Barbados Underground - bringing the news to the people

104 responses so far ↓

• David // February 20, 2008 at 9:03 pm

  Here is the full Peter Wickham article:

  RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA

  As racial tension increases in Guyana, it is inevitable that the issue of illegal (and legal) immigration into Barbados would once more surface. In this instance, those who oppose the trend altogether have joined with those who would prefer to see smaller numbers here for limited time periods, to call on the new Thompson administration to manage if not curtail the influx of migrant labour. One recent contributor to a well-known web site that promotes frank and open discussion on Barbadians issues recently suggested that “Barbados needs to be proactive from now on this matter” and urged PM Thompson to “take decisions to ensure that the stable climate which Barbados has enjoyed over its post-colonial existence continues.”

  This expression appears to mimic the views expressed by a gentleman who wrote this author last week and asked if I still support a liberal approach to immigration now that racial tensions have increased in Guyana. It is clear that thinking which associates increased racial tension with the insertion of large numbers of Indo Guyanese into Barbados is gaining currency and it is apparently also widely believed that the new Thompson administration will take a less liberal attitude towards immigration matters. This confluence of assumptions is most unfortunate and requires urgent attention, which should begin with an interrogation of the Thompson administration’s attitude towards the CSME and more specifically the free movement of labour.

  Careful analysis of the DLP’s manifesto and its platform during the last election does not reveal any open hostility to the CSME and since the DLP has assumed office, little has happened to convince any right-thinking person that this administration plans to change course in matters relating to the CSME. In the last few days, Sen. Hon. Maxine McClean hinted at the likelihood of imposing regulations relating to immigration, however it can be recalled that her predecessor made similar statements and little changed. There was also a clear statement in the throne speech that government policy would seek to ensure that illegal migration was not used as a cover for the exploitation of workers and this could be interpreted in some quarters as “illiberal”. Fortunately, this position could also be interpreted liberally as a measure which is necessary to accompany an anticipated influx of foreign workers.

  Apart from the DLP’s attitude, there is a misconception that the racial tension present in Guyana would be exported to Barbados if our community becomes multi-racial. To my mind this is both illogical and disparaging, since a suggestion of this nature implies that indo-Guyanese are genetically predisposed towards racial disharmony and while I have not read the book by Dr. Keane Gibson, I am confident that this was not what she was suggesting.

  Guyanese live in large communities all over the world and one can find significant pockets in Toronto, New York and London and to the best of my knowledge their presence has not contributed to racial disharmony in those places and there is no reason why we should expect a different impact here. Having said that, however, I do believe that I am one of few Barbadians who believes that we have nothing to fear from an influx of indo-Guyanese or indeed that there will be an influx. I continue to maintain that Barbadians are Xenophobic, which is not to say that we are racist. I have seen nothing here to suggest that we are, or behave in a manner that can be described as racist, but several statements made by Barbadians have convinced me that we are Xenophobic, which means that we might think that we have something to fear from large numbers of non-Barbadians coming to live here.

  Like racism, xenophobia is born out of ignorance; however xenophobia can more easily be addressed with public education and greater exposure. It is unfortunate that the CSME was not preceded by such a campaign and it is also unfortunate that after several years, the Caribbean media and corresponding cultural exchange has not sufficiently exposed us to each other. Notwithstanding, there should be no assumptions made that the peculiar conditions that exist in Guyana which are increasing racial tensions and making that country ungovernable, will be replicated in Barbados. Hopefully, we might soon have some discussion about the nature of the problem in Guyana, which could help us distinguish our situation from theirs.

  Peter W Wickham (Wickham@sunbeach.net) is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).

• notesfromthemargin // February 20, 2008 at 9:04 pm

  David,

  If your concerns were strictly about Guyanese, I would have little difficulty in supporting you. However, given many of your concerns do seem to centre on race (indo guyanese specifically as opposed to afro guyanese or any other form of guyanese for that matter) I really have to concur with Peter on this one.

  Marginal

• Thomas Gresham // February 20, 2008 at 10:07 pm

  Peter continues to show that he is as brave as he is right. Another Bajan to be proud of. Congratulations to him.

• Anonymous // February 20, 2008 at 10:19 pm

  If Peter wickham said anything different then there would no work for him in Guyana or Trinidad that is what he believes.

  So to maintain his personal little pick he is willing to allow Barbados to be over run by Indians.

  Pickam is covering his backside. I have always considered him a nuisance.

• me // February 20, 2008 at 10:58 pm

  I think that we as a people are quite bigotted so I agree with him in that regard but we also do not have a strong culture so I am concerned about how our culture would change with a rapid influx ( rather than gradual). I think Peter makes the most sense when he talks about homosexuality and polls but he does come across as rather judgemental at times otherwise!

  Note Sir Roys constant t reference to ‘people not like us’

• Bimbro // February 21, 2008 at 3:36 am

  The use of grand words does n’t prove you know bugger-all about life!!!!

• The People's Democratic Congress // February 21, 2008 at 7:54 am

  It seems that this DLP Government will be hell bent on subsidizing the operations of many commercial and industrial interests in this country. For example, and quite recently, an announcement was made by the Minister of Trade, Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Mr. George Hutson at a press briefing at his office, Reef Road, and attended by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Haynesley Benn, and others, that the Government will give a very short term price support to particular interests in the livestock industry in the form of the granting of a subsidy to the Manufacturers of Pinnacle Feeds in Barbados - now majority owned and controlled by regional corporate blood sucker Neal and Massy - so that Pinnacle Feeds would be able to return the prices of only layer, turkey, swine, sheep and diary feeds to what they were before the February 11 increases. It was also announced that the measure would cost government BDS $ 1.3 million monthly. (Source - Daily Nation, Tuesday, February 19, 2008.)

  Added to that example, is another example of the subsidy that was being given by the former BLP Government to the Barbados Light and Power Co. Ltd, still apparently being continued by this DLP Government. But, certainly this subsidy will continue indefinitely given, too, that yesterday US crude on the world oil market reached more than US $ 101 per barrel. And, there seems to be NO likelihood that these great surges in world oil prices will dramatically come down any time soon. Too, this subsidy to the Barbados Light and Power Co. Ltd - another majority owned and controlled foreign business - will also continue because this government has made VERY STRONG commitments to reducing the COST OF LIVING in Barbados, which under this old nefarious economic order, is being helped fuelled by these said astronomical, record world oil prices.

  Finally, what this DLP government must be told in the clearest and strongest of terms is that while this subsidization of these particular interests in the agricultural and production sectors in Barbados is welcome in the short term, such an approach CANNOT be sustained in the foreseeable future without further WRETCHED AND UNRIGHTEOUS TAXATION ASSAULTS BY THIS SAID DLP GOVERNMENT ON THE MASSES AND MIDDLE CLASSES OF PEOPLE OF BARBADOS. Again, we leave the following: that a future PDC Government shall Abolish ALL TAXATION in Barbados, and will make sure that IMPORTS OF GOODS AND SERVICES into Barbado are zero-”priced” at ALL points of entry.

  PDC.

• Peter W Wickham // February 21, 2008 at 9:23 am

  BU might be interested to know that I have actually canvassed the migration issues in two previous polls published in 2005 and 2006 and all this information has been published. In both instances, I determined that a majority of Barbadians were not happy with the level of both illegal and legal immigration into Barbados and moreover believed that the former PM’s stance on the issue was far too liberal. I went further and probed the likely voting behavior of newly arrived Barbadians in the 2006 final quarter poll and compared these data to a similar exercised I conducted in Antigua on behalf of the then opposition UPP. In this exercise, I concluded that:
  “Although the numbers of naturalised voters is comparatively smaller, there is a positive correlation between naturalisation and support for the incumbent party in both Antigua and Barbados. In the case of Barbados, there is a statistically significant relationship (Pearson’s Chi- Square 0.002) between the non-native voter and support for the BLP. This statistic could possibly be influenced heavily by the fact that in both territories, the majority of persons surveyed supported the incumbent at the time the survey was conducted; hence it is impossible to say whether the naturalisation status was responsible for their party support, or if these persons were just reflective of the entire society’s political opinion. In the case of Antigua, however, further analysis was conducted and it was proven that the longer a person lived in Antigua the more likely that person was to support the Opposition, which suggests that the ALP could theoretically have influenced the outcome of elections, but constantly adding new naturalised voters to the list. It is also of great relevance that the opposition UPP announced a very popular nationalisation programme just prior to their success in the general election. As the number of naturalised Barbadians grows, it is possible that these issues could also be relevant to future elections here and this data is likely to be of great interest to both political parties.” (Sunday Sun October 1, 2006).
  Against this background it would be both untrue and unfair for BU to argue that I have not used the polls fully to explore this issue which is of great importance to Barbadians. The evidence demonstrates that I have done so and moreover it is clear that a majority of Barbadians do NOT support my liberal views on immigration. My opinions are frequently at variance with the views of the majority in this country, so this is nothing new to me. I am in the MINORITY as it relates to my opposition to the Death Penalty, Support for the Decriminalisation of Ganja and support for Gay rights. I know that Barbadians feel strongly and differently to me on all these issues, but I nonetheless investigate the issues and report their views faithfully in my polls, since that is my professional obligation. In this regard I have expressed my personal opinion and my view is that Barbadians do not fully appreciate the tremendous benefit hat can come from immigration and greater diversity and the extent to which the CSME is vital to our nation’s survival.

