Recently in Race Category

The Onion (satirical newspaper), publishes a very funny piece yesterday entitled "America Needs To Have A Superficial Conversation About Race".

The content is obviously North American, but it's uncannily on point for our own government sponsored Big Con(versation):

The people of America need to put aside their differences and come together on common ground. Especially at this crucial moment in our history. How better, I ask, to achieve this goal than to engage in an inconclusive, protracted, ignorant, and superficial examination of the issue of race?

The time for vagueness is now.

Over the past 20 years, our country has become intensely polarized. The gap between rich and poor has grown ever more vast. Voters on both sides are desperate for alternatives. If we ever hope to move into a new era of enlightened multicultural exchange, we must foster, on a national scale, a second-grade-level look into the most painful and difficult issue in America's cultural history.

Black, white, yellow, green, or brown— we can all be callously summed up in a trite statement of unity.

Like it or not, the U.S. needs a stupid conversation on the issue of race relations. Perhaps more importantly, we need this stupid dialogue to be couched in the most self-righteous, know-it-all attitudes on the part of those involved, as if they have no idea whatsoever of how much more complicated the issue is, and how little their one-dimensional approach to it brings to the table.

[Thanks to the reader who sent it on for a laugh.]

Recently, in the Wall Street Journal, guest columnist Shelby Steele wrote a very incisive commentary entitled "Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama".

Steele articulates in the American context exactly what I've always considered the problem with the PLP's approach to race but have never been able to express well (emphasis mine):

Mr. Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.

Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.

They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.

Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.

Read the whole thing, it's well worth it, but that section is very relevant to Bermuda.

The Big Con(versation) in Bermuda is an official exercise in the manipulation and amplification of white guilt. Ewart Brown said as much in the contentious post-election interview with BBC Caribbean:

EB: This discomfort is part of the healing.

NN: But but it could also make the problem worse…

EB: I don’t think so. We take the risk of healing the country. It’s a risk you have to take.

NN: But you see, you see Premier, the first thing you are doing is reaching out to your black electorate. You haven’t said anything as of yet about reaching out to the white part of your population and that …

EB: That’s because you didn’t raise it.

The PLP forged both their ideology and identity during the tumultuous times of the 1960s and 1970s. Ewart Brown in particular spent his formative years in the US Civil Rights movement not Bermuda's. It should not come as a surprise then that his politics are precisely those of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Steele's comments on Uncle Toms are incredibly relevant to Bermuda as well; they explain why the PLP attack non-PLP blacks as sell-outs, house n*ggers and white apologists:

For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites.

Black UBP candidates know precisely what this is all about; being black and not in the PLP is the ultimate sin.

Blacks who join the UBP have made a decision to pursue a partnership which cannot exist with a continued focus on exploiting white guilt and demand that blacks fall in lockstep with the sole legitimate black political ideology of the PLP.

Stan Ratteray (who I had the honour of spending time with for a few years before he passed away) for example fought as a key member of the Progressive Group with the Theatre Boycott to end segregation and then became a UBP MP.

You can't argue that he didn't support civil rights, but he did eschew manipulating white guilt as a political strategy.

Politicians across both parties in Bermuda admire and dare I say envy Obama. One of Obama's challenges is that many people are trying to latch onto his popularity, but - at the risk of appearing to be one of those - substantively and temperamently, the politics of the PLP are the antithesis of Obama's.

As Steele so well demonstrates, Obama expressly rejects the identity politics that the PLP thrive on and that the US Republicans and Jesse Jackson style black-Democrats have used to great success.

Obama has translated this into incredible cross over appeal, creating a not insignificant conservative support base, even though he's a Democrat.

Without a doubt he is also a very savvy political operator, he is not the Messiah by any means, as demonstrated in Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker's excellent essay over almost a month ago (the essay of which seemed to get lost in controversy over the cover cartoon).

The irony of course is that while Obama has been embraced by the PLP (and envied by the UBP), his political circumstances and philosophy is much more UBP than PLP.

His language is conciliatory; he is an incrementalist not a revolutionary; he is a coalition builder; he seeks to bring people together and bridge differences.

I think these traits are part of who he is as an individual (coupled with extraordinary charisma, intelligence and rhetorical skills), but you can't ignore the fact that he has to be these things because he is in the demographic minority in the US.

As are the UBP in Bermuda.

Obama's campaign knows that it has to address race, but avoids it as a central issue as much as it can.

If he is pigeon-holed as "The Black Candidate" he loses. During the Primaries the Clinton campaign tried unsuccessfully (and delicately) to make this stick, but the intent was clear.

What's the parallel in Bermuda? It's obvious. The PLP's primary objective is to make sure that the UBP are "The White Party".

While the UBP tries to generally avoid race, the PLP make sure it's injected into every press release - both implicitly and explicitly. The UBP try and build a coalition, but it's a delicate one that has suffered from them ceding their branding to the PLP for at least a decade. (Obama's branding on the other hand is masterful.)

I don't want to go too far off into Obama-land, but like Steele demonstrates in his column, what is causing such tension in Bermuda now is the full-court press on white guilt.

Because while the PLP often point out that whites vote overwhelmingly for the UBP as proof of racism, what doesn't get said is that the PLP's explicit appeals to black racial solidarity and identity, coupled with language which is exclusionary not inclusive, has the equal and opposite effect of driving white support away.

The PLP's appeal to whites to join the party is based on white guilt: "You're a racist if you don't join us." Not the most welcoming invitation is it.

This is an easy win win for their identity politics driven approach as they're in the demographic majority. Sadly demographics are a crude fact of life in politics.

For the PLP they're also a political luxury, one that Obama doesn't have in the US, but also something that he may not need.

The UBP had better be taking notes.

I don't want to dwell on this Tim Wise Mid Ocean interview too much, but it's worth revisiting briefly to touch on something he said which is a) hard to believe, b) incredibly inflammatory and c) at best an unreliable anecdote:

When I came here last time I had a conversation with a young black man who said he'd had a conversation with a white woman who he knew to be otherwise fairly rational. She says to him, "I'm afraid that if Dr. Brown wins and the PLP (Progressive Labour Party) wins re-election, that we're gonna become another Zimbabwe and they're going to start slaughtering white people on the lawn of Parliament, that they're just gonna start shooting us and killing us and beheading us and machete-ing us and they're just gonna kill us.".

I can say, definitively, without question, that I have never heard even the most unguarded white racist make that kind of comment about the PLP. Ever. Full stop.

That conversation as characterised is frankly, more than hard to believe. I am yet to meet any Bermudian that expressed a fear that a PLP election victory would see whites slaughtered on the lawn or Parliament, shot, beheaded or machete'd.

Just typing that sentence is an exercise in ridiculousness.

I've heard some pretty irrational fears about Dr. Brown and others in the PLP, but I've also heard some pretty rational ones - and others that have come to pass (Bermuda Cement Company, attempts to circumvent Parliament, abuse of public funds on the Friends and Family plan - Playboy Mansion). Some were founded in racism, others in reality.

For Wise to cite that example when it is completely unsubstantiated - at best second-hand - is the height of irresponsibility for a supposed academic. It only inflames and plays into simplistic and harmful stereotypes.

Later in the interview Wise returns to that story and characterises the comment as follows:

Q: The woman who thought she'd be killed by the PLP, how would you get a person like that involved?

A: I don't know that someone who's that far gone frankly, in their panic, is gonna ever come to this conversation.

How is that absurd comment, that the PLP would 'slaughter whites', any different from the now notorious statement (delivered in various iterations over a span of years) that a vote for the UBP would be a vote "back on the Plantation" (Premier Brown) or would "return the shackles to our [black Bermudians'] feet"? (PLP Candidate Lovitta Foggo).

Those comments are equally insane.

I see two possibilities: Either the the sentiments were sincere, in which case those who uttered them are equally as panicked and irrational as Wise's white woman; or the comments were delivered intentionally as highly inflammatory political rhetoric (it's beyond metaphoric) intended to play on racial fears, push buttons and stoke racial animosity, in which case the individuals who uttered them should be condemned.

But here's the kicker: Either way the election comments by political candidates are worse; they weren't delivered by some random yet powerless individual like Wise's anecdote, they were delivered by a Cabinet Minister/ Premier and an ultimately successful candidate for Parliament who have not just the bully pulpit and spotlight of political office, but the power to actually shape public policy.

If Wise thinks that the white woman who is scared of being slaughtered can't come to the [Big] Con(versation), how does he think people who've expressed the same sentiments in reverse can lead it?

If you haven't read Tim Wise in the Mid Ocean interview today you should, if only to realise how uninformed he is.

The statement below should clarify just how inapplicable this guy's theories are to Bermuda:

"But the reality is the white people who aren't rich - is their mortgage in the hands of a black banker. Is their job in the hands of a black employer. Is their child's education in the hands of a black teacher."

Yes. Yes. And yes in many cases.

He gives himself a little wiggle room as an escape hatch, but it's all for naught wrapped up in consultant-speak:

"If so, then at least theoretically they could have a point although we'd still have to excavate the practicality."

Excavate the practicality? Huh? Consultant mumbo-jumbo. Perhaps we need to find some 'synergies' so that we can determine his 'value added' 'going forward'.

If he wasn't being thrust to the fore as the authoritative voice on race by the political spin doctors and Bermuda's equivalents of Lenin's soviet sympathisers - rather harshly termed his "Useful Idiots" (those who are lapping the Big Con up) - it would serve as an entertaining diversion.

Larry Burchall in the Bermuda Sun today calls him a 'snake oil salesman'. That's a little harsh; he's simply a businessman. One literally in the business of race.

He knows who his audience is and has carved a nice living off this issue.

Anyone with a clue about Bermuda knows that probably over half of Bermuda's mortgages are held with a 'black banker', namely Phillip Butterfield, CEO of the Bank of Bermuda and the brother of the Premier (a scenario that is eerily similar to the old Front St. oligarchy with Bank CEOs with close ties to the political leadership).

Someone might also like to inform him that all Bermudian children - regardless of race - have been, and will continue to be, educated by black teachers, despite his prejudicial and uninformed statement to the contrary about how many white parents will have their children educated by black teachers.

I'd say all at some point in their lives.

Same goes for black employers and business owners with white employees.

Lots.

Maybe in America he can make these arguments, but not here. He's clearly clueless here (hence why he was hired: easily manipulated to the political agenda).

Wise applies his US-centric view, where blacks are a demographic minority (~12%), to Bermuda where they are in fact a majority (~ 70%). Of course they could practice racial discrimination if they so desired.

That's not a controversial statement. It's a fact.

He is an American who was intentionally selected because his angle meshes well with a political agenda and he'll happily give his stump speeches to a new audience. He's been imported to peddle those inapplicable arguments here at probably pretty good rates.

This is the same North American view that Ewart Brown experienced living outside of Bermuda and is his context when talking about Bermuda (Back to the plantation talk for example), so it plays right into his hand.

Whether discrimination does occur in fact is an entirely different argument; but it's not helpful for this so-called expert to be given a pedestal to peddle his product in a place he clearly knows so little about.

This is a business for him, and Consulting 101 tells you to maximise your profit margins by reusing your work. So from that perspective I'm not surprised.

I'd suggest he spend more time listening and less time talking about a place and a history he clearly knows little to nothing about.

Someone forwarded me a link to an article from The Root, which they presumably picked up from Slate which also links to it.

[The Root is a website owned by The Washington Post Company and created in conjunction with great author and historian Henry Louis Gates and HBO, focusing on commentary from an African American perspective.]

It's a good piece of satire, and like all effective satire exposes a whole lot of truth.

The piece is entitled "The Original Black Man's Guide to the Press: Ten easy rules for spinning the white man's media", which is pretty self-explanatory.

You'll no doubt see that much of what is recommended is being deployed in full effect within our 21 miles, such as:

Rule #4: Make continual references to healing as your comments become increasingly offensive -- this will confuse the white man. Also, replace the word "reporters" with "distorters."

See local examples here and here.

Here's another;

Rule #8: You should be sure to lecture white people about how they can't understand because "you don't know your history" and don't hear your pain and you by contrast can feel THEIR pain because black people are more empathetic than their former slave master and his descendants.) This is a perfect time for you to mention that black people "cannot be racist because we don't have any power." (Ignore the implication that black people in powerful positions are, by definition, not really powerful. Or not really black.)

Local example, the ongoing Big Con, and CURB's Lyn Winfield's argument that black Bermudians cannot be racist.

Vexed is vexed, and asks a good question, but one which has a very simple answer:

It does not make sense to me that our Government invests huge sums every year in projects like the African Diaspora Trail, that are so remote from lives of Bermudians and unlikely to contribute to our community or economy, but will not make any effort to preserve elements of our own local black history.

It makes sense to me: The African Diaspora Trail is about the politicians, while institutions such as Alexandrina Hall are about everyday people. I'll defer to the Bermuda Sun's Larry Burchall, who penned what will probably become a notorious rage against the political machine on the Alexandrina Hall topic.

Vanity projects for the political elites take precedence. Plain and simple.

A trip to Alexandrina Hall doesn't generate air miles, nor does it come with a limo ride, celebrity cameos or networking opportunities. (It's not just cultural, it's tourism too).

Bermuda's historically black institutions and landmarks (and non-black ones) are little more than bumps on the SDO highway.

A reader contributes a very reasonable and astute take on race, racism and ultimately classism in today's Bermuda:

The whole concept that racism requires power has grown in popularity primarily in the US, where not only are blacks disadvantaged socially, economically, etc. but also where they are an overwhelming minority.

Attempting to use paradigms from the US and its problems with race makes little sense in Bermuda to me, where we currently have a black government and a population that is predominantly black.

The biggest problem I see in Bermuda is that white people are unable to comprehend institutional racism and the legacy that slavery has left. Many white people will say "Why should I be sorry for something that happened 300 years ago," or some such nonsense. The painful truth is that segregation was not so long ago, and to think that the cumulative effects of slavery/segregation, etc can be nullified in a couple of generations is disingenuous. Real measures need to be taken to make sure all people are on a level playing ground.

On the flip side, it seems the black community is taking it to heart that they can not be held accountable for racist behaviour because they have suffered in the past, and have an exemption based on the "racism requires power" card. This thinking may be correct at a large systemic level, but doesn't account for what can happen on an individual level. If a black person is beaten by five white people in a dark alley because of his colour, that is racism. The same holds true if the tables are turned, period.

All the squabbling takes away from the real "ism" that we face today, which is classism. Rich black Bermudians golfing at the Mid-Ocean club have a lot more in common with other rich folks, regardless of their colour. Poorer working white folks have more in common with their fellow black workers than with the CEOs of the island. Now, the wealthy have power, and they're looking out for themselves and each other, while the rest of us are focused by this "conversation" on race. Rather than the big conversation, I'd call it the "big distraction."

After my previous post about the misuse of the term racism, a number of people responded in person and by email with the “I was just talking to someone about that myself” and then subsequently Jonathon Starling continued his series on race and racism and weighed in on defining racism.

I actually think that blogs (particularly ones without the noise of hysterical comments on race) can be good places to have this discussion. In Bermuda the topic of race traditionally produces more heat than light, but in this medium all sides can get their thoughts out uninterrupted and not fall prey to the heat of the moment in intense discussions and get sidetracked.

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, we don’t need to define race and racism, we need to use the existing definitions, and not so much dictionary ones as sociological ones.

I think that the problem we have in Bermuda is that we're trying to put a political definition on a sociological concept. Race and politics have become completely intertwined - and when you mix race and politics all you get is politics.

The result is that race has been hijacked as a political construct, rather than a sociological one. (On this front I feel a certain amount of qualification to discuss it rather than just bloviate like usual, as my degree is in Sociology and Political Science, where I studied both social and political theory. It was a while ago, but I'm not that old.)

The concept of racism is well defined and quite simple and doesn’t need to be redefined. But here’s what Jonathon says (read the whole post as well):

Christian defines ‘racism’ as ‘not an action, but a belief system.’ The action, according to him, is called ‘racial discrimination.’

Christian and I, apparently, have different interpretations of this word ‘racism,’ which adds to the importance of having a discussion about definitions - and yes, I’m fully expecting a flood of dictionary quotations in response to this post…

To me the belief system, the ideology, of ‘a belief in a racial group’s intrinsic superiority over another (or others)’ is what I call ‘racialism’ or ‘racial supremacy.’ Racism however is the action of discrimination, racialism/racial supremacy in practice. Racism can be overt, as it was in the days of segregation and organised repression, or it can be covert and largely unconscious. This covert form is what I consider institutional racism, and can be in the form of unintentional media or in hiring practices or so on.

Ok, let’s take this one piece at a time.

Firstly, an ‘ism’, is absolutely, 100%, by definition, a belief system. Ism’s don’t need power, just someone with a pulse and brainwaves. ‘Isms’ denote an ideology, and ideologies absolutely do not require action. They’re just thoughts. I can’t say this enough, or strongly enough, but I don’t want to bore you.

In Jonathon’s case, his idea of racism is properly referred to as racial discrimination; what I described in my previous post as the continuum from prejudice, to racism, to discrimination.

I don’t want to beat this to death but it’s important to get this right, and not redefine it in a way that feeds into divisive political agendas (not that Jonathon is doing that, but others are).

