Dr Rad­i­ca Ma­hase

I did not plan to write a fol­low-up to last week’s ar­ti­cle, but the pub­lic re­sponse made it nec­es­sary. The re­ac­tion was mas­sive, and while some peo­ple en­gaged in thought­ful dis­cus­sion, much of what I saw in the com­ments and mes­sages on­ly re­in­forced my ar­gu­ment that racism is a dis­ease per­vad­ing our beau­ti­ful coun­try. In­stead of hon­est re­flec­tion, there was de­fen­sive­ness, dis­tor­tion, racial fram­ing, se­lec­tive his­to­ry, and in some cas­es out­right de­nial.

At the heart of this fol­low-up is a sim­ple but nec­es­sary point: in our coun­try, racism is sus­tained not on­ly by open­ly racist be­hav­iour, but al­so by de­nial, pro­jec­tion and the mis­use of his­to­ry. Too of­ten, when racism is named, the re­sponse is not hon­est en­gage­ment but de­flec­tion. Peo­ple be­come more in­ter­est­ed in ques­tion­ing mo­tives, at­tack­ing iden­ti­ty, or dis­miss­ing un­com­fort­able facts than con­fronting the is­sue it­self. That kind of re­ac­tion pro­tects the very prej­u­dice we claim to re­ject.

If we con­tin­ue to treat every se­ri­ous con­ver­sa­tion about race as a po­lit­i­cal at­tack, or if we keep us­ing se­lec­tive his­to­ry to jus­ti­fy present-day di­vi­sion, then we will re­main trapped in the same cy­cle. As a his­to­ri­an, I be­lieve facts mat­ter. As a so­cial ad­vo­cate, I know dif­fi­cult truths can make peo­ple un­easy. But if we can­not dis­cuss race hon­est­ly with­out im­me­di­ate­ly be­com­ing de­fen­sive or di­vi­sive, then we are prov­ing how deeply the prob­lem is em­bed­ded in our so­ci­ety. That is why this con­ver­sa­tion must con­tin­ue.

What stayed with me af­ter read­ing so­cial me­dia com­ments for last week’s ar­ti­cle was not that peo­ple dis­agreed with me. I mean, dis­agree­ment is part of healthy pub­lic dis­cus­sion. It was how quick­ly some re­spons­es moved away from the is­sue it­self and be­gan to racialise me in­stead. Be­cause I am In­do-Trin­bag­on­ian and I wrote about racism at a time when an “In­di­an” par­ty is in pow­er, some as­sumed I must be writ­ing from a racial or po­lit­i­cal agen­da.

One com­menter said I was “mas­querad­ing as neu­tral.” That re­sponse re­flects a trou­bling as­sump­tion in our so­ci­ety: that no one is ca­pa­ble of think­ing in­de­pen­dent­ly or speak­ing on prin­ci­ple. It is al­most as if, be­cause racism is so wide­spread, every sin­gle one of us must au­to­mat­i­cal­ly be racist. Clear­ly, racist peo­ple will ac­cuse you of be­ing racist be­cause that is all they know; racism is too deeply in­grained in­to their thoughts and be­hav­iour for them to un­der­stand any­thing else.

An­oth­er made a point of dis­miss­ing my ti­tle. Oth­ers crit­i­cised the ar­ti­cle for not be­ing a for­mal aca­d­e­m­ic study with method­ol­o­gy and hy­poth­e­sis test­ing, as though a news­pa­per col­umn and a the­sis are the same thing. There were al­so com­ments that shift­ed in­to broad ac­cu­sa­tions about po­lit­i­cal par­ties, eth­nic groups and old griev­ances with­out ad­dress­ing the point I ac­tu­al­ly made.

For me, that was re­veal­ing. It showed how quick­ly we move from the ar­gu­ment to the per­son, from re­flec­tion to de­fence, and from facts to trib­al as­sump­tions. And this is what we are see­ing on so­cial me­dia every sin­gle day!

The thing is, this is al­so how pro­jec­tion works. In­stead of con­fronting the un­com­fort­able truth be­ing raised, peo­ple at­tack the per­son rais­ing it. They as­sign mo­tives, racial in­tent and po­lit­i­cal loy­al­ty, and the con­ver­sa­tion be­comes a per­son­al fight in­stead of a se­ri­ous na­tion­al dis­cus­sion. The re­sult is that in­stead of chal­leng­ing racism, we pro­tect it. When we are more in­ter­est­ed in dis­cred­it­ing the mes­sen­ger than ex­am­in­ing the mes­sage, we are not hav­ing a de­bate; we are do­ing every­thing to avoid it.

As a his­to­ri­an, I find this es­pe­cial­ly trou­bling be­cause the same pat­tern ap­pears in how his­to­ry is used in pub­lic dis­cus­sion. Facts are ig­nored, twist­ed, or se­lec­tive­ly pulled out to jus­ti­fy present-day prej­u­dice, while the fuller con­text is con­ve­nient­ly left out. It is dan­ger­ous when his­to­ry is used to di­vide, es­pe­cial­ly in a so­ci­ety like ours, where race has been shaped by colo­nial di­vide-and-rule and re­in­forced over gen­er­a­tions through fear, com­pe­ti­tion, and po­lit­i­cal ma­nip­u­la­tion.

As I have said pre­vi­ous­ly, the most wor­ri­some thing is how this im­pacts on the next gen­er­a­tion. If we do not teach our chil­dren the fac­tu­al his­to­ry of slav­ery, in­den­ture­ship, colo­nial­ism, re­sis­tance and na­tion-build­ing in all their com­plex­i­ty, then myths will fill the gap. Si­lence will not heal this. Avoid­ance will not heal this. If we stay silent, lies and prej­u­dice about race will keep spread­ing and be­come ‘nor­mal’. That is why these con­ver­sa­tions mat­ter, and why they must be ground­ed in hon­esty, ev­i­dence and the courage to con­front what is un­com­fort­able.

I did not con­tin­ue this con­ver­sa­tion be­cause I en­joy con­tro­ver­sy, and I cer­tain­ly did not write to di­vide any­one. I wrote be­cause the re­sponse it­self showed how ur­gent­ly we need greater hon­esty, ma­tu­ri­ty and self-re­flec­tion when we speak about race in T&T. If we con­tin­ue to de­flect, racialise each oth­er and mis­use his­to­ry when­ev­er un­com­fort­able truths are raised, then we will keep re­pro­duc­ing the very di­vi­sions we claim to con­demn or “blame the oth­er side for”.

We owe the next gen­er­a­tion bet­ter than that. We owe them facts, con­text and the courage to con­front our past with­out turn­ing it in­to a mis­sile against each oth­er. Hon­est his­to­ry is not di­vi­sion; it is the foun­da­tion of na­tion­al ma­tu­ri­ty.