• Annalee Davis // February 21, 2008 at 9:31 am

  “Home drums beat first.” For the CSME to work in our favour, the notion of where home is must change. “Home” may no longer be Barbados or Dominica…’home’ is the CSME member states. “Home drums beat first” now means that we do what’s best for the region collectively.

  Note that the poorer countries in the EU who took in the unwanted ‘lesser than” Europeans, like the Poles, have experienced the largest benefits economically - for example Ireland and Greece, both of whom have benefitted enormously from the EU.

  The Caribbean is supposed to be working towards free movement for all - we must deal with that reality! Fighting against the integration of the region is going to be a long uphill battle for the UP.

  Is there only concerned about the Indo-Guyanese migrant activity, or is there also concern with the Afro-Guyanese influx? (The perpetrators of the recent Guyanese criminal activity to which you referred, are not Indo-Guyanese, by the way.)

  Nationalism may not benefit us at a time when the world functions in large trading blocks … there is no way forward, save the integrated route.

  Why are we so afraid? Is there another way of seeing this? Can we not turn this debate over and begin to think about what the benefits are?

  And what exactly is the problem of having Afro and Indo-Guyanese people living and working in Barbados and throughout the Caribbean, or the world? We can also move and work and take advantage of regional opportunities.

  Barbados lost one third of her population to Panama at the early nineteen hundreds because people saw an opportunity for something better.

  There were three large waves of Bajan migration into Guyana in the mid to late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds.

  Black Guyanese despised the black Bajan migrant who was taking their jobs for less pay & who were willing to work longer hours. It was not until the indentured Indian labour arrived in Guyana, that black Bajans finally became allies in the black Guyanese struggle against Indo-Guyanese domination.

  Isn’t this all a little ridiculous?

  How de we manage this fear and call for division; and move forward collectively to building a better space for all of us?

• Observer // February 21, 2008 at 9:55 am

  Black Guyanese despised the black Bajan migrant who was taking their jobs for less pay
  ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
  This statement destroys the long winded point you make. Who are you to say legitimate Barbadian concerns are ridiculous. You bold face and fast, A. Davis.

• Annalee Davis // February 21, 2008 at 10:49 am

  The statement does not destroy the point. It shows how fickle we are by reinforcing the point that one moment group A despised new immigrant Group B and then, in the next moment, Group A + B became allies against the now new group C who were the latest set of new immigrants sitting at the bottom rung of the ladder.

  So what was the point for the hatred and zenophobia in the first place?

  In response to your question “who am I?”…
  I am a Barbadian citizen with a point of view which might be different to yours and I am concerned about the zenophobic sentiments being so freely expressed.

• Thomas Gresham // February 21, 2008 at 11:53 am

  Dear Annalee,

  You are of course quite right.

  The thing about the racism and xenophobia that I have seen here is that it is impressively resilient to facts and logic

  It is also impressively immune from the irony that the it is identical to what we hear from the most conservative, white supremacists in the US and UK.

  Indeed, the words used are almost identical to those of Enoch Powell in the UK who said that he was no racist, but that all he was saying is that blacks could not co-exist with whites, look at the violence in Africa he said, and that there would be “rivers of blood” unless blacks were forcibly repatriated.

  He was wrong of course. But his views give respectability to people who went round spreading racial hatred, bullying blacks and beating us up.

• reality check // February 21, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  Could such an interesting discussion of rascism and immigration existed two years ago before the blogs?

  Wickham needs to give the blogs full credit and not hide behind editorial censorship of The Nation.

• Ian Bourne // February 21, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  David?

  I mentioned this before both here and in BFP, there pretty much is an official policy at the Nation NOT to in any way acknowledge blogs.

  This is unlike Heat, a subsidiary of the Advocate, which has an opposite policy.

  They actually want folk to call in the URL’s of their entries and make it known publicly.

• Adrian Hinds // February 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  Peter Wickham is yet to resolve his comments where in a nationnews article, dated September 06 2006 and titled People & Things - Accident of birth, he seems to accept that their is significant racial divisions in Guyana, and his view that Barbadians are xenophobic in relation to their non-acceptance of the illegal indo-Guyanese into Barbados? He hasn’t done so and has sought to suggest that Barbadians are xenophobic for our views unless we can prove that the Indo-guyanese has a genetic predisposition to be racist. Clearly by setting such an unusual requirement Peter seems to be more interested in not dealing with the conflict between his his two observations.

  ….Clearly there is no need for a people to have a genetic reason for their beliefs, and practices. Peter being a “social scientist” should be familiar with the methods and tools of social construction. The facts is that the practice of racial divisions run deep in Guyana and we know that a people will NOT immediately put away their practices on migrating to a foreign society. In fact there is no requirement for them to do so and are often left to their own devises, and people will more likely continue to do what is familiar to them. His argument that to the best of his knowledge Guyanese living in the diaspora have not cause any racial tension in their adopted homes, is not a good enough objection either. The truth of why this is so, is more likely to be the result of there not being a predominantly Afro population in the areas that they have settle, or that if there are the specific enclaves they have settle into are encapsulate within areas that are significantly large enough that they do not come into regular contact with Blacks. This is not unusual as most North American cities are segmented along racial and ethnic lines. In Boston, Blacks predominantly live in Dorchester, Roxbury, and Mattapan. In New York Blacks live predominantly in the Bronx and Brooklyn Boroughs. This presents choices even within these areas for the Indo-Guyanese to separate themselves out. I know for a fact that Afro and Indo Guyanese in the diaspora are hardly in the same communities, the same recreational organizations, etc.

• Adrian Hinds // February 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm

  Thomas Gresham // February 21, 2008 at 11:53 am

  Dear Annalee,

  You are of course quite right.

  The thing about the racism and xenophobia that I have seen here is that it is impressively resilient to facts and logic

  It is also impressively immune from the irony that the it is identical to what we hear from the most conservative, white supremacists in the US and UK.

  Indeed, the words used are almost identical to those of Enoch Powell in the UK who said that he was no racist, but that all he was saying is that blacks could not co-exist with whites, look at the violence in Africa he said, and that there would be “rivers of blood” unless blacks were forcibly repatriated.

  He was wrong of course. But his views give respectability to people who went round spreading racial hatred, bullying blacks and beating us up.
  ==============================

  The Brits are at the point where they are actively using logic and facts to deny their own culture, and existence.

  The bullied British bulldog with it’s capital city of Londonistan.

  http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10673119

• Annalee Davis // February 21, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  Dear Thomas, I note your comments about Powell’s views and the sad allegiance with the supremacist ways of thinking. I was thinking that the zenophoia being expressed here is not entirely dissimilar to some of the sentiments expressed in Germany with reference to the Turkish Muslims.

  Recent surveys show that in several European countries, (Britain, Spain, France and Germany) most citizens believe that immigration has been a good thing for their country. Germany is an exception - more Germans believe that immigration is not a good thing.

  Cultural diversity does not create crime and ghettoes. It is discrimination based on culture, ethnicity, race, or religion which leads to the formation of ghettoes, forcing groups to become isolated or ghettoised.

  Transnational spaces are here to stay. The most intelligent response to the free movement of all Caribbeans throughout this archipelago, is to create broad social movements which will unite the region.

• Adrian Hinds // February 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm

  On tuesday i hear a Afro Guyanese naturalize citizen of Barbados by marriage emphatically responded to a Tony Marshall question of “When would you say that this racial division started, what has caused it” She said that it is inbred, and has been this way for her entire life time. While not giving her age, her life time might very well coincide with the Burnham years. She said she was amaze and hearten to see the indo Guyanese in Barbados getting along with Black Barbadians, something that does not happen in Guyana. She has been living in Barbados fro 3 years. Her salient point was that for the racism to end in Guyana people need to move beyond the PPP and PNC, with these two parties in power there will never be any real reconciliation between the Indo and Afro Guyanese. So wunnuh know me, I will never believe the words of an academic and a theorist over eye witness accounts, and reality.

  p.n. we know of her ethnicity and marital status, as it was given, voluntarily in response to a question as to her ethnicity.