Jonathon goes on to argue that racism is active discrimination while racialism is the belief system.

I don’t mean to be flip, but that’s just wrong.

Wikipedia covers it well, and has perhaps the most straight forward definition and history of the term ‘Racialism’ and ‘racism’ (which used to be flipped in their connotations). Now they’re often used as synonyms neither require action, (because they’re –isms, see above), they’re beliefs.

Racialism has a subtle difference than racism, in that racialism doesn’t posit a hierarchy of races whereas racism does, but does see race as indicating certain traits for example (ie. mental, physical abilities etc.).

As Wikipedia currently defines it:

Racialism entails a belief in the existence and significance of racial categories, but not necessarily in a hierarchy between the races, or in any political or ideological position of racial supremacy. One racialist position is the controversial claim of a measurable correlation between race and intelligence, or race and crime. Less controversial observations on correlations of e.g. race and height, race and disease or race and penis size are strictly speaking also racialist positions.

This distinction between racism and racialism is less important to me than debunking the idea that racism requires power and denotes an action.

It quite simply does not. And I think in Jonathon's conclusion he underestimates or largely ignores the massive influence of Government power economically, which seems to be his focus. With a billion dollar budget, and a large bureaucracy and tight immigration controls, Government power (both economic and regulatory) in a small place like Bermuda is massive.

Jonathon goes on to say that “Prejudice by the way is a related form of racialism/racial supremacy. I connect it to a combination of the ideology with limited power.”

Again, prejudice doesn’t need power, limited or otherwise. You can be prejudiced but lack the power to act on it.

The reason I’m harping on this is because in Bermuda, and elsewhere, but I’m most interested in Bermuda, we can’t have a conversation about race if the discussion begins with complete misnomers.

It is important, as Jonathon rightly says and attempts, to get on the same page with definitions, but let’s use the correct ones and not the ones that have been thrust on us by politicians whose careers are dependent on maintaining their gatekeeper status on anything to do with race.

As I said some time ago in a Royal Gazette column, I have very little interest in participating in political directed and driven discussions on race, because they are completely incompatible.

Reaching some understanding on race, both historical and current, requires understanding and compromise. Politics too often involves the complete opposite. Politics is a zero sum game and is ultimately about winning.

As long as we continue to permit discussions on race to be politically directed we won’t make much progress, because political parties - particularly ones that heavily engage in appeals to group identity - have little interest in reaching a genuine understanding or compromising, the goal is to drive people into certain camps based on some common trait.

Many politicians have as far, if not further, to go on this topic as the general public.

It would be helpful, if we're going to have a discussion about race and racism, particularly a 'Big Conversation', if some of those placed with leading the discussions actually understood the terminology and concepts.

Consider the following exchange:

Meanwhile, panelist and president of CURB, Lynne Winfield, was challenged by a white audience member on her views that black people cannot be racist because "racism comes with power".

She responded this way: "By definition blacks cannot be racist because as a group, even though there is a black political party in power now, as a group that do not have the power of the whites have over blacks."

Setting aside the rather confusing final sentence, either a poor transcription or a clumsy spoken response, the audience member was correct - Ms. Winfield is misusing the term racism.

Racism is not an action, but a belief system. Racial discrimination would involve power, racism in itself does not. It is quite simply a belief in a racial group's intrinsic superiority over another (or others).

The term racism seems to be being expanded lately, with it common in Europe to hear acts against Muslims for example described as racist. Religions span races.

By definition, power is not required to hold a belief.

There is a continuum that begins with prejudice and ends with discrimination, racism lies somewhere in between and is certainly not exclusive to one racial group.

Everyone prejudges things in their lives (not just racial), but not everyone translates that into racist beliefs and not all racists engage in active discrimination (or hold the power to do that).

The idea that a whole racial group cannot have members who are racist is a very destructive concept to float around as it excuses or encourages racist acts or statements by members of that group and actually promotes a lack of tolerance through a feeling of immunity. In fact, believing a racial group cannot itself be racist IS racist.

And, as a final note, racism is about individual acts as much as group actions - if not more so.

If Ms. Winfield doesn't believe that a 'black political party' (whatever that means) has power to engage in racial discrimination against whites for example, may I suggest she have a chat with Jim Butterfield - who through the exertion of Government power against him because of his race - had his business forcibly taken from him and ironically handed to a white ally of the 'black government' (or at least the Premier of that 'black Government'), a Government that immediately dropped the previously non-negotiable terms.

Constructive dismissal is probably the best characterisation of what occurred.

I've mentioned identity politics a few times lately, and have been meaning to flesh out the concept in more detail on the site as it is a staple of the PLP's politics, going into overdrive during election periods, but it hasn't been scrutinized in the scheme of a broader political analysis.

A reader recently sent me a paper authored in 2004, which included the PLP's 2003 election campaign in a study entitled "Social Identity, Political Speech, and Electoral Competition".

The incidence of identity politics practiced by the PLP in the 2003 election was described as follows:

Levels of group-based appeals in this election while not intolerant or threatening were nonetheless significant. It was the rhetoric of the incumbent PLP, the party of the plurality group, for which group-based appeals were most evident.18 The PLP reelection campaign was based on emphasizing the party’s accomplishments in government and appeals to racial solidarity. The form of these appeals ranged from implicit messages focusing on the party’s history as an advocate for blacks’ full participation in the political and economic life of the island to explicit messages that instructed voters that casting their ballots was an affirmation of their identity as blacks. The party designated July 24th, the day of the election, “Affirmation Day” and organized several well attended “Affirmation Rallies.”

A look at a few examples of the rhetoric at the rallies and in the campaign generally makes it clear that voters were being asked to make an affirmation of their identity with their vote not simply returning an incumbent government to power or making a statement of party loyalty. The party’s leader and the country’s premier Jennifer Smith told the audience at the campaign’s culminating rally that “On November 9, 1998 (date of last election and first PLP win) we liberated ourselves and Bermuda. On July 24, we will affirm that decision” (Greening 2003).

PLP Transport Minister Dr. Ewart Brown rallied the same audience with “We must not go back, we must go forward ... Have you ever heard of any people on the planet who have voted their way back onto the plantation?. . . ” (Greening and Johnson 2003). Smith, in an open letter during the week of the election in one of the island’s most read weekly newspapers, wrote “We brought unprecedented passion to putting the Bermudian identity first, as demonstrated by last year’s inauguration of the trans-Atlantic African Diaspora Heritage Trail . . . When we meet voters on the doorsteps, they look into our eyes and see themselves. This is what sets us apart.” (Smith 2003). These types of appeals were central to the PLP’s campaign strategy and indicate a clearly higher level of group-based rhetoric than what we have already described for recent elections in Belize. This pattern is consistent with the prediction that increasing independents tends to decrease levels of group rhetoric.

The rest of the paper goes into the practice of identity politics in more detail, and is a good read.

You don't need to be a political scientist to know that this was practiced much more aggressively in the 2007 election, and also in the lead-up, primarily as a defence mechanism against the allegations of political corruption leaked in the BHC Police files.

Readers write on the Obama speech:

Your point that Ewart Brown (and many in the PLP leadership) are the antithesis of Obama is lost on many in Bermuda that admire both Obama and Brown. Many would consider Brown to be our Obama when, in fact, in the context of the speech, Brown is a spitting image of Reverend Wright.

Bermuda would benefit greatly to understand Obama's lesson. We ought to condemn angry racial rhetoric but not the person who utters it. This is possible only if we understand the origin of the anger and work to deal with it productively.

And another:

It seems to me that Obama is saying "I recognise that some of Jeremiah Wright's public stances are wrong and damaging but nevertheless I feel he is also a force of significant good in my community and to me." In other words, he's human. This is a point that the Bermuda revisionists will not concede about Bermuda's past leaders, and will always be a sticking point for the Big Conversation.

Obama's address yesterday was profound, but it was also long for our attention deficit disorder society.

The upside of that however is that it covers a lot of very important territory; watching and listening gives you the full measure of the man though.

While his speech was intended for an American audience and is American in context, many of the themes are very applicable to Bermuda.

So in that vein, over the next couple of days, I'll be taking segments and highlighting them as well as expanding on some of my initial comments yesterday.

Here's a segment that hits precisely what is wrong with discussing race in Bermuda, and that is that it is almost always done with political overtones. And, when you mix race and politics all you get is politics, destructive politics:

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This is the way race really needs to be dealt with by politicians (Youtube clip at end of this post).

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

While it was a political speech, it is actually much more than that.

It is impressive not just in its content, but in what it says about Obama's temperament in particular. It is unusually nuanced and appeals to people's intellect rather than their prejudices. It's realistic yet idealistic.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

Most importantly, it explicitly rejects the easy point scoring with which race has traditionally been used and abused in political discourse.

On the other hand this is what a speech on race should not be. Race is not a weapon; nor should it be deployed as a defense mechanism for poor ethics.

To borrow a paragraph from Obama:

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

A lot of people, including our own Premier, are trying to piggy back on Obama for their own political purposes.

But, after listening to this speech, seeing Obama campaign, and understanding what he has experienced and worked for in his life, it should be clear that Obama is in fact the antithesis of Ewart Brown and the PLP's identity politics.

Obama explicitly rejects using race as a wedge issue. He explicitly rejects identity politics. He challenges all sides to find the middle ground, not scorching the earth to mask his own inadequacies.

This was a remarkable speech by a remarkable candidate.

Our leaders and aspiring leaders would do well to consider Obama's words and emulate his approach; rather than try and simply ride his coattails without a little introspection.

Seeing as we're having fun, here's a couple more pretty entertaining websites:

Stuff White People Like

The Top 10 Rap Songs White People Love

For the record, I don't like many of those rap songs, but I know lots of people who do.

I am firmly of the opinion that the greatest rap group of all time (excluding Run-D.M.C. which you have to say) is without question Public Enemy, particularly the album It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, followed closely by Fear of a Black Planet.

DISCLAIMER FOR THE HYPER SENSITIVE: The following is intended as humour (specifically mocking white culture).

A reader sent on me the following pretty funny website, called:

White Whine: A new white person complaint every day of the week.

It's hard to pick a favourite among the complaints:

Complaint 130: “I really wish the Wings DVD’s would get here… I’m almost done with Mad About You.”

Complaint 143: “I only checked out one Country CD on Amazon.com and now all my recommendations are Country music!”

Equally entertaining is (again a joke website):

Black People Love Us!

Dedicated to the "But haven't you read Tim Wise or Robert Jensen Big Conversation crowd."

See disclaimer above.

I've been a little distracted lately, but came across an interesting book review last Wednesday that I wanted to highlight. I ordered in on Thursday and it isn't yet in Bermuda, but it was subsequently reviewed in the Royal Gazette on Friday (not online).

The book is called "The Race Card" and is written by a Stanford University Professor.

I won't rewrite the NY Times' review, but it does appear to tackle modern day race and racism in a much more sophisticated and nuanced manner than the blunt force trauma method employed here by the politically oriented "Big Conversation".

An interesting theory is what Mr. Thompson Ford calls "racism without racists", which is a very effective summation of a lot of what is called racism in Bermuda but is something entirely different (like criticism of the PLP Government):

In the cabdriver phenomenon, for example, many drivers who refuse to stop for black passengers are themselves black, Mr. Ford points out, and others are Asian or Middle Eastern. Some are motivated not by antipathy toward blacks but by a fear of being asked to drive into a dangerous neighborhood. Some are rushing to return their cabs to the depot.

This may be racism, but of a special variety that Mr. Ford calls “racism without racists.” Disproportionately, and because of past racism, black Americans live in dangerous neighborhoods, which nonracist cabdrivers might reasonably wish to avoid.

Similarly, when Oprah Winfrey, in a celebrated instance, was turned away from an Hermès shop in Paris, racism might or might not have been the cause. The circumstances suggested several reasons other than racism for why she was not let in: she arrived after closing, for example, and the store was preparing for a special event.

Sometimes life deals out injuries and setbacks. Not all rise to the level of a social problem requiring legal remedy. “If both racism and a more innocent or more complex explanation are plausible causes of an incident, it’s just as wrong to insist on racism and refuse to consider the other possibility as it would be to deny the possibility of racism, ” Mr. Ford writes.

Even so. “If the reason for Oprah’s humiliation was that the incident at Hermès triggered memories of her past experiences with racism, then Oprah’s race was the reason she felt humiliated,” Mr. Ford writes. “In this sense, Oprah was humiliated because of her race.”

I'm looking forward to reading the book.

I get the sense that it will provide a welcome balance to the one-sided and simplistic preaching of the Big Conversation; a political exercise which is hyper focused on historic white on black racism, not the much more complicated and applicable modern day racial dynamics.

Today's article in the Bermuda Sun, I think really reveals the problem that faces the UBP.

Pat Gordon Pamplin articulates an unbending commitment to character and ability not race, while Shawn Crockwell articulates that as the goal but questions whether it is viable in the racially dominated political scene.

Pat:

Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin challenged Mr. Crockwell's assertion that the party may need to push forward a young black image. Mrs. Gordon-Pamplin said: "People should be pushed to the fore on the strength of their talents and their talents alone. Have we really reached the stage in this country where the only consideration is the color of someone's skin?

"If I made a decision based on someone's race I would be compromising my core values and the values of the party. If we compromise our values we may as well pack up and go home."

Shawn

The political arena is very unfriendly to white people right now. The PLP set out to make it that way. Now, of course, we can continue to fight the good fight. We can refuse to have this dictated to us by other people. But I hope we can be mature enough to look at this as it is. The electorate sent us a message. I now think it's going to be expected that certain people are going to have to draw back."

The problem with selecting a white leader?

The PLP will attack them as old guard.

The problem with selecting a black leader?

The PLP will attack them as a sell-out puppet.

The party has a duty to work through this, but it's complicated. I'd also argue that the UBP vision, as articulated by Pat, is ahead of the electorate right now.

Politics isn't necessarily about being right.

My sense is there is about a 2 year window before it would start to make sense for the PLP to call a predatory snap election.

If you're interested in the low down on political dirty tricks (in case you didn't learn enough during our election campaign) a former Republican practitioner is interviewed by Newsweek on his new book entitled "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative".

Money quote:

The point there would be to try to tap into potentially latent bigotry, to force that household to make a particular decision on its vote. You're tapping into triggers. When I was working, the main thing was to win, not to be moral.

Indeed. Much of what he discusses is what the PLP utilised during the campaign, push polling, telemarketing, barring a sitting MP from visiting constituents in a Government building etc..

The PLP would abhor the tactics this individual engaged in to exploit white bigotry, but they unleashed the exact campaign themselves in reverse.

The 2007 election campaign has set back political discourse and race relations severely.

The unspoken impetus behind Government's push to oust the Bermuda Cement Company ownership was of course 'black empowerment', or perhaps more accurately, destroying a supposed symbol of the supposed white establishment.

But with the new ownership, most significantly Correia construction of unsuccessful but high-profile PLP candidate Jane Correia (you're not really surprised are you?), it's pretty clear that the model of black empowerment being peddled by Ewart Brown is awfully white, other than himself of course.

The next climbdown will of course be the requirement to relocate the silos 300 yards and you'll have an official case of a Government faciliated hostile takeover. And people wonder why S&P removed our positive outlook?

This is yet another incredibly cynical manipulation and exploitation of the hope and aspirations of many black Bermudians; but I'm not surprised.

If you're sick of me pointing out the many parallels between current Bermuda and US politics, stop reading here.

I am a huge fan of Barack Obama. I don't know if he'll win the nomination, but I gravitate towards the TV when I hear his baritone and read everything that I can about him. Obama has always represented for me the right kind of politician; he is collaborative not combative, willing to stand on principle, refuses to pander, dumb down his message or play to people's base instincts as so many politicians do, isn't ashamed to be an intellectual, but most significantly, he embodies the future not the past.

Today, as Vexed Bermoothes picked up (presumably from one of my favourite US blogs, Andrew Sullivan), he delivered a speech which is oh so relevant to where we find ourselves today in Bermuda:

"I think there's no doubt that we represent the kind of change that Senator Clinton can't deliver on and part of it is generational. Senator Clinton and others, they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60's and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

Feel familiar?

As I said in my Royal Gazette column today:

There’s only one party that, if we’re honest, knows that it has no option but to produce results, be collaborative, and move Bermuda out of a half century long racial/political argument that is going precisely nowhere.

Evidently Obama's been getting to me.

A reader writes on the first slur of the 2007 campaign:

What's interesting about the "mix up their box of colour crayons" comment is that it reveals the PLP's contempt for - rather than support for - multiracial solutions. Hasn't the PLP been telling us to seek out multiracial solutions in over to overcome our (supposedly) entrenched and antagonistic racial divides? Yet now they're criticizing the UBP for the very fact that It's multiracial? Hmm. If the PLP don't want solutions that use the full range of colours in Bermuda's "box of crayons," and instead just want every crayon in the box to be the same colour, then maybe they shouldn't be talking about "The Big Conversation" but rather "The Big Monochromaticization."

In 2003 it was Uncle Toms, sunburns and Shysters, now, on day 2 of the 45 day campaign, it starts up again:

All the UBP has proven they know how to do is lie, hurl allegations after us, and mix up their box of color crayons to see who looks best in front of the camera from day to day

There's been a lot of talk about why December 18th? Well, a couple of readers have written in with this observation:

Just a little trivia for those that are not aware, Dec 18th in 1865 was the date that slavery was abolished througout America.

