiguities, anxieties, sensitivities, insecurities and even paradoxes, as Tom Morganthau of Newsweek magazine once suggested. Ironically, Walter White, an executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in the 1940s or thereabouts, bemoaned: "I am a Negro, my skin is white, my eyes are blue and my hair is blond, but the traits of my race are nowhere visible upon me." And there are other similarly, subsequently validated cases.
How do the concepts of self-image and self-esteem factor in the question of "skin colour?" One might well ask. Which calls to mind a serious US television "talk show" in which an African-American host claimed that he had carried out an experiment with black kindergarten children and came to the conclusion that, even at the tender age, they had already developed "a negative predisposition towards what was black."
Adult responses to that conclusion should be interesting. Interestingly, when the verdict in OJ Simpson's murder trial was announced, public responses were generally reported to be largely along "colour lines," although Simpson was widely popular across the board, before the trial.
But I digress. The children's experiment consisted basically of allowing the children to enter a room with little dolls on a table-there being an equal number of black as well as white dolls-asking each one to select a doll that he/she liked. They were also asked why they selected the particular dolls.
According to the experimenter, the black children mostly chose the white dolls and generally ascribed favourable qualities to them. He did not say whether a similar exercise was carried out with white children. Before anyone gets hot under the collar, let me hasten to add that TV presenters seldom admit that their polls are not "scientific." What, for instance, was the size of the sample chosen? Was it representative of black children generally? How familiar were children, or adults for that matter, with coloured dolls?
I suppose that statisticians, sociologists, psychologists and others would have a field day trying to arrive at "relevant conclusions." I wish them all the luck. They'll probably need it.