• Technician // February 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  Now that Mr.Wickham has actually posted a response on this blog, will he from now on refer to this blog by name in his articles?

• Thomas Gresham // February 21, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  One “eye witness account” is always interesting, but could be just “heresay”.

  Ten “eye witness accounts” is noteworthy.

  A thousand “eye witness accounts” is called a study.

  It is interesting that some people on this blog reject studies in preference for heresay, when being strident about big issues.

  For an excellent summary, written in layman’s language, of the latest empirical studies of the impact of immigration, see:

  http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html

• Thomas Gresham // February 21, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  I hasten to add that this summary linked to above is carried out by Council of Economic Advisors of a conservative Republican President. It is complex, but conservative Republicans are generally no friend of immigrants.

• degap // February 21, 2008 at 2:25 pm

  “Black over Red over White”

  It’s far more complicated. You’ve got savage thugs slaughtering entire villages in broad daylight with impunity, so who wouldn’t have second thoughts about walking the streets with these same people. I certainly have no plans to vacation in Guyana. Even the Guyanese, Jamaicans, and Trini’s retire to Miami. Fears of importing a foreign underclass are legitimate. That’s why they are not covered by CSME. The vast majority of the Guyanese in Bim now would not qualify under CSME…For the past two years or so “flip flop” Thompson had his minions working the press and blogs stirring up the anti-black/coolie immigrant brigade (apparently white is still right), so their anti-immigrant stance was well understood even though it was conspicuously absent from their manifesto. As for Antigua, they have experienced a spike in crime that many there attribute to the influx of a foreign underclass. The Antiguan situation is compounded by the mix of Spanish speakers from the Dominican Republic (when I was in Antigua for the first Stanford 20/20 I was shocked to hear Spanish all over St. Johns), Jamaica, Guyana, and Dominica.

• Yardbroom // February 21, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  The debate about illegal immigrants in Barbados has taken a new turn, in that some debates have become specific to Indo/Guyanese. I made my position clear from the onset on Barbados Underground, my focus was on “illegal” Indo/Guyanese… immigrants and it remains so.

  There is a fair point to be asked, why not say illegal immigrants and not be specific to Indo/Guyanese? My retort is that as a matter of course all the problems associated with illegal immigrants should be addressed, but in the West Indies context, in the present political climate there are problems associated with Indians when the indigineous majority population was previously of African heritage - this has also been the case further afield.

  Barbadians should not be bludgeoned into submission through the poisonous darts of racist and xenophobia being thrown to shut them up. An intelligent debate is required with facts, evidence and circumstances specific to the West Indies being taken into consideration, if a case based on reason and common sense can be made, it will be, the words chosen willy nilly to attack others will do great harm and no good to the debate and have the opposite effect to that intended ,as it will show Barbadians how quickly they have become the people under attack… is that a portent of things to come.

  Economic Benefits
  Some commenters see the issue through the “narrow focus” of economic benefits. I am prepared to accept that in some cases, in the short term there can be economic benefits by having both legal and illegal immigrants….. that is not the point of issue. My position on the economic benefits, is that that there would be no “real” benefit, if the long prognosis from that short term economic benefit shows social upheaval and a lack of cohesion in society, as is prevalent in Trinidad and particularly Guyana today.

  Race
  There is then the question of race -and being racist - as those who have a different opinion have advanced. Is it not true in broad terms that race is an important element in both the Trinidad and Guyana situations? To suggest that race has no input in the social tensions that exist in those countries is to appear as not wanting to see what can clearly be seen.

  Xenophobia
  There are some who accuse Barbadians of suffering from xenophobia, which I interpret as a “fear or contempt of that which is foreign. Barbadians should not be afraid of being accused of being “fearful” of illegal immigrants either Indo/Guyanese or others, providing they do not subscribe to the “contempt” component of xenophobia - which I do not.

  World Problem
  Throughout the developed world immigration is a problem and most governments are wrestling with the enormous task of regulating it, in such a way as to protect the human rights of immigrants, without destroying the fabric and social cohesion of the host country, to which immigrants are disposed to immigrate.

  Social Assimilation
  It is a matter of social history that certain groups are easier to assimilate than others, race on the face of it can appear to be an unsurmountable barrier but often religion plays a more important part as some religions by their belief systems are not easily intergrated with others, on their own they are brilliant, but intergrating with others can sometimes present problems.

  Some groups adopt a superior attitude and they often boast that their family structures, close knit communities, interacting with others only on a superficial level is what binds them together and makes them successful. They then level criticism at the indigenous for their way of life, forgetting that it is they who choose to leave their much admired home country, with a majority attitude of which they revere. This attitude can sometimes appear uncharitable and disingenuous to their host - it was even done here on BU.

  The Future
  Immigrants bring from their home countries attitudes and experiences which are part of them, some are able to dispel those attitudes as soon as they reach their host countries, others find it more difficult to do so.

  Time will be the final arbiter in this debate, I hope for the benefit of future generations of Barbadians; the decision taken will be the right one; to ensure calm between all races in Barbados is maintained; because once that decision is made it cannot be reversed.

• Thomas Gresham // February 21, 2008 at 4:17 pm

  According to Yarbroom and expressed by others as well “there are problems associated with Indians when the indigineous majority population was previously of African heritage”

  Lets make sure there is no misunderstanding here. In Trinidad and Guyana, Indians are the main victims of violent crime that happens to take place between races. In Trinidad 75% of kidnap victims are Indian. Both blacks and Indians have died deplorably in recent massacres in Guyana, but in the last two massacres, the main targets were Indian. Maybe the crimes are not racially motivated. One of the reasons why Indians are targets for kidnapping and crime is that they dominate the business communities. This is our fault. The indentured labourers came from agricultural communities of north-east India and not business communities. They were discriminated against from the schools and public office because they were not Christian and with our elitist English education we were led to believe that business was “impure” and we steered clear of it. Over time as the plantations slumped, the Indians went into one of the only avenues available to them: business. (A great many also converted to Christianity.) Given that these indentured labourers arrived with nothing but a return ticket, and have not been the main beneficiaries of political power over the past 150 years since their arrival, their economic success is self-made.

  One of the key differences between Guyana and Trinidad on one side and Barbados onm the other is that Indians represent almost half the population. This is not as a result of an “open door” immigration policy, but massive programs by the colonial rulers. After the abolition of slavery the ex-slaves in Trinidad and Guyana were not keen to work on the plantations with their thuggish overseers and owners and poor pay. The Indians were brought in by the colonial rulers. Not so Barbados. Barbados is more likely to end up like a Singapore than a Trinidad. In Singapore the Indians represent 10% of the population and their immigration is courted by the Chinese majority. This is a country that knows what it is doing. It is one of the only countries that has gone from third world to first world in one generation. Singaporeans have a great pride in their Singapore and Chinese roots and xenophobia is rare and frowned upon. There is today a very able man of Indian/Tamil descent I have come across who is currently the Education Minister and Deputy Chairman of the central bank. When it comes to race and immigration I hope we follow the Singapore model. It certainly has not done them harm.

• Yardbroom // February 21, 2008 at 5:16 pm

  Dear Mr. Thomas Gresham (before I respond)

  In your post of 16th Feb 2008, 12;36pm

  Topic Trinidad Express Reporter Comments on the Growing Indo/Immigration Population in Little Barbados.

  You inferred that I asked, if you were black?
  could you please direct me to when and where , I asked such a question?

  Yardbroom

• Peter W Wickham // February 21, 2008 at 6:04 pm

  I continue to find Adrian’s argument confusing and it is clear that he is also confused by mine. The two articles argue different, although related points. There are significant racial cleavages in Guyana as expressed in the Accident of Birth Article; however I am not convinced that the same would happen here just because we allow a few indo Guyanese to come live here. Note that it is POSSIBLE, but not INEVITABLE. Blacks migrated to the UK and years later there were race riots in Brixton. Is this a reason to prevent Afros from migrating to the US or Canada, or for that matter to Manchester? An understanding of the Guyana situation should help us to better understand our Caribbean brothers and sisters and ensure that our peculiar migration does not become problematic. I repeat that if I were to link the two articles then I would be arguing that simply because we have large numbers of Indians coming here we will have problems and I am very uncomfortable with this suggestion because it sounds very much like racism to me.

• Adrian Hinds // February 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm

  Thomas Gresham // February 21, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  One “eye witness account” is always interesting, but could be just “heresay”.