It's the next logical extension of the 2003 slogan from Ewart Brown of Don't Vote Yourself Back on the Plantation, and remember, he views race from his American perspective.

I haven't commented particularly on the Racial Quota law that has been getting heavy rotation over the past couple of weeks, mostly because I don't view it as a serious policy initiative, it's a political pre-election trap.

Phil Perinchief's prejudiced and hypocritical attack on lawyer Tim Marshall (apparently legal opinions are now racist if they run counter to the Government's talking points) and the ex-Governor should have confirmed that, as does the rather intemperate but revealing email exchange where the taxpayer funded race consultant has admitted that he's there to turn the next election into a test of racial allegiance.

Today's rather amusing yet disturbing interview with Wayne Perinchief, Minister of Cultural Affairs, is worth a quick dissection though.

Firstly, I think that you can make a decent argument in favour of affirmative action, one that I used to subscribe to; but after spending a decade working in the real world I’ve come to the conclusion that while the intent can be noble it's completely unworkable and devalues everyone who has achieved their success without quotas.

I believe a much better approach in Bermuda's case is to address education and create an environment that is conducive to creating opportunity rather than doing to international business what we did to Tourism in the 80s by taking it for granted.

Frankly, this initiative from the PLP is apparently a rip-off of Canadian legislation, except it is not broadly targeted at all. Instead it is so narrowly defined that it mocks the idea of preventing discrimination in all forms, making it little more than a political ploy designed to achieve a political result not a social one.

But sadly although not surprisingly the Minister is clearly incapable of making even the decent argument, judging by his rant today in the Royal Gazette.

Where to start? How’s about here:

We have done some studies which indicate white people with a high school education go further than blacks with a degree.

"We have seen that, it's been anecdotal. That is one of the issues we need to address. But whites don't have to look over their shoulder if they are as educated and as qualified. They don't."

"I have heard, and this is anecdotal, of students who are entering the workforce in international companies and being — they believe — harshly treated. In other words they are being micro-managed and they have what they believe is a punitive system which deters them from staying.

And then there’s the interchangeable use of “black Bermudians”, “natives” and “indigenous”, providing a classic study in the code words in Bermuda politics that 'Bermudian' means 'black' and everyone else is not a ‘real Bermudian’.

But are we talking white people, or white Bermudians? Black people or black Bermudians? This wouldn't be the first time that the Government used expats as a proxy for whites and compared to black Bermudians with the not surprisngly skewed results of some high earning expats (John Barritt tackled this in a Parliamentary debate in the past year or so).

But it’s funny. Because today the Department of Statistics released its Facts and Figures 2006 report with this historical note:

1609 Start of human settlement as a result of shipwreck of the Sea Venture which was bound for Virginia.

1612 Permanent settlers arrive from England, one of them being Richard Moore, the first Governor. Town of St. George established.

Hence, Bermuda had no indigenous population, everyone is a status Bermudian ultimately.

I could really care less the race of the original settlers versus the current racial breakdown of the population, no-one has a greater claim to call Bermuda their home based on their race. I find this strategy of creating an us and them mentality very offensive. We're all Bermudians.

Personally I think that Bermuda is a much more interesting place as it becomes more cosmopolitan, but I know some don't agree.

My personal favourite non-justification justifications are as follows:

Recently Mr. Perinchief had an epiphany when he visited the Atlantis hotel in Nassau, Bahamas.

"What I was used to seeing in hotels was white management and one or two black people at the lower levels of employment."

But in that hotel everyone from the doorman to the management was black.

"I suddenly realised, after two days, what I was observing. I saw an institution that was run and managed, top to bottom, by the indigenous people, by the locals, by Bahamians.

"And quite honestly it blew my mind — it is a premier hotel by any description. It was mind-boggling and an education to me. I came back home further resolved to ensure that this type of thing happens in Bermuda."

A few statistics (real not manipulated ones) for Mr. Perinchief:

Population of Bahamas: 305,655 (2007)

Population of Bermuda: 62.059 (2000) – 71% Bermudian

Unemployment in Bahamas: 10.2% (2005)

Unemployment in Bermuda: negative (ie. approx 9,000 work permits)

Suggesting that a population (black, white or otherwise) of about 50,000 (with no unemployment) can staff up a highly specialized international financial services economy such as ours, is just bone-headed and completely dishonest. We are a small town.

I know that I shouldn't say that because it doesn't play into the nationalistic fervor that we're trying to cultivate, but it's just a fact. We're a tiny, tiny place with a very sophisticated economy that needs the best and brightest from the world, which brings with it a lot of associated benefits.

Sure, any individual Bermudian can aspire to the best positions, but it's intellectually dishonest, and socially dangerous, to suggest that Bermudians can in disproportionate numbers populate the top positions in the international conglomerates that call Bermuda home.

And then there’s this one:

"Look at the anomaly in this country, you have a Government that, coincidently, is black from top to bottom. A civil service that basically is black — we run the country, we set the policy, we draft the legislation.

"We set the parameters by which these very rich companies make billions. Yet the companies don't employ our nationals, there is something wrong there. Don't tell me we can run a country with basically all black people at the top and these companies can't employ our nationals at any level of middle and upper management? Ridiculous.”

Right. Firstly, to reiterate, Bermudians aren’t just ‘black people’, despite the effort to rewrite history.

Secondly, our companies do employ ‘our nationals’; the 1,700 or so employees of our Class 4 insurer/reinsurers are about 70% Bermudian.

Mr. Perinchief's fundamental flaw is that our private companies are not paving roads, delivering mail, and processing paper work. Bermuda succeeds as a financial jurisdiction because of a lack of Government intervention and a low tax rate, not because of Government. More and more it's in spite of Government in fact.

Our ‘very rich companies making billions’ are competing against the rest of the world in earning high returns on billions of dollars of invested capital, not just within a 21 square mile perimeter.

The closest comparison of Government's effectiveness at performing in the private sector is at the Department of Tourism, and we know how we're losing ground to our competitors there constantly. Things have got so bad that the Premier has to lie about it.

And finally, while we have a very high opinion of ourselves here based on our economic success, a little dose of reality for the misguided Minister is probably in order: cities like New York, London, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dublin, all of whom have populations many many times the tiny size of ours, import a substantial amount of the senior staff for their financial services industries as well.

To be honest, I’m not sure why I waste my time pointing out realities in the face of political stupidity.

A friend said it best to me today in an email:

Methinks that attempting to reverse the rising tide of politically-motivated ignorance in Bermuda is probably about as futile - and thankless - a task as trying to convince the Iranian president that the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion were, in fact, long ago exposed as a Tsarist forgery. You're not dealing with reason, anymore, but faith - blind faith that is entirely impervious to logic. Frightening days ahead, good sir.

The full draft racial quota law is online at the Gazette here.

I've also saved a copy over here, because their website is so terrible and unpredictable.

A couple of weeks ago, Stuart Hayward wrote a good column in the Sun about the cynicism that is the PLP's racial strategy.

Judging by the tag team attempt to reframe his argument and redirect attention by Cal Smith and Dr. Hodgson, and now with Julian Hall joining in to complete the trifecta with his nasty little broadside, one can only conclude that Mr. Hayward is on a good wicket.

Mr. Hayward's response today to Cal Smith and Dr. Hodgson's articles is both accurate and effective, and will no doubt generate further attacks for a number of reasons:

1) The current PLP leadership cannot permit people to undermine their faux sincerity and 'credentials' on bridging the racial divide, as it's the foundation of their election campaign.

2) They have to protect their turf; they can't allow others to question their approach and weigh in on an issue they position themselves as the sole authorities on.

3) The truth hurts.

4) If there's one thing I've learned about the PLP sponsored letter writers it's that they must always have the last word.

Julian Hall's letter contains a couple of items of note (and a whole lot worth ignoring):

Firstly, I'll await patiently, those who attacked (and protested - although he's dead) me for the accurate and appropriate use of the term "media whore" to describe the Premier's take-all-the-credit, avoid-the-bad-news press strategy to condemn Mr. Hall for calling Mr. Hayward a "past-her-sell-by-date political hooker". "Media whore" is so much better; "political hooker" is just crass and not clever.

Secondly, the real howler is this early line:

I wonder sometimes whether excessive immersion in Bermuda's political scene, particularly on the part of those who venture into the arena of race relations, should now come with a health warning from the Chief Medical Officer [we have no Surgeon General]: "CAUTION : COULD CAUSE INSANITY".

I can only conclude that Mr. Hall lacks enough self-awareness to know that this paragraph is most applicable to himself and those he is defending, advising and enabling and the rest of Mr. Hall's comments would be considered in that vein.

I'd agree with Mr Hall's insanity statement, I'd just apply it to those who talk about nothing but race, and twist everything around to race, rather than those who talk about it as one issue...not The Issue.

The Premier and his race consultant have ventured into the arena of race relations far more than anyone else in Bermuda, in fact that's their signature issue. One would presume that they're so politically invested in this issue because they know they think that they can capitalise on it at the polls; they're racial venture capitalists.

Back in March I wrote a column for the Gazette about the cynicism of politicians who make their living on exploiting racial sensitivities while claiming to want to solve them, and Mr. Hayward has added his own perspective, which I'd sense is pretty much on the money judging by the response it has invoked.

Indeed, his critique generated such angst among those he mentioned that they're coordinating an attempt to discredit him as mentioned in his column today:

There are other possibilities - among them that as he may have been solicited to write his critique (as were others who declined), his heart wasn't in it. Of course it's not right for me to speculate, but I genuinely want my friend Cal to be a respected contributor to the public discourse. This was not his best effort.

And discredit him they will try, by dumbing down the debate to claim that when Mr. Hayward said (accurately) that the Premier's pick for race consultant is divisive, that what he said was that the PLP created racial division. Of course he didn't say that. But it's much easier to respond to something he didn't say than something he did.

Of course, the other tried and true tactic is to respond to an article about the present by talking only about events that occurred in the past; attacking someone for having the gall to assess things in the present by unrelated issues that occurred in the past.

But that's the intention: keep us outraged about the past so that we miss what's going on right in front of us.

Newspaper headlines are important, because they are all that some people remember about an article and they set the tone for the reader before they read the first sentence.

So, the headline in yesterday's Bermuda Sun is both incorrect and irresponsible.

Is the "Average family home now $1.8m"? No. The article explicitly says so.

The "Average price of a home sold this year is $1.8M". Big difference. That's the average of transactions. To know what the average market value of a home is you'd have to do some sort of an appraisal on every property.

I know headlines are designed to grab a reader, the more sensational the better in a lot of cases, but this a) sets some sellers expectations to high, and b) further alienates those trying to get into an expensive market.

It's much like the headline recently where the Gazette said: "UBP is doomed to lose next election" - in quotes - from an interview with a former UBP party worker. First problem, he never said that. Those were the reporter's words, not Mr. Sullivan's. Since when does a paper quote its own reporters?

The other example was the Gazette's headline which read "Expert: Island is still a 'white supremacist society'".

What he said was:

"Is Bermuda a white-supremacist society? That's obviously a more complex question in a country with a black majority and a black-led government, the distribution of wealth remains racialised, however. And the attitudes of at least some white Bermudians reflect a commitment to white supremacy.

"As an outsider, I don't think my job is to answer that question but to raise questions that can help Bermudians understand their own society."

Mr. Jensen came close to saying what the headline said, but he didn't (although that is the sole reason he was hired...to get that headline.)

Headlines are important, perhaps more so, than the content of the article oftentimes. Many people don't pick up the nuances, they just take a superficial skim of the paper and take away little more than the headline and the first paragraph.

The papers (and this is more a fault of the editorial staff than the reporters who don't have much input into headlines) have a responsibility to be more accurate.

Channeling Shaggy, Dr. Brown says "It wasn't me":

Premier Ewart Brown on Friday night dismissed claims he is polarising Bermuda and insisted his Big Conversation project would help solve race problems on the Island.

Speaking at the latest Bermuda Race Relations Initiative meeting — this time with the theme The Colour Of Money — the Premier denied recent allegations that his methods are dividing blacks and whites. “I have been called, even in recent days, a divisive figure,” Dr. Brown told more than 100 people at Berkeley Institute.

“I was born into a divided society. I found it that way and I’m determined not to leave it that way.

But that's not the best part.

This is:

He claimed that with an election in the pipeline it had been a risk to launch the Big Conversation, in which blacks and whites have been encouraged to talk about race in a series of get-togethers.

The point of launching The Big Con(versation) with an election in the pipeline is precisely to polarise people. I wrote about this in March for the Gazette, and the PLP's Main Event rally last week confirms my suspicions.

There is only one party in Bermuda politics that can gain from polarising people around race...which is ultimately why only the UBP can bridge that divide (of the current two parties); the PLP's whole identity is built around race, their short term political interests are served by stoking lingering racial wounds, which they do quite effectively.

Someone tell me what the UBP gains from dividing Bermuda along racial lines?

You know, I always crack a smile when I hear this line that this election is going to be dirty, ugly, the nastiest ever or some other turn of phrase to that effect.

As I recall, the last one was pretty nasty.

And the funny thing is that the PLP and the PLP's self-adulating blog continually refers to the dirty tactics of the UBP, the UBP's politics of personal destruction, etc. the truth is pretty well summed up by Jamahl Simmons in today's Gazette article, but he doesn't go far enough in laying out the chain of events:

He said last time the UBP didn’t go negative as it was felt it would only drive the PLP’s numbers up.

“So the focus was on what we would do. There was a lot of emphasis on the housing plan. For four weeks we ran pretty much unopposed. In the final two weeks, the PLP came out with their campaign and buried us.

“They ran essentially a two-week campaign while we ran a four-week campaign. My sense in retrospect is we peaked too early. They were able to come out after we had said everything we had to say and had become competitive and monotonous so then the ground was fertile for people to listen to them.”

So the UBP ran exclusively on their agenda at the last election until Bam! (to quote Emeril) the party was the target of "Back to the Plantation", shysters, Uncle Tom's, sun-burned-not-really-black-UBP-candidates from the PLP in the final weeks of the campaign.

Now where we on dirty? These campaigns have been dirty for some time now, and the day to day politics is pretty dirty with the continual racial attacks and racial scapegoating.

I'd also take issue with an aspect of Jamahl's analysis where he said that:

“The release of the BHC files has set the standard for the election of what is acceptable. It has opened the door for a lot more attacks on people’s personal lives. We are entering a new era in politics in that regard. I think this is the first election where we will see issues really pushed to the bottom.

My main contention with that statement is that the Police report raised serious questions about public funds and the use of them by public officials. The personal life angle is a red herring.

Regardless, I've always considered it personal when people are called Plantation owners or subjected to racial slurs which ostracises them from their communities based on their political affiliation. But maybe that's just me.

There's a lot of other things worthy of comment in that article that I hope to get to tomorrow.

Okay, okay. I hear you.

Due to popular demand, I am compelled to point out that if 'Brown Rice' was 'subtle racism', what do we make of 'Brown bag lunches'?

Gasp. Could it be? Self hate; or maybe just some wordplay?

I won't hold my breath waiting for the outrage.

A devastatingly accurate Letter to the Editor from the always interesting "SAM from Warwick" today.

Money quote:

The point I’m making, and what South Africa finally learned, is that black empowerment is important, but it has to go far beyond just an economic initiative to redress the wrongs of the past. It has to go far beyond selective redress to benefit just a few or select individuals. As a black man, I am discouraged that my Government is creating narrow-based economic opportunities and not broad-based growth opportunities for everyone. A more serious issue is that they are leaving fundamental inequalities intact, or just sidetracking the old and present white elite with a new black one.

The benefit white and some black people received due to white privilege and black elitist privilege in the past, was done and is history. We cannot change anything about the past and the pain associated, other than remember, learn from and respect it. Reparations will not help, but we as black people have to stop justifying the improper behaviour of our present Government ... because they were born black and now represent a black political party publicly, but privately represent a few black and white individuals economically.

With the politically orchestrated re-intensification of all things racial in Bermuda politics, I couldn't help but think of one of my favourite comedy sketches of all time, Eddie Murphy's Undercover White Guy from his stint at Saturday Night Live in the 80s.

20 years later it's still funny, arguably funnier, particularly with the antiquated stereotypes of whites in Bermuda that are trotted out by some on a daily basis.

A reader writes with the definitive summation:

What's interesting about this faux outrage over the use of the phrase 'Brown Rice' is not that the phrase is actually offensive, but that those that appear to accuse you of using racist language don't believe their own accusations. They don't: it's political point-scoring, nothing more. I cannot seriously believe that the PLP has anyone in an official role in the party that is so utterly brain-dead that they actually find the use of the phrase 'Brown Rice', even in context, offensive.

When Brown accused Grant Gibbons of employing racist language when he described the then Premier as a 'political eunuch', he didn't really believe his own accusation. If the reference to 'eunuch' was so notoriously offensive in the black community, Paula Cox wouldn't have used the exact same phrase as Grant Gibbons a couple of weeks prior to Brown's disingenuous attack. It matters not whether someone is really being racist, or whether they have really used racist language; all that matters is whether you can convince others that they have done so. Once you pull out the race card, all people hear is 'racist'. You don't have to debate your opponent substantively, or produce any real ideas of your own, because once you drop racism into the conversation, that's all that some people will hear. If you can't debate someone substantively, you try to discredit them as being racist, and no one notices that you have nothing substantive to say.