  Ten “eye witness accounts” is noteworthy.

  A thousand “eye witness accounts” is called a study.

  ==============================

  and how convenient that in this instance this lady’s eyewitness account would your purposes be hearsay.

  ————-
  Thomas Gresham says:
  It is complex, but conservative Republicans are GENERALLY no friend of immigrants.

  ha ha ha “Generally” like most of your so called “EMPERICAL” evidence and studies they don’t capture reality, TODAYS reality. Now what are Americans and any other persons to think of your General view of Republicans on immigration and this current Republican President’s action on the question of illegal immigration? Your static beliefs evidence and statistics are at odds with reality.

• Yardbroom // February 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  There are some who say:
  “Barbados is more likely to end up like a Singapore than a Trinidad”

  The ethnic makeup of Signapore is:
  Chinese 76.7%
  Malay 14%
  Indian 7.9%
  Other 1.4%

  Where is the large percentage of those of African heritage in the above , not to understand that is not to understand the concerns.

  One commenter has sought to mention a respectable individual in Barbados of no doubt unimpeachable character to make a point, that tactic is unforgiveable.

  “I” will allow this matter to rest.

• David // February 21, 2008 at 7:07 pm

  Ian, we have been able to confirm from someone well placed at the Nation that there is a policy not to mention BU or BFP. It is felt that they would be responsible for driving traffic to the blogs :-). Can someone impress upon Mrs Gittens that she needs to be a little more charitable given that the blogs drive traffic to the Nation website. Isn’t interesting however that Al Gilkes was able to mention BU and BFP in his column sometime back and it was not edited? Just shows the influence of Al we suppose.

  Peter thank you for coming to BU to defend your position. Your quantitative work is obviously above the ‘heads’ of the BU household. We hope that members of the BU family who have a training in quantitative analysis can adequately engage you on your analysis. What we meant to say is that in your strident defense of your poll results in the election just concluded this issue did not feature. Why?

  We must admit that we missed your analysis and we do pride ourselves on keeping our “ears to the ground”. Where was it published? The fact that we missed it would suggest that you may not have been your usual vocal self. Anyway we want to take this opportunity to restate our concern. Barbados has practiced an open immigration policy in recent years. We are not sure that our authorities and social scientist have a grasp at how our small society is being affected by the large immigrant inflows. We continue to say that good sense dictates that social scientist should examine the impact of ethic groups on our society. Examples abound that large scale immigration bring with it the good and the indifferent. If we are racist and xenophobic for echoing our concern, so be it.

• Sister Baby // February 21, 2008 at 11:33 pm

  Please allow me to correct Mr. Gresham regarding his statement of how the victims in the Lusignan and Bartica massacres in our beloved homeland of Guyana were all East Indians. Three people killed at Lusignann ECD were of Amerindian decent, Mr. Thomas and his two children, and in Bartica three East Indians, one Amerindian, and the rest Black and Black mixed. In Agricola EBD in 2006 six blacks were gunned down at high noon. In the 1960’s white Guyanese were killed, such as the Abrahams family, 8 persons, and the some for the Texiera people. Also I would like to say that we don’t have a majority ethnic group in our country. The most recent census in our country shows that East Indians are 43%, Blacks 33% Mixed : and this is a combo of Black, White, Chinese mostly, and some East Indians, and Amerinidans 17%, and the rest are Amerindians, Whites and Chinese. The problem in my country is not a race problem, but a political one started by Burnham and Jagan and it just would not go away. I read all these race things about us, but I don’t understand it. I love of all Guyanese, and if I see a Guyanese hurtung I run to help. But this is me.

• Thomas Gresham // February 21, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  Dear Sister Baby,

  I did not say that the victims were all Indian, I specifically said that blacks and Indians died, awfully, but that Indians were the main targets.

• Sister Baby // February 21, 2008 at 11:45 pm

  Mrs. Annalee Davis We really do not know the identity of the gang that is responsible for the killings in Guyana. We have pinpointed the Leader of Gang as Fineman Rawlins due to his calling newspapers and such. We know he is the leader, but he can have anybody in his gang. Look in Essequibo a middle aged spinster who had just retired to her bed was raped, and the rapist turned out to be three 16 year old East Indian Guyanese. So you see crime is not race specific. And by the way our country has always had crime. I was born in 1950 and I was always warned don’t wear jelewery choke and rob will snatch it. Don’t walk in Tiger Bay at night, lock up your windows at dusk and so on.

• Sister Baby // February 21, 2008 at 11:48 pm

  Dear Mr. Thomas, I am sorry, Old age eyes, you know, don’t see too well on this glaring computer screen. I am sorry and so nice to meet you and so happy that you have taken an interest in our country to write here about it. Thank you and have nice day.

• Sister Baby // February 21, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  I don’t want Guyana to become like Singapore. We are Guyana and we are marching to our beat. We have our problems, but we have always had problems. Also let me say Guyanese never mistreated Barbadians. We have always welcomed foreigners to our country. I had a Bajan friend from Hillsborough, St. Joseph Barbados, and in old age we took care of him. He was indeed fascinated with us and he said Guyanese were the most beauiful people he had ever seen. Please continue with the erudite discussion that is going on here. Please don’t let my banter interfere. I just relate stories, as I say I really don’t understand the problem in Guyana. I am a simple person, like I am so excited now that Delta Airlines is coming to Guyana, and that we are building a new 600 bed wing to GT Hospital. So when I see the Minister I have give him a kiss on the cheek

• Anonymous // February 22, 2008 at 4:47 am

  Well here I go again speaking out in a place where I have no business speaking, and of course the next action for them to take against me is to send an E-Mail to David stating that I am interrupting academics in their discussion to find a solution to Barbados’ immigration delimma. But I will say that I have heard that Singapore is one of the most racist places on earth, and I believe that statement based on my limited dealings with Chinese in Guyana. Now I am generalising, and steroetyping one billion Chinese here, BUT there is truth generalisations. Coolie Boi my dear friend had an uncle who went to Singapore to work and he came back to Guyana and told us that the place was horrible, and that how East Indians had to live in their own section. Yes East Indians had their own section and very rarely did the Singaporeans mingle with East Indians. Singaporean means Chinese, if you are an East Indian, then you are an East Indian born in Singapore. Chinese don’t mingle and they like their own kind. The British government educated East Indians. Dr. Jagan went to Queens College in GT, and scores of other East Indians, including that Mr. Thani of the Royal Shop that you all having problems with in BGI. We had a lovely colonial government in BG. Things fell apart when Great Britain left BG. I say to President Jadgeo if he can’t rule just bring them back.

• Anonymous // February 22, 2008 at 4:58 am

  Now they have killed white people in Guyana. In fact recently the white people kilings from last century came to light again through Professor Freddie Kissoon. The Abraham family was indeed a lovely white family, socialites, and well regarded in Guyanese society. The eldest daughter Anne who reminds me so much of former DPM Mottley was very active in a newly formed politcal party. Anne went out and spoke so eloquently of her party that she left a lasting impression on many a young Guynaese. However, Anne father was Dr. Jagan’s personal secretary, and therein came the conflict. Mr. Abraham wanted to join the new party, (new party founded by white Guyanese) and I guess because of that his Hadfield Street, Georgetown home was channa bombed, killing him and his 7 children as they slept on a wind swept Guyana night. Only the Mum, Diana and Anne survived. I would never forget the Abrahams and I know that Anne and Diana are in Canada. Ann would be in her late 60’s but if you are reading Anne you must contact Miss Mia Mottley to give her tips for her run as Barbados PM in 2011.

• sister Babt // February 22, 2008 at 6:53 am

  This is by Adrian, and this is TRUE TRUE TRUE Adrain you get A+ you figured it out A+ from Prof. Sister Baby, BA. (hons) Loma Linda University, Loma Linda California USA

  ….Clearly there is no need for a people to have a genetic reason for their beliefs, and practices. Peter being a “social scientist” should be familiar with the methods and tools of social construction. The facts is that the practice of racial divisions run deep in Guyana and we know that a people will NOT immediately put away their practices on migrating to a foreign society. In fact there is no requirement for them to do so and are often left to their own devises, and people will more likely continue to do what is familiar to them. His argument that to the best of his knowledge Guyanese living in the diaspora have not cause any racial tension in their adopted homes, is not a good enough objection either. The truth of why this is so, is more likely to be the result of there not being a predominantly Afro population in the areas that they have settle, or that if there are the specific enclaves they have settle into are encapsulate within areas that are significantly large enough that they do not come into regular contact with Blacks. This is not unusual as most North American cities are segmented along racial and ethnic lines. In Boston, Blacks predominantly live in Dorchester, Roxbury, and Mattapan. In New York Blacks live predominantly in the Bronx and Brooklyn

• Sister Baby // February 22, 2008 at 8:12 am

  Also Adrian we don’t have to come in contact with Whites or Koreans or Mexicans. In Little Guyana, Queens NY we don’t have to have to come into contact with anyone except Guyanese, Like on Liberty Avenue. Gosh Liberty Ave is like Regent Street in GT Wow. There are sari shops, bakeries selling all of our favourite Guyanese treats, and then in Brooklyn is Sybils that famous Guyanese establishment for your favourite Guyanese treats. We can come to America and head straight to Liberty Avenue and never meet any Americans, even the school is predominately Guyanese Francis Lewis High School. We also have our section in Los Angeles on Crenshaw Blvd. and in Toronto it’s Scarborough. There is a bit of Guyanese on Main Street in South Vancouver BC. You know we also have established ourselves in Mexico City and in Melbourne Aurtralia, oh and Caracas, Paramaribo, Boa Vista all have sizable Guyanese communties.

• Anonymous // February 22, 2008 at 8:14 am

  There are 1.5 million Guyanese 1/2 at home 1/2 around the globe.

• Anonymous // February 22, 2008 at 8:25 am

  Adrain, We took over the Richard Hill section of Queen. One time I was in crowded place and a white man from Richmond Hill went back to Richmond Hill and he was telling the other man Oh yeah you should how these Gheeannese people took over my hometown. I laughted to myself. The Mayor Of Scennectady (sp) loves us, he wants us to move, and he says we have revived downtown. I guess the cinema had closed and now its the Moti Mahal showing lots of Bollywood films starring Raj Kumar, my favourite film star. You New Yorkers should be happy we are there because if we did not come you would not have had Guyanese Gifts and Grocery Stores.

• Sister Baby // February 22, 2008 at 9:46 am

  I read what the editor of the Trinidad newspapaer said, and I understand the dilemma. A situation similar to Barbados occured in the City of Compton in California. Blacks gained control of Compton from whites, however, similar to Barbados, there was an influx of Mexicans into Compton, which upset the demographics of Compton. In the case of Compton the blacks became affluent and moved away and the Mexicans with their high birthrate became the majority of the citizens of the City of Compton. The Mexicans in Compton do not vote as they are not American citizens, howver, the previous Mayor Walter Tucker did make an issue of the growning Mexican population in Compton in his bid for a fourth term as mayor. I believe Mayor Tucker was indicted on federal charges, and he was replaced by Eric Peridene, who appears to be half black and half Mexican. However in the next election it is unlikely that a black will be mayor of Compton due to the heavy Mexican population. I am sure there will be a Mexican American candidate running for mayor. This is one scenario to your problem. It can also take a different direction. I think in order for Barbados to have continued propserity there needs to be diffusion of new ideas, people, and culture. You become stagnant if you don’t have diffusion., new ideas and ideals. So my hope for you is that you embrace the new Barbados. Sure, Guyanese might set up their own section, or Chinese will set up their own section, and yes poeple do bring thier culture lock stock and key to thier new homelands. Aren’t there roti shops in Bridgetown. Just embrase it and you will like it.

• Annalee Davis // February 22, 2008 at 10:20 am

  Dear Thomas, I was interested to look at the White House Study of June 2007 titled “Immigration’s Economic Impact” which you referenced, and thought for the sake of this
  continuing discussion, I would simply quote several points which might be of interest to the readers.

  Of course, this research pertains to the USA and not to the Caribbean. However, we might note that the USA immigrant population comprises foreigners from all parts of the world, with very different histories, speaking many different languages, many from countries the USA has been at war with.

  We in the Caribbean are in a very different position. It is our own Caribbean brothers and sisters who are migrating as CARICOM nationals within the Caribbean region - this is the the scarey group of “immigrants” whom we speak about….

  Onto the White House report…and I quote….

  “Our review of economic research finds immigrants not only help fuel the Nation’s economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the income of native-born workers.”

  Immigrants increase the economy’s total output, and natives share in part of that increase because of complementarities in production. Different approaches to estimating natives’ total income gains from immigration yield figures over $30 billion per year. Sharply reducing immigration would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans

  Although subject to the uncertainties inherent to long-run projections, careful forward-looking estimates of immigration’s fiscal effects, accounting for all levels of government spending and tax revenue, suggest a modest positive influence on average. The fiscal impact of skilled immigrants is more strongly positive.

  These immigrants, like those in the past, work hard to improve their lot and that of their children. Their labor force participation rate, reflecting their concentration in prime working ages, is somewhat higher than that of natives (69% versus 66% in 2006), and conditional on being in the labor force their unemployment rate is somewhat lower than that of natives (4.0% versus 4.7% in 2006).13 Although their average income level is lower than natives’, Table 1 shows that they do fairly well in comparison with natives who have similar levels of education. Immigrants have low rates of incarceration compared to natives.14 And they are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activity.15 Children of Latino immigrants overwhelmingly learn English.16 Finally, relative to natives, the children of low-education immigrants narrow much of the educational and income gap that their parents faced.17

  As in the past, immigrants evince a strong work ethic, and the children of immigrants tend to assimilate in terms of language acquisition and educational attainment.”

  End quote.

  I am not en economist and do not read the world from a pure economic perspective. So although the above economic perspectives on immigration into the USA are positive, might we not think about our own intra-regional experience from perspectives other than economic ones?

  What about the “spirit” of being one Caribbean? Aren’t Caribbean people connected historically, geographically, politically, socially, physically, and culturally? Wendell Manwarren of Three Canal told me when we spoke about regional integration…”We can jump on a boat or a plane and go to another island, but it’s the jump in our mind that gives us the most trouble.”

  We Caribbeans need to strech our minds a bit.

  And while we’re at it, stretching our hearts may not be such a bad thing….

• Thomas Gresham // February 22, 2008 at 11:57 am

  Dear Annalee,

  I was struck by the simple power of your last comments

  When I have responded to the economic illogic of some of the thoughts on immigration and cost of living, some on this blog have said that I am neglecting the “softer issues” and then using the kind of uninformed racial stereotyping we would abhor elsewhere, they talk a Enoch-Powell-like fear and suspicion of the “other”.

  When you speak of softer issues you talk about respect, regional solidarity, and loving thy neighbour, emotions that have been largely absent here - except when Sister Baby is in a positive frame. (You also speak of one of my favourate artists, Wendell Manwarren of 3-Canal.)

  I also see some of these instincts in Peter Wickham’s position. These are basic decent instincts, essential for a good life, that I consider I was taught here in Barbados, but many seem to have forgotten.

• Sister Baby // February 22, 2008 at 12:32 pm

  Well Sir Thomas the reason I “hijack” this blogside sometimes with my offbeat banter is because some of your fellow country men think that we Guyanese are all Third World Failed State thugs coming to Barbados to undermine your lovely way of life and in some instances some here are even of the opinion that thier ethnicity will also change with the influx of Guyanese to Barbadosland. For example, they say some man named Sir Roy says people who are not like you are coming to Barbados. A statement such as that is loaded with ambiguity. What is Sir Roy saying here. For me that statement has mulitple meanings, especially if it is used in a context regarding Guyanese people. Anyway, I understand their concerns and I do feel they need to ask questions, but as you know there are no clear cut answers. In order for Barbados’ economy to grow there will be a need for immigrants, be it from Dominican Republic, Haiti, ugh and I hate to say Guyana oh my goodness, but I have no choice. By the way Sir Thomas, I have nver considered myself a West Indian/Caribbean. I am Guyanese first and foremost. I hear my fellow country men call themselves West Indians and I think to my self what foolishness is that. I am not for Guyanese integration into this Caricom. I am for integration with the rest of South America.

• Sister Baby // February 22, 2008 at 12:36 pm

  I think Andrian hit the nail. I know I am Guyanese and I carry my racism, my curry, obeah, roti, Guyana flag, mitai where everI go. And I have been to Mexico, Australia, Suriname, Brasil and the USA. That is just me and it’s the truth

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 1:00 pm

  Well Peter if you are confuse by my arguments I am not confuse by yours. I am not even going to dwell on the title of that article “accident by birth” as indicative of anything as I also will not agree that a genetic predisposition is required proof for most behaviors. Could it be that you saw the subjects “indo-Guyanese” of your article not has human beings with all the complex learnt behavior and practices that makes us who we are, but as data points to prove the argument of the day?
  Well I prefer to reflect on the demonstrated social behaviors of the “data points” contained in your “accident by birth” article and by so doing I can form a link to the illegal Indo-Guyanese in Barbados who are of the same social make up of the Guyanese in Guyana where you agree that there are “significant racial cleavages”. Yes two different articles addressing different issues but core to these two articles are the same ethnic group. I am looking at the real socialization of this group. Is this not reasonable?