That puts the full stop on that I think. Moving on then...

The story in Wednesday's Bermuda Sun entitled "Race: 'Polite' white people the problem?" is interesting and like most discussions of race in Bermuda ignores that these things are a two way street.

The thrust of the story is that whites are 'over-sensitive' and therefore holding back an honest discussion.

The flip side of this is of course that many whites are well-aware that in Bermuda, but particularly in the political arena, many blacks are themselves over-sensitive, interpreting any criticism by whites as racial. Or course, there's also the fact that the politicians behind the 'Big Conversation' are a group of individuals whose track record of sincerity on discussing race is, shall we say, poor.

More on that in a second.

Back in January I wrote about this a little bit after an interesting exchange between Dr. Eva Hodgson and the UBP's John Barritt on Shirley Dill's talk show:

Dr. Hodgson, as she usually does, gave a pretty good summation of the problems that the UBP - and whites generally - have in criticising the PLP. I probably won't say this as eloquently as Dr. Hodgson, but she pointed out that she 'feels sorry for white liberals like Mr. Barritt', because when whites are critical of blacks, what blacks hear is not the criticism but an 'echo' in their heads telling them that they're only being criticised because they are black.

Dr. Hodgson's comments really stuck with me because it's something that summed up very well a dynamic in Bermuda and Bermuda politics.

It's for that reason that I think it's important to point out that this 'white over-sensitivity' didn't just come out of nowhere. While there are certainly those who would prefer to avoid talking about race, there are also those who are fed up with having any comment twisted into a racial attack and therefore have simply withdrawn. Many whites (and blacks) have understandably stepped away from the public debate and have just decided to live their lives by the right principles as their way to address race. I must admit that I have a lot of sympathy for that position, and rarely talk about race myself, other than to counter the political hijacking of it.

Now, back to the credibility of "The Big Conversation". I think that it doesn't take much effort to point out that Dr. Brown and Rolfe Commissiong, the Premier's race 'consultant', are two racially manipulative individuals who love to twist and distort things that have no racial connection into examples of racism.

The Premier's examples are legendary and well publicised, but the most obvious were the 'racist dog' diatribe with its ridiculous effort to twist the common phrase 'Political Eunuch' into a racial slur, as well as the 'Don't vote yourself back on the Plantation' comment at the last election, the Plantation question defence from tough questions, and then just last week the silly attempt to mask his cronyism in some unspecified racial double standard.

Now, while I generally don't waste my time on the Premier's race consultant, I'll break my rule here and point out the most relevant (to me at least) example of his own shameful manipulation around race. A couple of years ago, before the taxpayers got to fund his exploits, Mr. Commissiong went on the news to label me and a number of others who'd spoken against Independence as part of a 'white cabal', of course neglecting to mention the many equally vocal black opponents (and the overwhelming island-wide opposition).

Do we really wonder why whites are 'over-sensitive' to engaging on this?

There's more, but I won't bother. He's not worth it.

I also wrote earlier in the year about the lack of faith I have in politicians to conduct any type of genuine conversation around race, and the motivations behind the timing right before an election to build this topic into a crescendo is patently obvious.

As someone who spends a lot of time being critical, I can personally attest to the many times my comments have been portrayed as racial in nature when nothing could be further from the truth. The protester(s), letters to the editors, and my inbox attest to that. My (now deceased) protester, even labeled me as racist for a column I wrote, which - among other things - called for an improved public education system to narrow income and wealth disparities between races.

So on that basis, while I don't question the sincerity of the individuals brought in to facilitate "The Big Conversation", I'll ask your forgiveness for taking the view that as this event is the pre-election brainchild of Dr. Brown and his consultant that "The Big Conversation" is almost certainly little more than "The Big Con".

The Royal Gazette
Opinion (14 March, 2007)

"The hijacking of race": An open discussion cannot happen in the run-up to an election

As the likely summer election creeps closer by the day, the best indicator of the soft launch of election season will be the increasingly frequent insertion of race into every issue, no matter how tortured the connection.

And it’s begun, with the budget’s racial scapegoating of employers, the announcement of a Government sponsored forum on race, and racial comments creeping into even the dump saga courtesy of Senator David Burch.

The premise on which this election tactic is predicated is that Bermuda’s overdue for an ‘honest discussion on race’ according to the Premier.

This statement unintentionally raises a very serious question which must be addressed before this discussion can begin: Is an honest discussion on race possible in the political arena?

I don’t ask that question to attack all politicians, but the examples of dishonest political discussions on race are everywhere; the most obvious recent example being Dr. Ewart Brown’s ‘racist dog’ attack on Dr. Grant Gibbons in Parliament, a speech which was founded on a lie (that Dr. Gibbons has attacked Dr. Brown’s wife) and whose racial punch line (tying the term ‘political eunuch’ to slavery) is tenuous at best.

If that shameful display was supposed to lay the groundwork for an ‘honest’ discussion on race we’re in trouble. To be honest, the run up to an election is the worst time to discuss any issue in depth, but in particular one like race.

Politics, particularly election time politics, is a zero sum game; you either win or you lose — there’s no prize for second place. This reality makes the political arena incompatible with an ‘honest’ discussion about race; that conversation requires a starting point of not trying to ‘win’ something but to exchange experiences and perspectives in an effort to foster empathy, understanding and hopefully reconciliation.

Do empathy, understanding and reconciliation sound compatible with a political campaign to you? One of the tragedies of Bermudian political life is that the issues which should be the focus of our attention (education, crime, housing, healthcare etc.) seem to generate little enthusiasm, whereas if we were able to harness the energy created by the mere mention of race we could put BELCO out of business.

Discussions of race in Bermuda are uninteresting, predictable and futile for one simple reason: race is no longer an issue; it’s been hijacked as a political device.

In that context we’ll never reach a greater understanding between the races, or the implementation of policies to address the resulting historic inequities of racial segregation. Those of us who believe that politicians can lead us to the racial Promised Land are hopeless optimists, naive or a politician. It’s time we took back this issue from the politicians, not hand it over to them so they can run us through the ringer one more time.

Like most of us, I’ve read and exchanged hundreds of thousands of words on race in Bermuda. We’ve undoubtedly made progress, but today we appear to be at a fork in the road where this progress can quickly unravel if we continue to permit race to be wielded as a political weapon to polarise the community; divide and conquer is a proven method to win votes.

We all know the jibes: the UBP is the white party, the PLP is the black party, so-and-so is too white, so-and-so is not black enough, sell-outs, shysters, black buffoons, Uncle Toms, or the latest being “a black man with a white man’s heart”. I could go on but I won’t.

And who are the authors of each and every one of those examples? Politicians. That alone is proof that politics isn’t the platform for this discussion. Ultimately, even the best intentioned politicians have a very simple goal: to get elected. In that context they often believe that the ends justify the means while others are just utterly convinced that they’re in the right.

One of the things that I’ve come to appreciate is that there are basically two types of politicians when it comes to race: those who appreciate that political jousting is ill-advised and approach the topic reluctantly and with reverence, versus those who delight in talking about it at any opportunity because they know they’ve got it totally figured out and effectively shut down discussion.

The latter tend to rarely offer any depth or insight on the issue, just cheap shots, while the former offer thoughtful efforts geared at promoting dialogue and understanding which is tragically lost in the political shouting match.

Discussing race in Bermuda has become so predictable, so repetitive, so boring that it’s counterproductive. It’s a distraction to the real issues, and if a political party can convince you that their performance and ideas are secondary to their (and your) race they’ve won.

The outcome of this is that we have one side which preaches ‘blackness’ (for lack of a better term), while the other preaches diversity. I prefer the latter; however I believe the term ‘diversity’ is used far too simplistically.

‘Diversity’ in the Bermudian sense means black and white working together, which is great, but diversity goes much deeper than that; the truth is that there is a great deal of diversity within the races.

And I’m not talking measurements of melanin; I’m talking about diversity of opinion, philosophy and an approach to life. That aspect rarely gets discussed, or even acknowledged.

We are told that whites think one way, and blacks (should) think another. How wrong is that? This is the aspect of diversity which needs surfacing if Bermuda is to move forward and put the political division behind us.

We continue to allow race to dominate the real differences of philosophy and ideology. Is the PLP really progressive? Is the UBP really conservative? Or are they both loose coalitions built around an outdated racial argument? The PLP’s current leader, Dr. Brown, is hardly progressive, or labour, for that matter.

He’s the most unrestrained pro-big (foreign) business Premier Bermuda has seen in a long time — if you’ve got the money he’ll listen. One PLP member described Dr. Brown’s philosophy as ‘racial capitalism’, which is about as accurate a description as I can think of. If however you define the PLP as purely a racial movement then he fits nicely.

On the flip side, the policies that the UBP touts today are hardly textbook conservatism as the party is often characterised. Instead they reflect the broad ideological coalition they’ve assembled and is decidedly centrist, a mix of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

A recent Royal Gazette editorial had it right when stating that the traditional political labels have very little relevance to the parties today.

The persistent use of race as a political device is preventing the real issues and the real differences between the parties being debated openly; race is sucking up all of the oxygen. That is a tragedy.

What will serve Bermuda best over both the short and long term is the promotion of diversity of opinion both between and within the races. An ‘honest’ discussion of race designed to promote someone’s re-election prospects isn’t going to achieve that.

Here we go again.

Someone parse this gem for me: Michael Dunkley (white) calls David Burch (black) 'arrogant' and Burch promptly accuses Dunkley of racism for calling him arrogant while calling Dunkley (white) 'arrogant' himself?

So it's only racist in one direction?

Sheesh. And Burch was doing so well keeping quiet since Dr. Brown took over.

Mr. Burch seemed particularly irked that Mr. Dunkley would refer to his leadership as arrogant.

The Minister said: "I always find it fascinating when white people think that strong black men are arrogant just because they're strong.

"Mr. Dunkley should be able to recognise arrogance. He demonstrates it on a daily basis."

As perversely pleasurable as it is to watch a Minister publicly melt down under the weight of his own stupidity, I thought this little tidbit from the UK press today is relevant to the discussion about deporting foreigners who aren't nice enough to our privileged Parliamentary class:

But the House of Lords held that the legal definition of "racial group" went beyond colour, race or ethnic origin to include nationality, citizenship and national origin - even if they were not specified in the words used by the offender.

Mr Rogers, who is incapacitated by arthritis, had been sentenced to 80 hours community service.

Thanks to RD for the tip.

A Bermudian living abroad writes in:

OK, and in all seriousness, come on (and this is coming from someone who lives in a country where only some people can criticise the national leader without penalty, and where those who are punished for it win Grammys). If that poster in today's paper proves anything, it's that politics in Bermuda are completely racially polarized. And really, no other issue than race matters. So to hell with health care, jobs, and homelessness. Criticize the political leadership and get "black-listed." (Oops!)

If the gentlemen who protested your blog think you are racist because you are White and the leadership is Black, doesn't that make them racist since they believe that the only reason that you would be critical (other than your political affiliation) is because of your racial group membership? I wonder...

A reader comments on my Royal Gazette column today:

The only thing I disagree with is your last paragraph - /This decades old political strategy of racially dividing and conquering has run its course /- I don't think it has, I think it has only just begun. To believe that these incidents are simply outbreaks of bad behaviour, which condemnation will make the miscreants regret, is wishful thinking. Racial politics is our future."

It's a good point. I actually agree with this, racial politics will continue until the voters/community reject it. I've been quoted along those lines recently in some Gazette articles and RG Magazine.

What I should have said is that "This decades old political strategy of racially dividing and conquering should have run its course..."

Last night I watched "Street Fight" a documentary about the Newark, New Jersey Mayoral Race between challenger Cory Booker and incumbent Sharpe James [Note: It is available at Leisure Time].

You may remember that Cory Booker was brought to Bermuda twice by the UBP to speak.

Besides being a gripping documentary, anyone who is interested in the mechanics and tactics encountered when running an on the ground election campaign against a no-holds barred opponent shouldn't miss this.

There are many parallels to the racialisation of our election campaigns, alhough this one is between two black American Democrats; one representing the old guard and the other a young up and comer.

Observers of Bermudian politics will note the many overlapping themes and tactics involved. For example, Mr. Booker - a black Democrat - was labeled by his opponent as a white Republican jew because he dare challenge the black establishment candidate.

Sound familiar? Shysters and Uncle Toms anyone?

Watch the trailer:

And you wonder why white people struggle to understand race? Here's a classic example.

Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's Colbert Report gets to the bottom of whether Barack Obama is black.

My favourite quote:

"You are judging blackness not on the colour of someone's skin but by the content of their character. Which I think realizes Dr. King's dream in a very special way."

In today's interview Max Burgess says alot that I agree with (ie. the chicken and egg quote and the next election being a referendum on the UBP's future rather than the PLP's desirability - a point I made when interpreting the last poll (last sentence)).

I can't help but note that the article ended with what can only be read as a very ironic position with respects to the party re-establishing a black caucus (a concept I have no problem with in principle):

He said under Sir Edward Richards the UBP had to form a black caucus to get black issues on the agenda.

“In some ways, history repeats itself. I believe the UBP is heading that way – to have a black caucus to ensure the needs of black Bermuda are in the fore of the party’s minds.”

Firstly, the majority of the UBP caucus is already black, so I'm not sure what a separate black caucus will achieve that couldn't already be.

Secondly, Max suggests that a black caucus is needed to 'ensure the needs of black Bermuda are in the fore of the party’s minds'.

Here's the problem with that: Max stated sentences earlier that white leaders had been more progressive on the issue of race than blacks in the party:

He said the UBP had moved backwards on the race issue since switching from Grant Gibbons to Wayne Furbert.

“Under Grant Gibbons the question of race and what we could reasonably be expected to do about it was on the agenda and was being worked on.

“There were committees doing work on it. In some ways that’s the irony of the UBP and its history.

“White leaders have historically made measured strides, but some strides in this whole area of race, and perhaps with the exception of Sir John Swan who had varying degrees of success on the subject, black leaders have not done as well.”

Seems contradictory does it not?

"My race is somebody else's problem. It's not my problem."

The mantra taught to Colin Powell by his parents.

Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell

Maybe it's me, but doesn't it seem like the only difference between the UBP's current discord, and the PLP's 3 year battle between Jennifer Smith's camp and Ewart Brown's camp is that there are whites in the UBP...hence it must be racially driven.

Another example:

When young candidates are fast tracked in the UBP (ie. Jamahl Simmons, or even Shawn Crockwell as the new chair) it's called window dressing, whereas when Premier Brown installed 3 young and completely politically inexperienced individuals in the Senate, it's called a stroke of brilliance and a commitment to the youth.

In fact, I'd hazard a guess that almost all of the people who decry the UBP fastracking any black inidividual through the party would support affirmative action policies in the workplace.

What's the difference?

Those examples are why I become so frustrated - and am convinced race as an issue is not suited to the political domain - is that it's not uncommon to hear whites described as inherently racist; by birth, by nature, by nurture, by definition, by their DNA, or all of the above.

Any action that involves whites is too often ascribed to race in Bermuda.

How can that be a starting point for a discussion of the many layers of privilege in this community, be it white privilege, or dare I raise it...black privilege? Privilege exists both between and within the races.

With that atmosphere, is it any wonder that we can't progress on this issue, and that more and more whites feel that they can't enter the discussion in good faith?

As I said weeks ago, this current crisis in the UBP is not so black and white.

A series of (black) UBP MPs debunk the racism allegation in the media today.

From today's Bermuda Sun article entitled 'Poor leadership, not race, is the key issue for party':

It's the first public admission of what party insiders have been saying privately for several months now - that Wayne Furbert is simply not cutting it as leader, especially now that the ruling PLP has replaced Alex Scott with Dr. Ewart Brown.

One veteran UBP member told the Bermuda Sun the current crisis within the UBP, brought on by the resignations of MP Jamahl Simmons and chairman Gwyneth Rawlins, had less to do with their claims of racism within the party than the poor leadership skills of Mr. Furbert.

Mr. Burgess' comments support that view. They are even all the more telling because he and Mr. Furbert are friends and have been running mates in previous elections.

From today's Bermuda Sun:

UBP MP Neville Darrell

Meanwhile, UBP MP Neville Darrell rejected claims by UBP defectors Jamahl Simmons and chairman Gwyneth Rawlins of racism within the UBP. He said he had not encountered "overt racism" from his parliamentary colleagues. But he added: "It should come as a surprise to no one that even within political parties racism would be a normal feature of that environment."

He supports the "core values" of the UBP with its commitment to diversity and the rights of the individual. He added: "I would resist any characterization that I was a token anything."

UBP MP Louise Jackson

UBP MP Louise Jackson reiterated her support for the party, saying: "I have been a member of the UBP since its inception and one of its first members. This has been a party of inclusion and diversity from day one. As a black person within the party, I see white and black people, men and women who are working together to become the next government. It is unfortunate that persons would let their personal failings and lack of accomplishments lead to poisoning the electorate against the UBP. No positive purpose is served by joining our opponents in igniting an issue that would succeed in fanning flames but not address the fundamental issues of concern to the people of Bermuda, like crime and affordable housing"

From today's Royal Gazette article entitled "Racism has never been an issue for me":

UBP MP Pat Gordon-Pamplin:

She added: "I certainly am very, very proud to be a member of our party because I don't have any ego. If there are people I don't get on with, that's of no consequence to me. Nobody can disrespect me."