  I am amaze that you would require an understanding of the Guyana situation at this juncture while acknowledging “racial cleavages” and at the same time argue for a continuation of open immigration. I have link the two articles because they both directly and indirectly discuss the practices of the Indo-Guyanese and while I am well aware that you are not an authority on what constitutes racism I also can identify what sociologists describe as “neutralization and Jamming techniques”. Only by facts and more so by the reality of human socializing in Guyana can I be persuaded away from my opinions.

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 1:26 pm

  Thomas Gresham // February 22, 2008 at 11:57 am

  Dear Annalee,

  I was struck by the simple power of your last comments

  When I have responded to the economic illogic of some of the thoughts on immigration and cost of living, some on this blog have said that I am neglecting the “softer issues” and then using the kind of uninformed racial stereotyping we would abhor elsewhere, they talk a Enoch-Powell-like fear and suspicion of the “other”.

  ==============================

  TG: If your “Logic” apparently leads you to conclude that immigration Guyana is nothing to be concerned about, and my observations of real behaviors on the ground in Guyana tells me that it is a racially divided society why should I ignore my real observations and accept your “Logic” ?????

  After the passage of time and myriad number of deaths and the Human Being is still alive and kicking on this earth is it logical to say that all human beings are immortal? Is it also logical for me to suggest that as a human being I to am immortal? Should i then rely on my Logic to be assured of my immortality after lets say a jump off the top of the QEH? or should i rely of my assumption and observations? :D :D

• Annalee Davis // February 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm

  Thomas,
  The notions of respect, regional solidarity, and the loving of thy neighbour which you wrote about as essential characteristics for a good life, are linked to the ethical components of this argument surrounding immigration and regional integration.

  So how de we deal with the challenges of the integrative movement in an ethical way?

  In light of the fears expressed on UP and elsewhere, programmes could be developed to assist the host country in dealing with the transition into a multi-cultural, multi-racial, diverse space.

  In addition, programmes might be put in place, based on local partnerships and interlinked to accompany migrants to prepare them better before they leave their home country as well as to help them integrate into the host country.

  Studies might be conducted to examine the phenomenon of intra-regional migration, which might help transcend the myths and fears related to migration as well as assist in the shaping of national policies based on the research.

  Caribbeans need to be taught how to speak about the transition of their region in respectful ways - sensitive to both the migrant who is looking to improve their livlihoods and to the host nation who fears the changes happening as a result of free movement.

  We must move beyond the negative banter which is not useful in dealing with the inevitable changes we must face as a region and as a people.

• Straight talk // February 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm

  David:

  Please read Enoch Powell’s famous speech of forty years ago.

  http://www.vigay.com/misc/riversofblood.html

  There are remarkable similarities between his then position and yours today.

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  Straight talk // February 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm

  David:

  Please read Enoch Powell’s famous speech of forty years ago.

  http://www.vigay.com/misc/riversofblood.html

  There are remarkable similarities between his then position and yours today.
  ==============================

  Is this straight talk or a comparison that needs to be proven? Lets say i don’t believe you, or better yet that you are incapable of being trust worthy on this subject, can you hightlight the similarities for me please? You wouldn’t want me to “trust” you without cause would you? :D

  Also if I said that the Brits are actively using logic and facts to deny their own existance and i use the following article as partial proof of this would i be incorrect? and why?

  http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10673119

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  Annalee Davis // February 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm

  Thomas,
  The notions of respect, regional solidarity, and the loving of thy neighbour which you wrote about as essential characteristics for a good life, are linked to the ethical components of this argument surrounding immigration and regional integration.

  So how de we deal with the challenges of the integrative movement in an ethical way?

  In light of the fears expressed on UP and elsewhere, programmes could be developed to assist the host country in dealing with the transition into a multi-cultural, multi-racial, diverse space.

  In addition, programmes might be put in place, based on local partnerships and interlinked to accompany migrants to prepare them better before they leave their home country as well as to help them integrate into the host country.

  Studies might be conducted to examine the phenomenon of intra-regional migration, which might help transcend the myths and fears related to migration as well as assist in the shaping of national policies based on the research.

  Caribbeans need to be taught how to speak about the transition of their region in respectful ways - sensitive to both the migrant who is looking to improve their livlihoods and to the host nation who fears the changes happening as a result of free movement.

  We must move beyond the negative banter which is not useful in dealing with the inevitable changes we must face as a region and as a people.
  ==============================

  Isn’t this message and approach better suited in the society where they are “significant racial cleavages”?

  Why make Barbadians understand the concept of repsect, solidarity, loving thy neighbour as thyself with respect to illegal indo-guyanese in Barbados, when it is clear that Guyaneses don’t seem to understand these concepts at home in Guyana? Can i say good idea wrong country?

• Thomas Gresham // February 22, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  Dear Adrian,

  I recommend you take a look at the parable of the good Samaritan.

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  A parable: A heavenly STORY with an earthly meaning. Kind of like your Theories in need of an Earthly application?

  Anyway i do. I act out the intent of that parable on my street, my community, one person at a time. Something that on a very large scale Guyanese need to be reminded of. You do accept that their is significant racial division there don’t you?

• Annalee Davis // February 22, 2008 at 4:14 pm

  Dear Adrian,

  Why are you so fixated on the illegal Indo-Guyanese as the source of division in Guyana and a potential source of discord in Barbados? Would you be more comfortable opening up the doors of immigration to one particular group and not another one?

  What of those complex situations where races have mixed and created off-spring who embody the entire region in one being?

  Where do you wish to draw the line?

  Ever heard the term “dougla”? What do we do with this group od people?

  Re the acting out of the parable. If everyone on your street and in your community looks like you, thinks like you and has a lot in common with you, the acting out of the parable might not be so tough.

  The value of the parable comes in learning that you are the other person regardless of what ethnic, racial, cultural form that other person takes…and most especially when the forms are different to yours.

  In other words:

  I am the other person.
  The other person is me.

  Parables inspire us through the tough times.

  Tough times ahead, Adrian…
  Maybe it’s time to reread the parable.

  If an Indo-Guyanese moves onto your street, and into your community, that parable might come in very handy.

  And in case you need help recalling the parable…it was told by Jesus in order to illustrate that compassion should be for all people, and that fulfilling the spirit of the Law is just as important as fulfilling the letter of the Law. Jesus puts the definition of neighbor into an enlarged context, beyond what people usually thought of as a neighbor

  Maybe you need to enlarge your context of neighbour to include a more diverse group of human beings….take a big jump and think of all Caribbean people in their diverse splendour, as your neighbours.

• Thomas Gresham // February 22, 2008 at 5:08 pm

  Dear Adrian,

  You response to the request to look at the parable of the Good Samaritan was “Anyway i do. I act out the intent of that parable on my street, my community…”

  You are a joke Adrian. The whole point of the parable is about how we treat outsiders. According to the parable and the times, the Jews and the Samaritans lived in very different communities and hated each other.

  I prefer data to biblical parables but I offered the parable because you didnt seem to understand the empirical data and suggested you wanted to address some of the societal issues.

  I do recommend you take a look at the Council of Economic Advisors summary of research on immigrants. Its written in layman’s language by a conservative White House. Here it is again for your ease of reference:

  http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_immigration_062007.html

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 7:05 pm

  If the influx of Guyanese to Barbados where the afro-Guyanese and they exhibited behavior, social behavior that is comparable to what is common places in Guyana my views would be the same. I am not a proponent of open immigration and I do not sanction illegal immigration. I am not against mixing of race, if two people can find common ground and fall in love as have occurred why not? We should encourage this some more in Guyana. Indeed some such thing must have occurred at some point in my ancestry, for as a kid growing I was often mistaken for and teased about being a “dougla” as the result of my hair. I am not that caught up in appearances, skin colour and other anatomical qualities and features to the point that I would hate someone who is different than me. I am more concern with behaviors. For me behavior determines the person. In my school days I dated a Guyanese Indian girl, there wasn’t much enthusiasm from her Mother and older siblings for this and I guess they tolerated it as I said I did have slight “dougla” qualities. It was effectively put to an end when her Uncle came up from Guyana, and in no uncertain terms left no doubt why the relationship was not to continue.

  I am not drawing a line, I am against this influx of indo Guyanese, the way and the reason for its occurrence and of particular concern is the racial divide and the economic difficulties it has spawned in Guyana.

  My street and community: On my Street the families are Liberian, Nigerian, Brazilian, Cape Verdian, Irish, Scottish, Polish, Russian, Hispanic, and Indian. The nearest Bajan to me is a Lady married to a Guyanese born Bajan raised man (black). My Son is taken to school every morning in a car pool run by a Jamaican “Dougla” name Peter Ramnaught and his Afro wife Collete. The City census for my Town says it is 60 percent white, 30 percent Hispanic, and 10 percent other. My State RI which is very liberal and is run by the academics at Brown University (probably why it is so screwed up) considers itself a sanctuary state for immigrants, yet there where recently rounding up “illegal immigrants”; there has been no change in the democratic control of our legislature. I played cricket with an all Indian team who celebrates the fact that I am from Barbados, home of Gary sobers and the fact that I can mimic Sir Gary’s bowling antics. There is an Indo-Guyanese who works with me who agrees with what I am saying here, that there is and have been a lot of racial divisions in Guyana. The Guyana Cricket team that plays in the Massachusetts Cricket league does not have one black on it, yet they are afro-Guyanese playing for other teams in the league.

  The parable of Samaritan never suggests to me that I am the other person and the other person is me. I literally took from it that I should help those who need help, which is what I do on my street and in my community. In the context of the Guyana situation it could not mean bringing or coercing them to leave Guyana to come to Barbados. I would think that it would mean for us to go to them and help them so that they can help themselves. I do not see how tough times in Guyana can lead to the interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan that says Barbados should open it’s doors to all in Guyana that are in need. In the context of the parable the Samaritan would have had to take the man into his home or along with him as you state to be part of him and not to have left him in the care of those at the INN for it to apply to illegal Guyanese being allowed into Barbados.

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 7:23 pm

  KJV Luke 10:30-37
  (30) And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
  (31) And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
  (32) And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
  (33) But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
  (34) And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
  (35) And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
  (36) Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
  (37) And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
  ==============================

  I do exactly as this passage of scripture dictates, on my street and in my community. Again would this not be better use counter the RACIAL DIVIDE IN GUYANA????

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 7:49 pm

  Please delete the one in moderation:

  I may be a Joke, and i will reserve my labels for you until later. I will not be detered by the name calling. It is clear that from reading the Bio of Dr. Lazear that he may be bias to open borders, and MAY just be relying on that data the supports his bias. Please don’t preach to me about this administrtion being a conservative Republican one. There is a reason why GW poll rating is below 30% and that of this current House of Representatives is even lower. It is immigration

  There are statistics for and against the benefits of immigration, and one has to bring to bare the schooling, and the affiliations of the author of the report. A lot of intellectual dishonesty abounds.

  It is likely that a pre 1960 economic graduate may have a different view of immigration to a post 1960 one.

  I have read this article

  http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/sactestimony050907.pdf

  and i have sent your CEA one to a few friends to compare.

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 8:00 pm

  Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

  =============================

  TG can you explaing this to me???

• Adrian Hinds // February 22, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  David: I hope that you are cognizant of the fact that it is the Academics who have resorted to name calling and labeling first. The use of words like xenophobic, racist, Enoch powell wunnuh bees, Joker etc.. I draw this to your attention now because i cannot gaurantee these “Academics” that i will not at some point respond in kind. I know what the gutter is like, I have listen to many a liberal professor in my time. :D

• David // February 22, 2008 at 11:26 pm

  We are amazed that BU’s position is now being paralleled with Enoch Powell. Truly amazing! How many times have we provided context to our position i.e. open door immigration and the impact of immigration on the socio-economic landscape of Barbados.

• Thomas Gresham // February 23, 2008 at 11:36 am

  Dear David,

  Here is one of the reasons why some stand accused of racism.

  In trying to explain the consensus view of economists on the net benefits of immigration, I have cited work by 1992 Nobel Prize Winner, Gary Becker and many other experts. Just see above.

  Adrian has responded with work by the “Centre for Immigration Studies”.

  The CIS is funded by White Supremacists with a penchant for funding research into trying to prove that blacks have a lower intelligence than whites.

  Below is the result of an investigation on CIS by an investigative journalist:

  “John Tanton has nearly single-handedly funded the evolution of the white supremacist movement by posing his groups as legitimate social science researchers but with a decidedly covert agenda. They’re like the Ku Klux Klan donning Brooks Brothers suits. At the end of the day, it’s still about fomenting bigotry and ignorance.

  The mothership of hate is U.S., Inc., an organization created by Tanton that simultaneously funds lobbyists, researchers and media who promote racist views while accepting funding from eugenics, neo-Nazis and wealthy ultraconservatives with a penchant for white supremacy…Chief among the groups Tanton has founded or funded are the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

  The Southern Poverty Law Center revealed that [FAIR] received more than $1.2 million in support from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation that, among other unsavory activities, finances eugenics research to prove intelligence differences between the races and to “create better humans through selective breeding.” The Wall Street Journal, in particular, has been critical of FAIR’s hyperinflated statistics and unscientific data…”

  “The Center for Immigration Studies has a special propensity toward the xenophobic by conflating Mexican immigration and Reconquista, the ridiculous notion that Mexico is planning to snatch the southwestern territory away from the United States.

  But, sadly, this snake pit of racism is legitimized by lazy reporters who can’t bother to spend a few minutes on Google ferreting out the backgrounds of the anti-immigration groups they cite as experts.”

• David // February 23, 2008 at 12:14 pm

  We welcome commenters using references to support positions. It is a wonderful approach to learning. Believe it or not we agree with TG that when citing references it is useful to go with academic works.

  It is against this background that we are staying with Dr. Kean Gibson’s research. We also want to remind our readers that research on the Guyana or Trinidad experience as a multi-ethnic society maybe more relevant.

• Thomas Gresham // February 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm

  If you follow academic research you should note that Gibson’s research has no academic status: publication in credited peer review journals, supportive citation in credited peer review journals, etc.

  The same cannot obviously be said of Gary S Becker’s research given that he was awarded the (Economics) Novel Prize. This is decided by the Swedish Academy of Sciences, partly in the basis of citations.

• Yardbroom // February 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm

  We have been called racists for suggesting that Barbados should have a clearly defined policy for Indo/Guyanese “illegal immigrants” entering Barbados.

  If two Barbadian Nationals one of:

  (1) African Heritage (black) and the other of
  (2) Indian origin.
  Were to attempt to enter India, this would be the requirements.

  Information as per:
  Bureau of Immigration India (Ministry of Home Affairs)

  “Foreigners carrying a valid PIO (person of Indian Origin) card or OCI ( overseas Citizens of India) card along with their valid national passport are authorized to enter India without obtaining India visa separately”.

  The above conditions would not apply to the black Barbadian black of African heritage he/she would have to apply for a visa.

  Is that racist ? - I only pose the question - countries do tend to look after what they think is in their national interest. Sometimes even husbands and wives of different races can find this a problem.

• Thomas Gresham // February 23, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  The ignorance in support of this xenophobia is amazing!

  India is not a race but a sovereign country.

  Many countries allow people with a connection to the country to have easy entrance. But they do not discriminate on the basis of colour, race or religion.

  In the UK you used to be able to gain citizenship if you had a British grandparent. It is how so many South Africans came to the UK.

  In Barbados my sons were born in London and have British passports, but when we returned to Barbados they needed no permits to stay because, although they did not yet have Barbadian passports, their father was Barbadian. There were viewed as having Barbadian origin on the basis of their father.

  India is saying that anyone, whatever their religion, race or colour have a preferential access if they have a previous connection with the country. There are many Anglo-Indians who can benefit from that.

  If Barbados were to do the same and give preference to people with an ancestor from Barbados that would be fine, no one would have an argument with that. We may find we get a number of afro and mixed Guyanese, Panamanians and others, but that is a world away from discriminating on the basis of colour or religion.

  I hope you can see the distinction.

• Yardbroom // February 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  One thing I have learned and not from my travels is good manners, as I learned them at an early age under a tamarind tree as a young boy, by example from my dear mother.

  You are therefore not ignorant but we have a difference of opinion.

  Since you are here I publicly call you out, you said I asked if you were black, - but I guess you have not got the manners to say you made a mistake - where and when did I ask such a question, I ask again?

  In the UK when it was said that the new immigrants would have to have a grandparent from the UK, everyone knew that the majority of black immigrants would not have that connection, as it would be only immigrants from Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand who would have that connection, not the New Commonwealth.

  Most people felt it was racist.

  The Barbados example you have mentioned is irrelevant, that is the policy of most countries and has no bearing on this debate.

• Thomas Gresham // February 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

  Yardbroom,

  I ignored your mistake. I never said you asked if I were black. I volunteered it because others had said I must be white or some such.