Mrs Gordon-Pamplin questioned whether those who had quit the party had succumbed to the continued accusations of racism from the UBP's political opponents.

"I would hate to think that it had come to that but I don't see any other explanation unless they sat in another room from me," she said.

"There has been this attitude of the PLP calling us racists. If you have a person who doesn't have a strong resolve or someone who feels threatened, they might say: 'Let me hang on to this racism card'.

"Either you have some masochistic people or you have some very unfortunate people who are just vulnerable enough to succumb to the continued expressions of racism."

She added: "Within the membership of any organisation there are going to be people who don't reflect the majority of people. You are going to have some nasty people no matter what happens.

"But I don't think we are talking about the parliamentary group. I don't think we have got a bunch of racists that we deal with. Certainly not my colleagues in the House (of Assembly)."

She added that those within the party who felt disillusioned should leave and allow the party to begin the "healing process".

"We will heal and we will come forth strongly from this because I don't think Bermuda can afford another PLP government."

A number of people have chimed in on the state of the UBP and, the more intelligent ones, what it says about Bermuda's broad political scene.

Tom Vesey, John Swan and Khalid Wasi (today's Mid Ocean - not yet online) get it. I generally agree with their observations (not all but enough), and won't dignify today's tripe by the Premier's taxpayer funded attack dog with a response, other to say it is highly offensive that our tax dollars are being used to support such a partisan position.

Tom Vesey hits on something I've often observed to people but I don't think written about here, which is that both parties are dysfunctional mis-mashes of political philosophies due to the dominance of a distorting issue:

But so strong is the racial identification of each party, and so strong are the racial messages that each (openly and subtly) is trying to spread about the other, that it's impossible for a conservative or a liberal or anybody else to choose a party that matches their political philosophy.

Khalid Wasi takes a similar approach, although he tends to argue that the UBP should be dissolved in order to trigger a cascading effect on the PLP and allow a new paradigm to emerge.

Sir John Swan looks at things from a much more pragmatic perspective, commenting that the buoyant economy dominates the political landscape and the racism allegation misrepresents the issues:

But he emphatically denied there was a hardcore of white racists within the party. “People have wishes and desires and they should be able to express them – to put a racial twist on it doesn’t serve the country or anyone any useful purpose.”

He said there were racists among both the black and white communities. “You cannot mitigate or marshal people’s psyches.”

But he pointed out Mr. Simmons had been struggling against supporters of another black candidate.

“What you are really talking about here might be a clash of cultures.”
Opponents had accused Mr. Simmons of campaigning with family members who supported the PLP but Sir John said: “I had PLP people support me when I was Premier and my party was impressed – it was the only way I could win.”

Sir John said he too had faced party opponents in his constituency who wanted to replace him but it was a democratic process and he said people should have kept their mouths shut until the primary in Pembroke West.

“To have an outright battle without the democratic process and get in position where everyone is entrenched is not desirable.”

On ZBM last night Sir John said that the UBP struggles for quality candidates because businesses are less inclined to allow their professionals to run for politics (best exemplified by the John Barritt example) while the PLP generally is made of the self-employed and un-employed; a scenario which has flipped things from the early days of party politics where the UBP had a vast pool of professional/merchant candidates while the PLP struggled to find candidates.

There is a lot of merit in these three critiques and something with which I have struggled for some time:

The UBP is far from perfect. But the interesting thing is that if you discount the PLP opportunists who are piling on - seeing this as a chance to bury the UBP - the people who acknowledge the structural/cultural problems with the UBP do not see the PLP as the solution (Khalid was in the UBP and Sir John was the UBP's longest serving Premier).

They all understand that the choice to join the UBP is a complicated one usually driven by a pramatic realism that a single-race party (PLP) is unworkable and that a party with a broader range of views is desirable but also prone to problems such as the current incident.

Maybe these problems are too great to overcome. I'm still trying to reach my own conclusions on that. But the problems the UBP have are in my mind far preferable to the problems the PLP have; the UBP struggles to achieve consensus at times due to a wide range of perspectives and experiences despite everyone's best intentions, while the PLP suffer from an absence of diverse opinion and attribute everything to race.

And finally, I can't help but note the fact that the election of November 9th 1998 seemed to erase from the memory of PLP supporters the fact that they endured thirty years and nine successive electoral defeats. By contrast the UBP has lost 2 in eight years, which pales in comparison.

Someone talk me through this one:

David Dunkley has [racial] problems with his neighbours and it's the UBP's fault?

First the Bermuda Sun runs with it, and now the Gazette's Matthew Taylor - who I think has been very even-handed on the Jamahl Simmons story - drops this line in today's article:

It also emerged yesterday that Corporation of Hamilton alderman David Dunkley had resigned after 28 years in the UBP citing racism as the cause.

Doesn't he mean, "citing his neighbours' racism as the cause".

This is absurd.

Rumour has it that the deadline for objections to the Southlands Development is 5PM today. I received this sample objection letter. Objections should be faxed (and signed) to Planning at 295-4100:

4 January, 2007

The Director of Planning
Re: P1029/06 Southland's Estate

Dear Director,

I wish to register my objection to the above application for the following reasons:

1) the proposal would seek to build on woodland and open space that is protected from development;
2) the proposal would seek to alter the coastal zone, also protected;
3) the proposal violates the spirit of the Sustainable Development Strategy and Plan in that it seeks to do the bulk of its construction on previously undeveloped land, or greenfield, rather than rebuild on an already developed, or brownfield site;
4) the proposal would seek to divert public traffic through a tunnel; and
5) the proposal must be considered together with another hotel proposal planned for property adjacent or almost adjacent to the east known as the Grand Atlantic Resort and Residences project.

I understand the proposers are seeking a Special Development Order (SDO) to enable the coastal development and construction on protected woodlands and open space. I must voice my strong objection to an SDO being employed to sidestep planning regulations and the full planning process.

Given the magnitude of this proposal, its potential impact on the coastline, public transportation, protected woodlands and open space, and the combined impact of this proposal with other major hotel proposals currently under application or consideration, I would urge that one or more Environmental Impact Assessments be called for, designed and conducted to assess the full economic, social and environmental impact of this proposal.

I must note that the Bermuda Government became a signatory to the Environment Charter in 2003, and in doing so committed itself inter alia to clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Charter:

The Bermuda Government will...

3) Ensure that environmental considerations are integrated within social and economic planning processes; promote sustainable patterns of production and consumption within the territory.

4) Undertake environmental impact assessments before approving major projects and while developing our growth management strategy.

5) Commit to open and consultative decision-making on developments and plans which may affect the environment; ensure that environmental impact assessments include consultation with stakeholders.

I contend that the public is inadequately informed -- as is, I would suggest, the entire hierarchy of decision-makers for this proposal -- about the ramifications of this project, alone, as well as in conjunction with other proposed tourism-related projects, on the economic, social and environmental impacts it will have on our Island.

I would therefore propose that the requisite Environmental Impact Assessments be conducted, in full view of the public, and only then can the public be fairly called upon to participate in the planning approval process. For the avoidance of doubt, I am suggesting that given how much the public does NOT know about the ramifications of this application, it is unfair to expect the public to be reasonably able to consent or object to this proposal by the imposed deadline of 5 January 2007.

Sincerely,

Two editorials worth a read in The Royal Gazette today.

The first hits on the absurdity of the exploitation of race and the use of racial slurs to combat legitimate questions of accountability and ethics around the Premier and his Government; while the second touches on the not so Special Development Orders that have become an increasingly frequently used tool of Cabinet to expedite development, and the implications for public consultation.

In Bermuda, this would be an indisputable example of racism:

Prime Minister Tony Blair has been questioned by police investigating allegations that government honors, such as seats in the House of Lords, were bestowed in return for political contributions, Blair’s office said Thursday.

Downing Street said Blair was not interviewed as a suspect in the case, but it is still extremely rare for a serving prime minister to be questioned by police.

Police have been investigating claims that all three major political parties awarded seats in the House of Lords and lesser titles such as Member of the Order of the British Empire in return for secret loans.

What a pile of meandering, rambling, dishonest, nonsensical tripe.

The Royal Gazette
Opinion (07 Dec. 2006)

In the aftermath of Dr. Brown’s racial attack in Parliament on Friday night, I’m going to do something inherently dangerous in Bermudian political debate; I’m going to introduce a few facts. I apologise in advance:

Question: What politician made the following statement? “On paper, the role of Deputy [Premier] is more the role of a political eunuch.”

Answer: PLP Finance Minister Paula Cox and current Deputy Premier.
(The Royal Gazette: ‘I’m running for the Deputy Leadership’, 25 October 2006)

Question: Who first questioned the role of Premier Brown’s wife in the Tourism Helps Everyone Foundation (T.H.E.) in a letter leaked to the press?

Answer: Bermuda Public Services Union Secretary Ed Ball
(The Mid Ocean News: ‘Unregistered charity is above board says Brown’, 22 September, 2006)

Question: Who instructed reporters to address their questions about the T.H.E. Foundation’s fundraising to Dr. Brown’s wife in the wake of Ed Ball’s letter?

Answer: The Tourism Minister himself, Mrs. Brown’s husband, one Dr. Ewart Brown.
(The Royal Gazette: ‘Brown downplays critical letter’, Nov. 1st, 2006)

Question: What politician went to the press with concerns about Dr. Brown’s desire to fund the PLP with foreign corporate dollars as ‘something to be wary of’ and raised the prospect of ‘sweetheart deals’?

Answer: Former PLP Premier Alex Scott
(The Royal Gazette: ‘Beware sweetheart deals’, 22 November, 2006)

Question: Who did Premier Brown attack as racist for using the term “Political Eunuch” (coincidentally the title of UK Conservative MP Sir Arthur Douglas Dodds-Parker’s political memoir); for daring mention his wife’s role in the T.H.E. fundraiser and for questioning the ethics of foreign fundraising?

Answer: Dr. Grant Gibbons

Question: What is the difference between Dr. Gibbons and Ms. Cox, Mr. Ball and former Premier Scott?

Answer: Dr. Gibbons is the white dude.

So the Premier should tread lightly with the “racist dog” epithets. Bermudians are smart enough to judge for themselves to whom that tag might apply after Friday’s attack.

Don’t be fooled though. The attack on Dr. Gibbons wasn’t some heat of the moment personal dispute as many would have you believe; this was a prepared speech, a calculated decision to lower the tone and tenor of debate in the run-up to a 2007 election.

The message was clear, the Premier went to great pains to manufacture phony incidents of racism as a launching pad for his party’s election campaign; signaling his intention to unleash a vicious brand of racial polarization intended to bury the possibility of a debate of ideas.

There was one line that Dr. Brown delivered which nicely summed up the problem Bermuda faces today, only not as he intended.

Dr. Brown accused Dr. Gibbons of being the “uninformed representative of Bermuda's racist legacy”, which has a nice ring to it but serves only to highlight that Dr. Brown sounds an awful lot like the representative of Bermuda’s racist present…but hopefully not the future.

Recently, in promoting his book “The Audacity of Hope”, US Senator Barack Obama delivered a very insightful quote about the state of US political debate, which bears striking resemblance to where Bermuda finds itself today:

"When you watch Clinton vs Gingrich, or Gore vs Bush, or Kerry vs Bush, you feel like these are fights that were taking place back in dorm rooms in the ’60s. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution… All that stuff has just been playing itself out and you feel like, okay, let’s not re-litigate the ’60s 40 years later."

Senator Obama’s comment strikes a chord, at least with me, someone 30 years younger than Dr. Brown who has no desire to ‘re-litigate the 60s 40 years later’.

Unlike Dr. Brown and many of his colleagues, I was not ‘born into the divided era’ that he discussed with a skeptical group of Bermudian students in London; and I have no desire to return to it.

After Friday’s display it would appear that Dr. Brown is determined to roll back Bermuda to this bitterly divided time; hence the painful contortions and distortions he engaged in Friday night, a valiant but futile effort to resurrect a bogey man that simply no longer exists.

That’s not to say that racism isn’t real in Bermuda. It is. But white Bermudians hold no monopoly on it that’s for sure, and there can’t be a genuine effort to tackle it when a Premier engages in physical threats of violence and vitriolic character assassination.

Is it any wonder we have a problem with machete violence and gang retribution when the leader of the country emulates it in Parliament? A little introspection for Dr. Brown, his cheering colleagues and the mob in the public gallery is in order.

I can see only two ways that this destructive racial campaigning will end. Either the electorate flat out rejects electoral campaigns built on the foundation of outdated racial hostility, or we’ll have to wait for those politicians tragically trapped in a decades old time warp to expire.

We can’t afford to lose more time. We as a community must take a stand and reject the exploitation of a legitimate issue – racism – for short term political gain.

Julian Hall was on VSB news tonight expanding on his comments in the paper today.

Firstly, Julian lost all credibility the moment he said that Dr. Brown and Dr. Gibbons would have been in the backroom laughing moments after Dr. Brown's speech. He knows that is not the case and would not be the case. Dr. Brown was out for blood and Dr. Gibbons was justifiably angry.

But I can tell you it's not the case because I spoke to several UBP MPs who were still livid on Sunday and Monday. Julian's a smart guy who's been in Parliament. He knows this wasn't the usual Parliamentary banter. This was a viscous calculated personal attack - the worst kind. For him to try and dismiss it like that just destroys his credibility and is entirely disingenuous and insincere.

Secondly, let's dismiss this line about Dr. Brown being only human, and getting angry because Dr. Gibbons dragged the Premier's wife into the debate and being a dutiful husband.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, BPSU secretary Ed Ball was the one who first raised questions about Mrs. Brown's role among other things, and Dr. Brown directed questions on the THE Foundation to his wife. Dr. Brown inserted his wife into this not Dr. Gibbons.

Contrary to the argument that if you have a problem with a man you don't fight his wife macho bravado, the real question is what kind of a man hides behind his wife?

However let's examine the facts here. Dr. Brown's wife, after consulting with him, set up a charity which solicited funds while it was not registered (something that is probably prosecutable). Now, one of the largest contributors was Kurron Shares of America, who received a contract shortly after T.H.E. held the concert that the donations were for.

Now what we're being told by Dr. Brown and Julian Hall is that a) questioning the Premier's wife is prohibited (even after Dr. Brown directed questions to her) and b) that Dr. Gibbons was only raising Kurron as a problem because it's CEO is black (American).

I'll deal with the second part first. Dr. Brown's comment was to the effect of "why did the member single out Kurron" but then rather oddly went on to say "and if he doesn't know he should spend the weekend figuring it out."

"If he doesn't know he should spend the weekend figuring it out?"

So Dr. Brown is admitting that Dr. Gibbons doesn't know why he supposedly raised the Kurron conflict as a potential conflict, but then implies racism.

How can that question be racist if Dr. Brown admits that Dr. Gibbons probably was unaware that the CEO is black? It's another of the manufactured incidents of racism that Dr. Brown had to resort to in his desperate attack.

But more importantly, it suggests that Kurron was appealing to Dr. Brown because the CEO is black (Affirmative Action for foreign corporations - now that's a first). In that example, it appears that Dr. Brown - by his own admission - is the one hung up on race, not Dr. Gibbons.

Now, back to the first part about it being inappropriate - or not manly - to bring up Mrs. Brown's role in T.H.E..

Mrs. Brown is the chairperson of a charity which was created and funded to contribute to a Bermuda Government event. Of course she's going to come up in discussion of the T.H.E. Foundation and fundraising that raises legitimate questions of pay to play. If you can't stand the heat...don't get in the kitchen.

It's a great defense mechanism though. Hell, why not put every male Cabinet Minister's wife in charge of everything and then no-one can ever ask a question about anything for fear of having their manhood challenged?

Are we really at this point? Is this really how silly and nonsensical Bermuda's political debate around accountability is? Sadly, I think it is.

Speaking of defense mechanisms, the other main thrust of Julian Hall's comments is essentially this:

Oversight = racism.

How absurd.

Julian said that questioning a 'black' Premier (and presumably a self-defined 'black' party) is racist in and of itself. But he didn't stop there.

He said that for whites to want accountability is racist, but for blacks to ask is self-loathing because they've been taught they're inferior.

The outcome of this position is clear (and Julian's a smart lawyer so presumably he knows the problem with his position), "black Governments" (a self-defined moniker) are immune from oversight and can never be questioned, ever, by blacks or whites.

Wow. If that isn't a recipe for disaster I don't know what is. Any Government has to be subject to questioning, it doesn't matter what race. Government's do bad things without oversight. Power is a dangerous thing unchecked.

And for some reason there seems to be an inability to accept that some people, such as myself, just want oversight of the whole system. Campaign fund-raising, tendering of contracts, political appointments etc.. Everything. And that isn't racist. It's a practice that is in place in all modern political systems except Bermuda. And these arguments, if they hold, mean we'll never get it.

Julian engaged in one of the most circular and ill-thought out arguments I've ever heard, but he delivered it with his usual flair.