• Yardbroom // February 23, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  I have made no mistake.

  You addressed your reply to Yardbroom, and said Yes I am black, where is the mistake in that.

  Posted on 16 Feb 2008 12:36pm
  Topic: Trinidad Express Reporter Comments on the Growing Indo/Guyanese Population in Little Barbados.

• Thomas Gresham // February 23, 2008 at 8:06 pm

  Dear Yardbroom,

  I fear you are getting a little confused. I have not accused you and do not accuse you of asking me what colour I am. I simply volunteered it. You seem to be upset that I am upset about something, that I am not upset about?!@#?

  Moving on to (slightly) more substantive issues. I think we should give preferences to the Barbadian Diaspora.

  Indeed, in my “first life” I have proposed that Barbados should follow India’s model of encouraging its diaspora to connect to its country.

  I think Barbados does not fully leverage the wealth, creativity and experiences of our disapora all over the world. There is nothing racist in that unless we started discriminating in the preferences we give on the basis of colour, religion, or anything else.

  Giving our diaspora preferences should not also come to the exclusion of having a generally outward orientation to the world as a whole. Even when we add our diaspora we are too small to be navel gazing or too self-referential.

• Sister Baby // February 23, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  Hello Everyone, YEAH Today is Republic Day in Guyana. It is called Mashramini and today we celebrating as ONE- Out of many one BLACK NATION YEAH Happy Mash to one and all. YEAH YEAH Guyana come back. Oh Gosh Today would have been LFSB’s 85th birthday. Happy Birthday His Excellency the Great Leader of Guyana Prime Minsiter Forbes Burnham.

• Sister Baby // February 23, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  Hello Sir Thomas, I believe it is here where I read that in England East Indians are refered to as Asians. A category that they do not like, and that the previous English Gov’t under PM Tony Blair placed them in the category of honourary white people. India is a country in Asia, so tehcnically they would be Asians. Am I not right? I had an East Indian friend who told me that East Indians are Causcians, BUT whenver she was snubbed by the white people she would come running to me saying yes, we black people have to stay together. By the way just by the fact that I am chatting here with you all makes you all Guyanese citizens. You may re-call that I had a an old Bajan friend who had lived in GY for 50 years before returning home to St. Jospeh BDS. Well I see someone blogging with his last name in the Guyana section of Free Press.

• Sister Baby // February 23, 2008 at 9:43 pm

  Well you know the sun never sets on the Guyanese nation, due to the fact that you can find Guyanese in almost every nation of the world, from Nauru in the Pacific to all 50 US states and the District of Columbia, to Dubai and Mumbai and Macau and Japan Guyanaese account for 1% of the US poulation, in fact the US has listed Guyanese as a category.

• Adrian Hinds // February 24, 2008 at 12:16 am

  Thomas Gresham // February 23, 2008 at 11:36 am

  Dear David,

  Here is one of the reasons why some stand accused of racism.

  In trying to explain the consensus view of economists on the net benefits of immigration, I have cited work by 1992 Nobel Prize Winner, Gary Becker and many other experts. Just see above.

  Adrian has responded with work by the “Centre for Immigration Studies”.

  The CIS is funded by White Supremacists with a penchant for funding research into trying to prove that blacks have a lower intelligence than whites.

  Below is the result of an investigation on CIS by an investigative journalist:

  “John Tanton has nearly single-handedly funded the evolution of the white supremacist movement by posing his groups as legitimate social science researchers but with a decidedly covert agenda. They’re like the Ku Klux Klan donning Brooks Brothers suits. At the end of the day, it’s still about fomenting bigotry and ignorance.

  The mothership of hate is U.S., Inc., an organization created by Tanton that simultaneously funds lobbyists, researchers and media who promote racist views while accepting funding from eugenics, neo-Nazis and wealthy ultraconservatives with a penchant for white supremacy…Chief among the groups Tanton has founded or funded are the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

  The Southern Poverty Law Center revealed that [FAIR] received more than $1.2 million in support from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation that, among other unsavory activities, finances eugenics research to prove intelligence differences between the races and to “create better humans through selective breeding.” The Wall Street Journal, in particular, has been critical of FAIR’s hyperinflated statistics and unscientific data…”

  “The Center for Immigration Studies has a special propensity toward the xenophobic by conflating Mexican immigration and Reconquista, the ridiculous notion that Mexico is planning to snatch the southwestern territory away from the United States.

  But, sadly, this snake pit of racism is legitimized by lazy reporters who can’t bother to spend a few minutes on Google ferreting out the backgrounds of the anti-immigration groups they cite as experts.”

  ==============================

  Certainly you are not going to encourage me to accept whatever title you decide to place on me. Whether it is Becker or lazear or Camorata (CIS) you are not going to get me to accept that either of these persons has more legitimacy than the other, they are all agenda driven, and none of them will present sufficient data to drive me away from what i am seeing as concern all across this globe about unchecked immigration. I do not know that Camarota is a white supremacist on account of writing for the CIS which as you state was founded by persons with such ties, and i will not dismiss his articles on account of this and in favour of articles written by Becker and lazear on the account of they being awarded a nobel prize. The practice of rewarding noble prizes to economist continues to be argued against, and i would hazard a guess that the arguments against this designation that you are flaunting here to demonstrate the legitimacy over others is much more significant than any arguments against Camarota and the CIS. My sole purpose is to demonstrate the invalidity of economist in proving anything about immigration, because they are all agenda driven and cannot with any real certainty predict, human activity, at least to the point where i will accept that illegal immigration can be good thing for Barbados or the US, Canada, and probably any other country where it may be widespread.

• Anonymous // February 24, 2008 at 12:31 am

  The Freddie Kissoon
  A reply to Ulele, Forbes Burnham’s daughter

  In the August 20, 2007 issue of the Stabroek News, there appeared an article by Ulele Burnham, one of the daughters of the late President, Forbes Burnham. She reflected on the contents of a column of mine of August 6 (the day her father died) on the comparison between the rule of the government headed by her father and the present administration of Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo.
  I chose to keep this viewpoint on her commentary unpublished for six months because I wanted to reply on Mr. Burnham’s birthday, February 20. I missed that appointment because of the social implications of the Bartica massacre for the future of the Guyanese society. Obviously, from the 19th onwards my articles had to be on that theme.
  Today is Mashramani, the Caribbean style celebration of republican status invented by Mr. Burnham. I thought this day would be an appropriate occasion to cite the points of weaknesses in Ms. Burnham’s treatment of her father in that August 6, 2007 KN column of mine.
  Some of the Guyanese folks living in the Diaspora can be disappointing. Diana Abraham comes to mind. Ms. Abraham refuses to come to the rescue of Guyanese history. She survived an arson attack on her home (June 1964) during the civil disturbances of the sixties in which the PNC and the United Force on the one hand were locked in violent battle with the PPP Government on the other hand.
  Her father and six of her siblings were burnt alive. On trying to put that tragedy in its historical context, I received two mails from Diana Abraham asking me to retract what I wrote.
  It has not yet occurred to Ms. Abraham that she has a larger obligation to her country to write on this national tragedy. She stubbornly refuses to do so. She is only able to muster the willingness to keep asking me to apologize to her.
  In one of her correspondences, she was alarmed that I could have implied that she knows who the intellectual authors of the murder of the seven members of her family were. Her fear, she wrote to me, was that when she comes to Guyana to do research her life can be endangered. This was 41 years after her father and six siblings were deliberately killed. Her friend, Alicia Trotz wrote a letter in the Stabroek News calling for the truth into the Abraham murders but opined that Ms. Abraham should be left out of the pursuit because the truth does not hinge on what she has to say (I think that was the position of Dr. Trotz).
  Well, Dr. Trotz, I honestly do not agree. Ms. Abraham, I believe, is in her seventies and should start writing on the Hadfield Street tragedy.
  Ms. Ulele Burnham badly misinterpreted the subtle undercurrents in my article on her father. Here is what I think of Forbes Burnham. First, I concede that Mr. Burnham was an intellectually endowed leader. Secondly, I believe from what I heard he had a deep respect for friendship and a personality blessed with pleasant motifs.
  Thirdly, I think he is one of few Third World politicians that understood the shifting nuances of political relationships. This is a type of leadership quality the academics refer to as conceptual complexity. These were perhaps all the positive attributes of Forbes Burnham.
  Like Diana Abraham, Ms. Ulele Burnham was extremely disappointing in that she failed to build on my criticism of her father and pay her dues to history, an honour for some strange reason Diana Abraham does not want to have.
  Ulele Burnham seems to have found some satisfaction that I have admitted that many of the excesses we cri