It does explain a lot though. Presumably this is the mentality of the PLP MPs, and it would therefore explain why successive PLP Governments bristle at even the most mundane questions, and it probably also explains why they haven't seen concerned about producing results and performance: to ask for results is racist.

If you needed an example of the PLP's problem in backing out of the term limits policy you need look no further than PLP backbencher, and a former Labour Minister, Terry Lister in Parliament on Friday night.

Current Labour Minister Derrick Burgess says term limits is about preventing new long term residents not jobs for Bermudians and blessed Mr. Ezekiel's trip to London to look for an alternative, Terry Lister thinks differently, he says its about racism:

Mr. Lister then changed subject, stating that international companies in Bermuda were not doing enough to combat racism. He said just two percent of people in management jobs in the country were black.

Mr. Lister said: “Racism must be removed from Bermuda and must certainly be removed from the workplace.

“Some members of the public feel this Government has moved too slowly on the issue of racism.

“What we have tried to do is to be balanced and fair to give companies time to get their acts together. “I’m very disappointed with international companies and their development.

“Is there anybody in this country who believes that when you get the best minds together, two percent of them are black?”

He said that too many companies had a “we won’t do it” attitude. Mr. Lister criticised international business leader David Ezekiel’s recent trip to London, stating workers should be found in Bermuda instead.

He added: “What will it take before they understand that this country belongs to all of us?

“At a time when the six-year rule is on the horizon, one would expect favourable working environment for black workers, but instead we see Mr. Ezekiel going off to London.

“What’s he going to London for? The people are here! Hire them, develop them, make them your own.

“We are too nice in Bermuda. Everybody says good morning, everybody says good night, and toots their car in the road.

“I don’t want us to stop being nice, but I want those who can make a difference to make a difference.”

Dr. Grant Gibbons has released the following statement to the media, responding to Premier Brown's disgraceful and vicious racial attack on him Friday night on the floor of Parliament:

MEDIA RELEASE

December 3, 2006

Former Opposition Leader Grant Gibbons today responded to the unprecedented personal attack launched against him by Premier Ewart Brown during the Motion to Adjourn on Friday in the House of Assembly.

“Friday night’s disgraceful personal attack by Premier Ewart Brown was one of the most vicious and racially charged speeches I have ever heard in my 12 years in Parliament. As elected members, we understand that the heat of debate can occasionally prompt intemperate remarks, but Premier Brown’s hate speech was premeditated and carefully calculated— he spoke from notes.

“He resorted to tactics that can best be described as thuggish: lying, bullying and physical intimidation.

“He made accusations designed to impugn my integrity and was unable to substantiate a single one.

“When he failed to hit the mark with that approach, he moved on to an unhinged racial attack, using shameful language designed to incite, polarize and divide—a far cry from the “healthy” talk about race relations he promised the country in his inaugural Throne Speech.

“Finally, he threatened me physically, suggesting he would cross the floor of the House, not to vote for the UBP, but to prevent me from raising unwelcome questions about his and his party’s political activities in the future.

“Premier Brown’s extraordinary behaviour has debased both the office of the Premier and the House of Assembly. He has brought shame to himself and his country.

“If the Premier’s remarks were designed to discourage me from asking further questions about fundraising activities of the T.H.E. Foundation, he has failed. It is my job, as an Opposition MP, to hold Premier Brown and his Government accountable, and I will continue to so. And, if my brief comments regarding the T.H.E. Foundation in the House the previous Friday, before the Speaker cut me off, solicited a response of this magnitude from the Premier, I must have touched a nerve.

“Even former Premier Alex Scott recently warned about ‘sweetheart deals’ and the dangers of political donors who could ‘buy into government’ and demand something in return.

“A week ago, I attempted to speak to the principle of foreign donors, who have no connection to Bermuda other than through Government contracts, contributing to the T.H.E. Foundation, which was initiated earlier this year by Mrs. Wanda Brown to solicit funds for Government tourism projects.

“T.H.E. Foundation contributions included a $25,000 donation from Mr. and Mrs. Don Coleman; he is chairman and CEO of GlobalHue, a U.S. advertising agency that holds the Bermuda tourism contract. Kurron Shares of America—hired three years ago as a consultant to the hospital and recently referred to by Health Minister Bascome as a “partner” of KEMH—donated at least $10,000. FIS Group, which advises the Ministry of Finance on pension fund managers, contributed a similar amount. FIS and their CEO, Tina Byles (Poitevien) Williams, were involved in the 2003 pay-to-play scandal when she issued invitations to U.S. pension managers to attend a lunch and contribute to then-Minister Brown’s personal re-election campaign.

“If these companies or individuals had donated to the Bermuda Red Cross, my questions would be unnecessary. But when foreign companies donate directly to Government officials or Government-related events and appear to be rewarded with Government contracts, it raises serious questions of pay to play.

“In most states in the U.S., this activity is illegal. In Bermuda, where our domestic anti-corruption legislation lags behind best practice in sophisticated jurisdictions, it should be considered at least unethical.

“Premier Brown boasted on Friday night that he had access to sources of great wealth in the United States that would ensure that the Progressive Labour Party would remain in power for a long time. Every Bermudian should be concerned that their current PLP Government is seeking U.S.-based donors to influence a political process that should remain local.

“In fact, it is possible that foreign donations of this sort violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits U.S. companies from bribing foreign government officials or foreign political parties to obtain or retain business.

“Dr. Brown’s vitriolic comments on Friday night suggest a troubled man who is still trying to settle old scores. His behaviour should prompt every Bermudian to think about what kind of person they want and trust to represent Bermuda as Premier.”

###

So let me get this straight, Dr. Brown wants to lead a sustained and open debate on race but says this:

However, one student at the Friday night event, argued that Dr. Brown’s own language was contributing to the racial divide saying terms such as “plantation questions” only increased the division. “I was born into a divided situation,” Dr. Brown replied. “My object is not to ignore a reality. If we are going to engage in a discussion then feelings on both sides will be hurt. We will have the pain of engagement – and then maybe some understanding.

“People seem to want a quick discussion so they can say it’s done, let’s move on. It doesn’t work like that.

“There are generations of social discomfort. I am saying let’s slow down for a minute and engage. Have a sustained conversation.

Being 'born into a divided situation' doesn't mean you continue to use the divisive tactics and language of that era. That's not denying reality.

You move on. To use Dr. Brown's favourite buzzword, you
'change'. Change the tone, change the atmosphere, change reality. Stop perpetuating it. That will foster an environment for a sustained discussion.

What we've got now is 1960's thinking and tactics in a 2006 world.

I understand that this is an uncomfortable discussion for some, and feelings will get hurt, but you don't do it intentionally as Dr. Brown does, and then claim you were born into division. That's the point.

All this ridiculous talk about plantations, using racially divisive language and running racially divisive election campaigns isn't at all about having a sustained conversation.

That's about generating more heat than light.

Surely by the PLP's own standards, the headline of today's Royal Gazette lead story should have been: "PLP Seeks Uncle/Aunt Tom".

Where to start with this one? Well, I'll start with this statement:

[Alex Scott] said there was a need to shift from the usual choice of diplomats and politicians and pick individuals the community knew and could identify with.

Except when the UBP pick a leader who is black (and Bermudian) that is. When that happens the PLP scream about window dressing, Uncle Tom's, sun-burns and playing the race card (and when the UBP select a leader who is white they're mocked as doomed to lose).

Does the PLP think that Baroness Amos or Scotland would more favourably entertain their anti-UK games due to their race?

I don't. I think they, or any other non-white diplomat or politician, know that they represent the Government of the United Kingdom, and would execute those duties no better or worse than the current and previous occupiers of Government House.

Alex Scott's suggestion that our relationship with the UK would be less 'tense' because the local representative was black, shows just how shallow he and his party are.

The PLP have no values. Just an obsession.

I didn't catch this during Friday night's Throne Speech debate, but in a conversation last night someone brought up the significance of Dr. Brown's interpolation while David Dodwell was speaking:

In a rowdy exchange with the Premier, Mr. Dodwell then accused the PLP of not being comfortable talking about race. Dr. Brown branded this claim "ridiculous" and told the Opposition to "wait until we move from talk to action".

With the Mr. Dodwell struggling to be heard in the House amid noise from both sides, he asked why his questions had got the loudest reaction of the day, more so than housing or seniors. The Premier replied: "Nothing gets us excited like this one – it defines our entire existence." [emphasis mine]

"Nothing gets us excited like this one – it defines our entire existence."

That's the line that piqued our interest during last nights conversaion, because it begs the following question:

If race 'defines [the PLP's] entire existence' do they have an incentive to resolve it or perpetuate it?

The PLP's approach to race and race relations, both as an opposition and Government, and their lack of action to improve it (despite getting 'excited' over it) leads me to conclude that they've decided that their political interests are best served by perpetuating racial division.

If one issue 'defines their entire existence', and is resolved (for lack of a better term), what else do they have to offer? What would hold them together? What would be their relevance?

You've got to love this one.

You'll recall that the Deputy Premier recently attacked whites for blocking his party's (non-existent) moves on economic empowerment. Well, the Mid Ocean News asked Dr. Brown to defend his comments in the face of criticism that his allegations were baseless. His reply?

"No comment on any of this at this time. I would prefer to wait until an election is called."

This coming from a politician who has admitted that his infamous 'don't vote yourself back on the plantation' comment was made for political gain - aka empty racially inflamatory election rhetoric.

Just to be clear then: the PLP want to talk about race (and racial empowerment) at election time, when tensions are high and details hard to come by, rather than in cooler periods when rational fact-based dialogue is possible.

Any questions about whether the PLP are more concerned with perpetuating racial tensions and inequality for political gain or addressing it sincerely?

Ouch. UBP Leader Wayne Furbert hits back hard...very hard...and deservedly so, in response to the Deputy Premier's dishonest claims to the African Heritage Conference:

"The problem with this government is that it has lost its way. For them, it’s not about empowerment; it’s about enrichment. It’s about putting themselves first."

Enrichment not empowerment. Those 3 words sum it up so well.

"Dr. Brown’s inference that white Bermudians are blocking the Government from meeting the needs of black Bermudians is the worst form of scapegoating. It is a pathetic attempt to shift attention away from his Government’s principal responsibility to help people in need.

"It is important to remember that the PLP Government has been able to exercise total control of the Legislature for nearly eight years now. It has enjoyed the position, the means and the power to make serious progress in areas where people are hurting. But in that time we have been treated to words without meaning and actions without result."

Well done Wayne. Dr. Brown and his colleagues should be called out after his blatantly dishonest speech yesterday.

Full release below:

Statement by United Bermuda Party Leader, the Hon. Wayne Furbert, JP, MP.

It is the style and habit of the Progressive Labour Party Government to use words, slogans and false argument to deflect attention from its continuing failure to meet the needs of the people.

Deputy Premier Dr. Ewart Brown’s comment before the African Heritage Conference that a large segment of Bermuda regards efforts to empower blacks as “evil” is just the latest example.

Not only does his language divide people, but it also puts out a new twist on the Government’s strange and disappointing lack of will when it comes to meeting the needs of the people.

Dr. Brown’s inference that white Bermudians are blocking the Government from meeting the needs of black Bermudians is the worst form of scapegoating. It is a pathetic attempt to shift attention away from his Government’s principal responsibility to help people in need.

It is important to remember that the PLP Government has been able to exercise total control of the Legislature for nearly eight years now. It has enjoyed the position, the means and the power to make serious progress in areas where people are hurting. But in that time we have been treated to words without meaning and actions without result.

I challenge anyone outside the Government to explain in what way “The Social Agenda” empowers people. I challenge anyone to say that this Government really believes in Sustainable Development in the wake of the hospital decision. And what about “Bermuda Homes for People” that left dozens of Bermudians holding a raffle ticket instead of a key to a house?

The reality is that this Government has been more interested in serving its own needs than those of the people. One only needs to look at its record to see that it has no problem mobilizing its will and using its power when it comes to serving itself.

· Perhaps the best demonstration of the Government’s power to get what it wants took place this summer when it steamrolled through Parliament pay rises up to 80% for Ministers and Government MPs; at a time when seniors and single moms struggle to make ends meet.

· When PLP leaders came to power in 1998, the total travel budget for the government was $2 million. Today, it is over $12 million – that’s $1 million a month – a massive and indefensible increase that has virtually nothing to do actually helping people here at home.

· After eight years in power, Bermuda is still in a housing crisis. Yet this Government had no problem finding hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate the now-sumptuous Laurels for its first Premier and $1.5 million on Clifton for the current Premier.

The reality is that any opposition this Government faces in implementing their plans is due not to the intent of the plans but to the poor planning and management of them.

The United Bermuda Party, for example, supported the Berkeley School project but we did not support the PLP’s inept management of its construction, which led to an astronomical cost overrun of at least $70 million. With better management, tens of millions of dollars of that overrun could have been used to meet housing needs, to help seniors, to hire new teachers…

The problem with this government is that it has lost its way. For them, it’s not about empowerment; it’s about enrichment. It’s about putting themselves first.

When the UBP in 2004/2005 put forward legislation designed to specifically help people who had been excluded from economic opportunities because of institutional racism, Government ministers and MPs dismissed it out of hand.

The proposed Bill, if it had passed, would have committed the Government to an extensive programme of empowerment for small businesses, including

* Allocating 20% of government spending on goods and services to small businesses – that’s $60 million that could be flowing to small businesses now.

* Training small businesses in bidding for Government contracts.

* Requiring businesses winning government contracts greater than $5 million to sponsor small businesses through a mentoring programme.

* Helping secure financing for small businesses with government contracts from local banks and other institutions.

The United Bermuda Party wants to solve problems. It wants unity in this country and we are prepared to do what it takes to empower people so that we can finally live our lives together moving forward.

This government has been a major disappointment. More and more Bermudians daily are waking up to the fact that they are being let down, taken for granted and played like a fiddle by PLP language that inflames but does not solve.

We need positive leadership. We need to build on what brings us together.

September 29, 2006

Another perspective from a reader on Dr. Brown's comment to the African Heritage Conference where Dr. Brown said:

"In 2006 we are still forced as a government to defend policies that are aimed at empowering a majority of the population and made to consult with representatives of the minority to reverse years of economic injustice against the majority."

The reader says that it "Gives a warm fuzzy feeling on Doc's commitment to public consultation."

Which is a good point.

Even if the PLP had attempted to implement policies at empowering the majority (read black) population - which they haven't - defending proposed policies and consulting with 'representatives of the minority' (read the UBP) is part of the democratic process.

People who don't blindly follow Dr. Brown and the PLP (a growing number by the way) are such an annoyance aren't they?

The aspiring Premier's autocratic tendencies are showing through again.

The howler of the day goes to Dr. Ewart Brown for his ridiculous speech to the African Heritage Conference:

"Ours is a curious nation...In 2006 we are still forced as a Government to defend policies that are aimed at empowering a majority of the population and made to consult with representatives of the minority to reverse years of economic injustice against the majority."

The truth of course is very different. In their 8 year term the PLP Government have neither implemented nor even tried to implement one policy or piece of legislation aimed at empowering the [black] majority. Not one. That's a fact.

Throwing contracts like the Berkeley one at your cronies doesn't count as a policy, and the Premier himself rejected the idea that it was given to Pro-Active on the basis of empowerment. He argued they were the best candidate.

I emailed Dr. Brown this morning asking him to point out one policy or piece of legislation that supports his statement. But he won't be able to. Because they don't exist.

In fact, the PLP rejected out of hand the UBP's draft Economic Empowerment Bill, with Finance Minister Paula Cox calling the Economic Empowerment Bill "a trifle patronising and condescending to small businesses."

It's a good thing that Dr. Brown was speaking to an audience who would have been largely ignorant of our local politics. His speech might have gone down well, but as usual, he's misleading people because he has to.

I attended the meeting last night at Vasco, which lasted until about 10:30 I'd say, and was pretty well attended by a good cross-section. [Note: The Royal Gazette's online story is only a small portion of the full write-up]

As I get 700 words a week in the Gazette and unlimited amounts here, I decided to spend the evening listening as I have plenty of opportunity to talk myself.

Overall I'd characterise the event as mostly a chance for some venting, some finger-wagging at the politicians in attendance and just a general outpouring of disillusionment and dismay at the path our community seems to be going down.

There were some great speeches, and some not-so great ones. The politicians were relatively subdued, mostly in listening mode as well, although the PLP contingent were extremely prickly towards Robert Pires.

Mr. Pires handled the moderation ok, although it started to wander a little towards the end of the evening, but moderating an open forum on such an emotional issue like that is not an easy task.

I would agree with Walton Brown's comments, reported in today's paper, that Mr. Pires went too far in paralleling the attack on Mr. Medeiros with Nazi Germany. I understand the point he was making but it was far too extreme an example.

For me there were some interesting takeaways:

- the most memorable comment for me was towards the end when a gentleman very sternly and directly at the politicians drew a very effective analogy. There's no way I'll do it justice, but with respects to PLP Minister Wayne Perinchief's attempt to discount the attack as indicative of any broader anti-Portuguese sentiment he said that it's like the weather; intermittent showers are when it is raining everywhere else, but an isolated shower is when it's raining over you.

He told the politicians that it's raining whether they like it or not and that what they've offered is an umbrella when what he really needs is clear skies.

It was the most concise and effective summation of the problem I could have imagined.

- one of the things which really stuck with me, both from comments during the meeting and afterwards, was that the Portuguese community seems to be deciding that now is the time to step forward. Historically they have kept a low profile and just got on with their lives, which has been misrepresented as being insular. Several friends from my school days who I haven't seen in years made this point to me afterwards, that the elders have discouraged individuals from being outspoken and it has become a part of the culture of Bermudians of Portuguese heritage.

- the PLP politicians tried to downplay the incident as an example of racism (maybe more appropriately described as an attack on someone presumed to be non-Bermudian because of his race/ethnicity - Bermudian=black, expat=white), but most of the audience wouldn't have it.

- There was a clear consensus that the current government has fostered an environment that permits racial/ethnic hostility both in Parliament, during their campaign and the president of Vasco ended the evening telling the PLP to give the Portuguese community some respect and the UBP to stop taking their votes for granted.

- a myriad of examples were provided on black on white racism in the public schools, which people said is pervasive, as well as other anecdotal incidents, highlighting that racism is not just white on black.

- one former public school teacher, who left the system over a decade ago and now runs her own school, gave an incredible and passionate speech about the problems in the schools, politics and families that are contributing to the division on the island.

- another young woman pointed out that she feels less proud to say she is Bermudian today than a few years ago, because she feels she has to justify it due to her race. She pointed out that she is not considered a 'real Bermudian' by many and that the current government must accept a share of the responsibilty for the rising racial tensions in the community due to their actions and rhetoric. She also accused Hott 107.5FM (whose operator PLP MP Glenn Blakeney was present) of running racially divisive programming.

Overall I'd say the evening was a success. Not so much in that solutions were offered, few were in fact, but because I got the feeling that people's patience has worn out. How that plays out is unclear but the Government is going to have to tread very carefully when they engage in their perpetual campaigns of inciting racial and anti-foreigner hatred.

A large section of the community, historically quiet, is starting to rumble.

Vasco will be hosting a community meeting tomorrow night, Wednesday 12 July at 7:30PM in the wake of the vicious ethnically inspired attack on Mr. Rui Medeiros after the Portugal-France World Cup game.

All are welcome. This is not a Portuguese only meeting and not focused soley on the attack on Mr. Medeiros. The organisers are looking for a broad cross-section of the community to join the discussion.

I'll be there and I hope you will too.

Bravo to Portuguese activist Mr. Robert Pires for absolutely nailing it on VSB news this evening, laying the anti-Portuguese, and broader anti-foreigner sentiment, squarely at the feet of the Premier and some of his Cabinet Ministers.

Mr. Pires hit all the right notes, dismissing the Premier's comments in Parliament as 'talk is cheap' and pointing out that the Premier saw a vicious xenophobic beating as an opportunity to promote his independence obsession.

Well done Mr. Pires. It's about time people called the PLP out.

Fresh evidence of the PLP expat scapegoating/blame the non-Bermudian.

As reported in today's Royal Gazette, former teacher and now PLP MP Dean Foggo, in responding to Shadow Education Minister Neville Darrell's concern about Cedarbridge's graduation rate (more on that in a subsequent post) made this tired case:

Government backbencher Dean Foggo, a former teacher at CedarBridge, said he had heard that it was “a lot of non-Bermudian teachers” who had made the allegations about CedarBridge.

“For some people it’s difficult when they go to Rome and they realise they have to do what Romans do,” he said. “There are teachers that we do not need here.”

It's the foreigners' fault. It's always the foreigners fault. Expat go home.

Where have we heard that sentiment before?

How's about here:

'You shouldn't be here. You should go back to where you came from. That's why us black people are suffering because of you lot.'

I rest my case.

Disgraceful. That's the only way to describe the Premier's linking of an attack on a Portuguese football fan on Wednesday with Independence.

Are there no depths to which the Premier (and Derrick Burgess in this case) will stoop?

The Royal Gazette doesn't appear to have the story online, but on the motion to adjourn in Parliament last night the Premier called the attack on Mr. Madeiros 'despicable', 'unacceptable' and 'cowardly' before shifting gears and saying that unless we go independent we can't consider capital or corporal punishment as a deterrent.

"You can't talk about capital punishment or corporal punishment unless you're an independent country.

"If you think corporal punishement is in the best interests of this country, it's not available to you until we make this a country.

"If you think capital punishment might deter those who would take the lives of others it's not available to you. Until we are an independent country we can't take those sovereign decisions."

Linking the attack with independence is despicable.

If the motives for this attack were based on Mr. Madeiros's Portuguese heritage, as it appears they were, that has nothing to do with capital punishment - which is by no means accepted as having a deterrent effect.

There seems to be a rising tide of xenophobia in Bermuda, but the seeds of this were sown long ago with the PLP constantly attacking foreigners in Bermuda as the root of all of our problems.

The PLP made 'Bermudianization' a rallying cry, stirring up hatred at every opportunity. Take the Police for example.

The Police are drastically under-staffed, and the PLP acknowledged this yesterday saying that they are looking to import 60 foreign officers.

For those of us with longer memories, we know that the PLP as an Opposition used Bermudianisation to crucify the UBP at every turn; the UBP became so sensitive that they were petrified to make some of the decisions they should have in looking abroad.

It still goes on with the PLP as the Government. Despite the fact that there has been a dramatic increase in jobs for non-Bermudians and a decline in those for Bermudians, they persist in claims to being the party of Bermudianisation.

On the eve of the 2003 election we had the work permit terms limits rolled out to much-fanfare about moving those pesky foreigners along. Then Opposition Leader Grant Gibbons correctly but unwisely during an election campaign pointed out that this was a bad thing, for which then Labour Minister Terry Lister claimed with glee that the wolf had taken off the sheep's clothing and the UBP was revealed as the anti-Bermudian party.

And then, right on the heels of the 2003 election win, new PLP Labour Minister Randy Horton gutted the policy by adding a key worker exemption that is so broad that any permit can be extended indefinitely.

Renee Webb at a PLP election rally was talking about the PLP ensuring that Bermudians held the highest positions in Government (which they long have) and Dr. Brown prattled on in Parliament a few years ago about what a great job they were doing in Bermudianising key Government positions.

The anti-foreigner sentiment has been alive and well for many many years in Bermuda, and we all know who has been feeding it. Some may be afraid to say it. But I will

The PLP are responsible.

And that's before we even get into the code words of 'Bermudian' as 'black' and 'expat' as 'white'.

A little leadership from the Premier and his party would be helpful in the wake of the attack on Mr. Madeiros, not more manipulation.

I'm disgusted by both the attack and the Premier's response.

Come on Dale.

Surely you don't think the electorate is so stupid that they'll buy this excuse. [Note the explanation was delivered in Parliament -- an unique place where MPs have 'privilege' and can't be held liable for what they say...although misleading the House is a no, no.]

You said it. It was dumb. You regret it. So apologise.

You did it once before. Remember? The thing about Europeans and hygiene.

As predictably putrid as now Cabinet Minister David Burch's "house nigger" comment was, the Human Rights Commission probably made the right call in dismissing Shadow Finance Minister Pat Gordon-Pamplin's complaint; although I think we're all aware that if the shoe was on the other foot the HRC would have taken a different view. Insulting someone is not a human rights violation in my book.

They did not however make the right call in charging out with a press release chastising Ms. Gordon-Pamplin as follows:

"While the HRC advocates the fundamental democratic right of free speech and welcomes constructive criticism, it encourages all persons, particularly representatives of the people, to be mindful and to exercise discretion so as not to reduce this or any public body to political sport for personal ends.

"Such irresponsibility brings with it only further contention and does not, in the opinion of the HRC, serve the interests of the community."

That press release was ill-advised and sounds awfully politically itself. Ms. Gordon-Pamplin, or anyone else frankly, is entitled to make a complaint. It's the HRCs job to decide whether the code does or does not apply. So the HRC comes out of this looking badly even thought they got the decision right in my book - and I hear their decision was neither unanimous nor uncontentious, despite the lecturey statement.

The Broadcasting Commission is a more appropriate forum for the complaint, but there's no chance of those PLP stooges -- led by PLP PR hack Scott Simmons -- giving that a fair hearing. So it'll be 0 for 2 on this front.

Lack of official reprimand notwithstanding, Colonel Burch and his colleagues are more than entitled to practice their vicious brand of racial politics. It's up to the public to stand up and put a stop to it, saying that enough is enough by not validating this behaviour at the polls.

Race based politics will persist as long as its practitioners believe that it will achieve the desired outcome ... despite the corrosive effect that it has on us as a community.

Saturday's Royal Gazette had an assinine (not that that was a surprise) Letter to the Editor (not online) from Neville Darrell [Note: not the UBP's Neville Darrell, the PLP's] taking frequent letter writer and PLP critic Michael Fahy to task for referring to the Premier as 'P'.

Mr. Darrell begins by calling the use of the abbreviation disrespectful before going where he really wanted, which was predictably down the racism path.

The argument was that the use of the term was racist, without explaining how, nor bothering to mention that the origin of the term came from the Premier's own self-inflicted email race scandal.

As the editor noted, Premier Scott signed his race tinged email 'P'. So, by Mr. Darrell's own logic, if we can call it that, the Premier revealed his racism...against himself.

Which is funny really, because the Blackberry incident highlighted that the Premier is the guy with the race problem.

The Royal Gazette
Opinion (24 Nov. 2005)

Welcome to the New Bermuda, a twilight zone where our political leaders exist in a parallel universe, one where up is down, regress is progress and wrong is right. With consistency having no place in the PLP Government it’s become abundantly clear that Cabinet functions as little more than an auto and dining club, a fragmented collection of individuals with competing agendas, little cohesion and a lack of leadership.

The sole unwavering message emanating from the Cabinet Office is that the United Bermuda Party is the big baddie; PLP mantra has long dictated that the UBP are responsible for all that is wrong, nothing that is right, everything that will be wrong and most importantly all that the current Government have screwed up.

What’s striking in all of this is just how much Mr. Scott and his colleagues are emulating exactly what they decry; whether it’s the rolling back of democratic reforms and accountability, back-room deals or most remarkably the discarding of the Holy Grail of “one man one vote”. The PLP Government’s ability to hold entirely contradictory positions on simple issues, blissfully oblivious to the patent absurdity of it all, is impressive.

The PLP’s position on Independence is a useful starting point to demonstrate the extent of the cognitive dissonance which grips our current political leadership. For a party that claims to abhor all things British, their desire to shatter our flimsy but advantageous ties and go it alone is oddly predicated on retaining everything British. Juxtapose that with their fervent desire to entrench Bermuda in Caricom – oddly predicated on rejecting everything it stands for – and the issue becomes all the more unintelligible.

The PLP advocates that we cut ties with the UK - but retain the Privy Council, Queen as Head of State, EU passports and British citizenship ie. keep all our UK ties.

And it advocates joining Caricom but rejecting its raison d’etre – the Caribbean Single Market Economy – which includes the free flow of labour, single currency and the Caribbean Court of Justice for example.

Therefore establish no meaningful ties with Caricom other than the Ministerial trips.

It’s little wonder then that no one outside of the ideological fringe find either of these positions coherent, let alone appealing.

But the PLP leadership can’t even remain consistent with their own intellectually inconsistent positions; whether it’s Dame Lois – the PLP’s guiding light and legal advisor to BIC – recommending that Bermuda cast aside the Privy Council, or Dr. Brown – the number two man in Government – recently expressing his desire for Bermuda to expand our role in Caricom’s Single Market Economy.

The Government is as predictable as the weather, hence the increasing public concern. Sadly, it’s not just around policy that Cabinet fails to demonstrate consistency or follow their own advice; it’s also evident in their interactions with those who they serve.

A good rule of thumb in politics is to not insult the intelligence or character of the electorate. Recently we’ve seen both. As leadership starts at the top, let’s start at the top. Several months ago “The Man” led his party straight into the gutter when he publicly insulted the intelligence of the 14,000 registered voters who’d like a direct vote on Independence. Generally that’s not a good idea, and you don’t have to be a PR expert like the Premier to understand that.

But it gets worse. The Premier’s favourite tagline is “Bermuda works best when Bermuda works together”. Sounds nice right? Except he doesn’t believe it, judging by the Colonel’s – who doesn’t care what you think – successful audition for a return from Cabinet exile.

On his officially non-political but obviously totally political radio talk show - the one where he routinely hangs up on callers – the newest PLP Senator uttered a phrase so heinous that it will no doubt supercede his previous efforts at infamy.

Back in August Mr. Burch, frustrated that his talk show callers wouldn’t fall into line like his regimental conscripts, referred to anti-independence black Bermudians as “house n***ers”. Impressed, Premier Scott promptly invited the shock jock back into Cabinet; because Bermuda works best when Bermuda works together. Or not.

Again, that type of comment isn’t smart at the best of times, but it does seem to fly in the face of the Premier’s professed desire for unity and rational debate does it not? While Senator Burch may not care what people think, he’ll surely think twice about lobbing that slur again outside of Cabinet.

It’s an inconvenient fact for a Cabinet which strives to polarize Bermudians around race, but polling consistently indicates that not just a majority of Bermudians oppose independence, but a majority of black Bermudians do so as well.

Well done Mr. Burch. In two statements you’ve insulted and ostracised 48% of the voters who didn’t vote PLP in 1998, and now more than 50% of black Bermudians who you deem “house n***ers”. Nice. Welcome to Cabinet.

In fact, whether he cares what anyone thinks is irrelevant. What matters is that most voters will care what he and his colleagues think, and that type of offensive, intolerant and outdated mentality has no place in politics, let alone Cabinet.

A twilight zone indeed.

Ok, I've been resisting taking apart piece by piece the Premier's crappy letter yesterday, but I can't help myself. So just a couple of tidbits to take the edge off:

What is an 'unadvertised' email (second sentence)?

Is it one without advertisements in it? Or could it be that before you email the Premier you have to email him to ask if you can email him?

Haven't we been through the political eunuch stuff before?

Well, at least over here we have.

Just to restate the obvious, the PLP don't have the balls to say balls, so they use the ridiculous term 'testicular fortitude' when they pat themselves on the backs for being willing to take the tough decisions. Therefore, someone lacking testicular fortitude would logically be a political 'eunuch', ie. lacking testicles.

Seems perfectly appropriate comment.

Was Brannon's email "disrespectful and offensive; laced with obscenities"?

Nope. It included the word "bull_ _ _ _", that was it. And, just in case the Premier isn't sure, that could have been "bullcrap". A term he might have some familiarity with.

How's about a random jab?

I won't even get into the Premier's quoting of Bermuda Sun editor Tony McWilliam in two or three different tenses and included "etc..." at the end. Just how do you quote someone and use "etc" at the same time?

Ok. We'll see if that rant makes me feel better. If that doesn't work I'm sure listening to Joss Stone belt out some soul tonight at the Music Festival will take Alex Scott off my mind. If she can't, no-one can.

After being off the island on a business trip and floored with a sudden bout of strep throat during my travels, I had lots of time to think about the Alex Scott vs Tony Brannon email brouhaha, as well as see if the Premier will deign to comment over the past 5 days.

He hasn't and presumably won't.

After following some of Phillip Wells' work on the topic over at Limeyland (here, here, here and here) I'd suggest that anyone who thinks Tony Brannon is going to get any love from the Human Rights Council is going to be in for a let down.

Without having a copy of the Human Rights Commission legislation handy, the Premier's email almost certainly won't qualify as something they can pursue for the simple reason that Tony hasn't been discriminated against.

Sure, the email revealed what I think most people knew but probably hoped wasn't true now that Alex Scott is Premier, but what Tony Brannon received was a racially tinged insult, not an act of discrimination.

Oh, and the Premier also won't resign. The PLP have long used race as a wedge issue? Their racial slurs didn't stop them winning the past election, so why will this be any different? It could be another nail in his coffin for those in his party who covet his post, but I won't waste my breath with a call for a resignation.

But that doesn't let him off the hook. The incident is more about character, and if the Premier sees no need to retract or clarify his comments then that speaks volumes.

When you have a party that operates from a bunker of press operatives, designed to soften the image and make their rants palatable, all it takes is one unguarded moment to unravel it all. And they don't come any more candid than that. (As an aside, it also should be of great concern that the Premier would be comfortable sending a message like that to a civil servant.)

The Premier's email revealed a moment of candor which revealed frustration at the increasingly aggressive criticism he's receiving. Absent the "look and sound like Brannon" component the email might have actually humanized the Premier in the eyes of many. Instead that all gets overshadowed.

It's not a stretch to conclude from the Premier's statement that criticism from non-whites is a different kettle of fish, or that part of his frustration is that he's got to take crap from outspoken white folks. Sure, Tony Brennan's email was abrupt and aggressive, but that's the beauty of politics in Bermuda, there's no sacred cows here. Nor should there be.

People who look and sound like Brannon are an annoyance I'm sure, but that's a fact of life for those who practice politics in multi-racial societies.

If Mr. Scott can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen (Cabinet).

I don't have much to add to UBP Senator Bob Richards' excellent Opinion piece in yesterday's Royal Gazette, except to say that I bet it gave the PLP some serious heartburn.

What I would like to say though is that for me it represents the best of the UBP and why I support them and think they're the best political choice.

Why do I say that? Because Sen. Richards hit the right balance between analysing data, identifying the problem, pointing out the failures of the current administration and offering some avenues for addressing the issue through effective public policy.

The contrast with the PLP's approach, which is to throw out whatever idea pops into their heads for short term political gain before analysing the underlying data and trends, is stark.

Sen. Richards did himself, the community and the UBP a great service with his piece yesterday. If the Government have any sense they'll take his advice.

Today's Letters to the Editor in the Mid Ocean News are a sight to behold.

The first 4, which address columnist Alvin Williams, are, simply put, devastating. (The one on the BIC isn't bad either.)

Mr. Williams has been totally and completely discredited.

Money quote from The Workers Voice (Vol. 30 issue 6, Friday Jan 21, 2005) in an article entitled 'Worker: Berkeley site work done mostly by foreigners':

"The worker, who asked not to be named, told The Workers Voice that he has been hoping to once again be working full time on the site, said that the majority of workers there now are white foreigners." [Final italics mine]

If the place is using foreign workers when suitable Bermudian ones are available then there is a problem. But can someone enlighten me as to why the race of the foreign workers is relevant?

Ahh, the efficiency of a Blackberry!

Straight from Parliament, courtesy of Shadow Minister for Race Relations and Economic Empowerment David Dodwell, comes a summary of what their sample legislation entails:

The Economic Empowerment Bill 2004

What does the bill do?

- Creates an Office of Economic Empowerment within the Ministry of Finance

- Commits government to a 2-year plan to allocate 20% of government’s spending on goods and services among small businesses.

- Establishes a Small Business Procurement Programme

- Facilitates the training of small businesses on how to bid for government contracts

- Requires businesses that receive over $5 million in government contracts participate in a Government sponsored small business mentoring program

- Broadens opportunity, by limiting an approved small business to $750,000 per year of government business unless no other businesses or individuals tender for the goods or services required by government.

What does the bill do? Part 2

- Provides for the facilitation of financing by local banking institutions for small businesses that have acquired government contracts

- Provides for the brokering of venture financial capital for small businesses that have acquired government contracts

What will the Office of Economic Empowerment do?

- Promote access to finance for the economic empowerment of all Bermudians

- Increase the broad-based and effective participation of all Bermudians in the economy of Bermuda

- Establish a national policy on economic empowerment so as to promote economic unity, promote equal opportunity and fair access to Government contracts

- Establish a small business mentoring programme

- Establish a tendering seminar programme for small businesses seeking approval

- Promote investment programmes that lead to broad-based and meaningful participation in the economy by all Bermudians

What will the Office of Economic Empowerment do? Part 2

- Provide annual updates to Parliament on the work of the Office and the progress of the Small Business Procurement Programme

What is the Small Business Procurement Programme?

- Outlines the goods and services that Government can procure from small business for that fiscal year.

- A strategy to expand the number of small businesses awarded government contracts

Why has the UBP created this bill?

- To address the fact that certain individuals have been excluded from economic opportunity in Bermuda

- We believe that it is critical that all Bermudians have the opportunity to be active participants in the economy irrespective of race

- We believe that a national policy on economic empowerment will promote economic unity, promote equal opportunity and fair access to Government contracts

RG Opinion (15 Sept. 2004)

'Unfinished Business' helps UBP find its voice

A funny thing happened on Labour Day. The UBP didn�t act the way the UBP is �supposed� to act.

Standing in front of the attendees at the ceremonies, Senator Kim Swan and MP David Dodwell did something you don�t often hear the UBP do publicly. They spoke passionately, personally and with an openness that many might not expect. They were unrestrained, at ease in a labour crowd, comfortable in their own skin and without the usual slippery language of politicians. They were direct, honest and introspective. Their message clearly resonated with both men speaking candidly about their, and their party�s, vision for one Bermuda.

To many, this might have been unusual. For me it was not. I�ve heard both of these, and other, UBP members speak powerfully about righting the wrongs of the past, about uniting Bermuda�s de facto segregated community, and about taking steps themselves to make this goal a reality. Unfortunately - perhaps due to a perception that public discussions about race put them on the PLP�s turf � these conversations have taken place internally, creating an impression in the community that the UBP is uninterested in the issue.

Things have clearly changed. This is not your grandfather�s UBP, and it�s happening under an unlikely leader. It�s happening under a Gibbons. You know, the ones that you�re told represent and protect the white establishment. By sending out Kim Swan and David Dodwell to deliver their messages in his absence, Grant Gibbons has signaled his desire to put racial reconciliation front and center under his leadership. Behind that even-tempered unflappable demeanor, is just another Bermudian that cares about the issue.

This directness might surprise some of the traditional UBP support. But if the UBP is to again take the reigns of leadership in this community, they�re going to have to talk about and address race. Only then can we be united. The party is going to have to be ready to open some minds and pull any reluctant members along with them, bringing us together as one.

Bermuda has to tackle the issue of race, and it must be done with a genuine desire to achieve results, not for short-term political point scoring. This UBP seems to have taken up the challenge and appears to have found its voice. The Labour Day speeches should have made that clear, but in reality it started back on October 30th, 2002 when Dr. Gibbons delivered an address entitled �Today�s UBP: Embracing the Power of One Bermuda�.

Dr. Gibbons said in his speech (available on the Party�s website): �The legacy of slavery and segregation persists. Prejudice and glass ceilings have not disappeared. There is unfinished business between black and white Bermudians�we cannot deny that�and our history suggests that the struggle to become one Bermuda will not be easy. But the goal of one Bermuda is worth the struggle, because the price of failure is too high.�

The leader of the UBP acknowledged the "unfinished business" between black and white Bermudians' and seems aware that he leads an organization which can advance this cause. Why? Simple. The party was founded at a difficult time in our history as a partnership between the races. The UBP is all too aware that Bermuda�s future depends on the success of this goal. The party�s own continued viability and the uniting of the races are inextricably tied. That�s something that bodes well for Bermuda.

What you saw last week was a renewed determination and willingness to accept this responsibility and step out of the party�s comfort zone to lead the dialogue that must take place. So where has this desire to publicly address racial reconciliation and social inequality come from?

Political parties are a sum of their parts, a reflection of the values of their members. When you join a party you don�t submit yourself to some pre-determined agenda, you help define it and the way it will be achieved. Parties, like people, change with time.

Over the past few years the UBP has brought in a wealth of new blood, and the benefits of this are showing. The party has evolved, with its leadership reflecting on the relative successes or failures of prior policies and methods. The current philosophy and direction of the party is a result of that introspection and fresh faces, revealing an understanding that all isn�t well in our community.

There�s a perception in Bermuda that the UBP isn�t concerned about racial and social inequities. That couldn�t be further from the truth. Grant Gibbons, Kim Swan and David Dodwell, among others, should confirm that.

I've been observing a rather heated, to put it nicely, thread over at A Limey in Bermuda that seems to have largely drawn to a close. It got pretty exhausting at the end with a couple of commenters posting some pretty hateful and ignorant white supremacist type stuff but somewhere in there was a reasonably productive debate that got off track.

The post essentially tries to draw a line between ProActive's problems at the Berkeley site and the idea that the credibility of all black people has been hurt as a result. I pretty much agree with Phil's position, but wanted to address a few things from the perspective of the political system and the parties, that hasn't been touched on yet.

The whole thing started because the UBP's Patricia Gordon Pamlin said that as a result of this project no one in their right mind would consider black contractors for a large project, and then the PLP's Wayne Perinchief said that the Government was now 'trying to save the credibility of black people.' Two similar sentiments, one on the negative side, one delivered a little more positively - but essentially the same criticism.

Just to reiterate, it is incorrect to say that Pro Active's failure by extension indicts all blacks, but it isn't a surprise that it's cropped up. To some extent, the PLP themselves have created this connection as a political tool - and a smart one at that.

At the last election, one of the major themes delivered on the doorstep by PLP canvassers was, 'If you don't vote us back in you're saying that black people can't manage'. The flip side of this argument, as someone pointed out to me, is 'if you vote us out you're saying that only white people can run the country'. The PLP have used this argument quite shrewdly in an attempt to prevent defection among some swing voters and quash concern over their performance in their first term.

Whether it worked or not I don't know, but I do know that it was used. I disagree with the sentiment in both the Pro Active scenario or the scenario of the PLP's re-election, but to deny that tactic was used would be dishonest.

Additionally, one of the other things that was expressed to me by a black Bermudian was that the black community put a lot of pressure and expectations on each other to succeed. Perhaps the best example is when young black men and women go off to higher education. Many in the black community will tell them that they're going 'for all of us, so don't screw it up". There's even an NAACP commercial on heavy rotation in Bermuda that expresses this with a young man going off to college and his father wanting him to wear a tie. It's quite a powerful ad. In many ways, Pro Active might have carried some of this burden of expectation, one I can sort of understand. This individual felt that while both Ms. Gordon Pamplin and Mr. Perinchief's comments were misguided, he knows where they coming from, and many in the black community probably could too.

On to the topic of black economic empowerment, or maybe just economic empowerment. An important aspect has been largely lost in the discussion of the Government and Pro Active's performance:

Government have been completely inconsistent, evasive and downright schizophrenic on whether the Berkeley contract was awarded on the basis of empowerment.

The Premier, when W&E Minister, wanted to have it both ways - as he did recently in his rambling and ineffective press conference. Mr. Scott was waffling in the face of criticism about the PLP's treatment of a black firm, and responded by saying there were other examples of contracts awarded that were successful (Dellwood I think was one example), but ended his comments with "who just happened to be black". Well which one is it? The PLP seem to want both sides of the issue when it suits them.

You can't have a policy of economic empowerment, or black empowerment, or of anything if you aren't sure what you've done and can't decide if you did it or not. In today's RG Ashfield De Vent goes down the same road. He picks up a line used by the Premier before the last election:

"Mr. DeVent said he understood Pro-Active had come up with the most responsive tender at the time.

"They were chosen on merit.""

I ask again which one is it? The contractor thinks it was awarded as part of a broader, albeit undefined, policy of empowerment. Julian Hall said as much in his press conference:

"He added that Cabinet Ministers had spoken out about a desire for a policy of black economic empowerment. But Government had not delivered the degree of flexibility and support that Pro-Active had been led to expect, as a small company without the substantial capital resources."

That's my biggest complaint with the PLP's claim to be supporting black businesses and following a course of empowerment. Where's the policy? Where's the support to achieve success? This is something I've written about in my RG column. In the absence of a policy it's just favouritism. Or is that the point?

A policy statement is limiting. It means all-comers can apply and it clearly sets out who qualifies, what the expectations are and what support Government will give. Selection is based on a clear set of guidelines and the process would be open and easily justified. Even if people disagreed with the methodology it would be laid out and the Government could say this is why we did what we did. Instead there is nothing but the word of the Government and a completely inconsistent approach to this, one the Government aren't even sure they're doing themselves.

I support this approach, and in fact the UBP, in the run-up to the 2003 election, proposed establishing an Office of Economic Empowerment to do just that. Obviously, they lost so it didn't happen - which is a shame because that proposal was a good one as was the housing plan - but what the PLP are doing is not economic empowerment. It's political opportunism, pure and simple.

If the Berkeley contract was truly a case of economic empowerment then Government would have announced that the contract was going to be awarded on this basis, or with this as a consideration, BEFORE the tendering process began - not after.

What happened here was that Pro Active was awarded the contract and the PLP pointed to it and said "Look. Empowerment". Well, not really. What about all the other small black contractors who might have wanted to put together a consortium, or their own new firm and bid? How were they empowered by this? Recently in a RG Letter to the Editor (not online) Dr. Eva Hodgson made a very incisive point when she stated that (I'm paraphrasing) "the PLP hierarchy is not all black people". Absolutely, but they'd like you to think that because they and their hand picked few are doing well that all blacks have been empwered. Absolutely not. It's just a new elite that is being created. A new 40 Thieves for the new millenium.

What seemed to occur was that the Government put word out to a few selected individuals that they'd win the contract if they put together a firm - even with a substantially higher bid - and called it empowerment afterwards. That's favouritism, cronyism in my eyes, not empowerment.

It didn't work in any case but economic empowerment couldn't have been hurt in this case because this was anything but. What was hurt I believe was the PLP's ability to go down this murky road again. I can't see the public standing for it...if we're aware it's happening that is.

From Cal Smith's column yesterday in RG:

"I understand racism as the situation when one race is antagonistic towards another race."

Then he doesn't understand it if that's his definition.

Racism is:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Antagonism might be an outgrowth but it isn't really the issue.

But the Limey is right. Why would any white person join an organisation that is openly hostile to them? If you buy the PLP's argument it's that they are hostile towards whites because whites won't join the party (which is openly hostile towards them). A circular argument if I've ever heard one.

Much like the UBP is told that it's going to take more time to convince black Bermudians that the party isn't the Steering Committee of the Great White Conspiracy, the PLP have to prove themselves to be genuinely interested in dropping the vile racial attacks before more than a handful of white's will join them.

If both parties do this we'll start moving forwards to public support based on ideas, philosophy and platforms, which I think the UBP is closer to representing now. Parties will always have their die hard partisans but they aren't the ones who push them over the top in elections. The independents do that.

Based on the last election campaign by the PLP any genuine attempt by them to bring the races together is a long way off and laying the issue at the feet of whites is nothing more than deflecting the PLP's own role in this.

Michael Dunkley certainly has a way of drawing out the PLP during Motions to Adjourn on shady dealings that they would prefer to keep under the radar screen. The looming Bermuda Cement Company (BCC) controversy is no different and looks set to become the next Berkeley scandal.

Phil Wells is concerned about who Derrick Burgess is talking about when he says 'our people'. Most people will assume that he's talking about black Bermudians, but that isn't the case.

When the PLP talk about 'our people' they mean PLP cronies not black Bermudians. Black Bermudians as a whole haven't got a thing out of the PLP since 1998 other than lip service. However, a few individuals and businesses closely aligned with the PLP have done very well - under the political disguise of taking care of 'our people'.

The problem with the PLP's claims to be empowering the black community economically is that they are actually doing the exact opposite. Successive PLP administrations have chosen to allocate Government projects with no overriding policy, guidelines or framework. I challenge anyone to show me what document people can look at and say "Ok, so I might qualify, this is how I apply, this is when I can expect to hear if I was successful and if I wasn't this is why".

They are not empowering businesses. Quite the contrary they are creating an economic dependence on the PLP through contract allocation.

What happens is the PLP say we've given, or in Derrick Burgess's case - are about to give, this Government contract to Firm ABC and that is empowering 'our people'. In reality it is intended to ensure that Bermudians suck up to the PLP hoping to stay in favour and be the beneficiaries of Cabinet 'benevolence' with taxpayer funds.

The PLP have no desire to set up a policy or a department to deal with these issues because if that were the case individuals/businesses would be chosen in an ethical manner - those who most deserve get the contract not those who suit the PLP's political purposes.

Any government could achieve a policy of economic empowerment through an expansion of the economy. This however would require some forethought and even-handedness, so it is much easier to taketh away - as BCC seems about to find out.

I completely support the concept of economically empowering those who have historically suffered economic disadvantage, although I hate the term 'affirmative action'. Race however, is a pretty blunt tool to achieve this. I'd suggest that we establish a department to manage this and a transparent policy which anyone can look at and see whether they are eligible or not. Politicians have to be removed from this process to minimise the potential for corruption and cronyism. Only them will we see those with real economic need benefitting.

It's a fact that black Bermudians have been economically disadvantaged. Any policy built around economic conditions would achieve the result of empowering the black community, as well as those of other races and ethnicities who are equally deserving.

As it stands now the concept is being used to ensure that individuals and businesses are indentured to the PLP and link their economic fortunes to the PLP's success at the polls.

This has to stop as it is sending a chill down the spines of the whole Bermuda business community.

Political risk insurance anyone?

I picked up this Chicago Tribune story from the Pondblogger. The short newspaper article makes for thought provoking reading (it's worth subscribing - it's free). I can't wait to get my hands on the book.

Mr. Gates raises issues that would stimulate significant debate here in Bermuda as well.

I received this article yesterday from someone by email. It was written in 1998 but the similarities to Bermuda are striking.

Marion Barry: Last of the Black Emperors - June 1998

Another interesting perspective in Friday's Sun (recently added online) by Tom Vesey, a veteran observer of Bermudian politics (and a friend). I greatly respect his insight and think he's touched on a number of critical areas.

Bermuda Sun: 'Figures show the UBP is more diverse than it was', Jan. 16, 2004

Here's another interesting perspective on the lessons from the 2003 campaign:

Pondblog: 'Race and Bermuda�s Election', Aug. 2003"

Sir John Swan is taking some hits in the local media today with a guest editorial in the Mid Ocean, and a Letter to the Editor in the Royal Gazette.

I'm going to write some more on this topic later but if you haven't bought the Mid Ocean yet today I'd do so.

There are 3 good articles:

1) An interview with Khalid Wasi (a friend of mine) about the emergence of a new activist group to try and gain the middle ground in Bermuda politics
2) John Swan elaborating on his comments in last week's Royal Gazette.
3) Tim Hodgson's editorial on what John Swan may be up to.

Well worth reading.