Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983 [1 ed.] 9781443893398, 9781443851787

Citation preview

Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983 Edited by

Nicole Phillip-Dowe and John Angus Martin

Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983 Edited by Nicole Phillip-Dowe and John Angus Martin This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by Nicole Phillip-Dowe, John Angus Martin and contributors Book cover design by Hugh Whyte All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5178-7 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5178-7

CONTENTS

Illustrations ................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................... ix Abbreviations .............................................................................................. x Introduction ................................................................................................ xi Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Citizens and Comrades in Arms: The Congruence of Fédon’s Rebellion and the Grenada Revolution John Angus Martin Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 18 Was the 1979 Historic Occurrence in Grenada a Revolution or a Mere coup d’état? Lawrence A. Joseph Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 29 Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution Joseph Ewart Layne Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 47 “caterpillar dead butterfly born”: Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution 1979-1983 Nicole Phillip-Dowe Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 65 Religion and the Grenada Revolution Claude J. Douglas Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 78 The Grenada Revolution: Perspective of a Young Pioneer Claudette Joseph

vi

Contents

Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 85 Understanding through Poetry: A Story of the Grenadian Revolutionary Journey Merle Collins Chapter Eight ............................................................................................. 99 The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective Suelin Low Chew Tung Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 129 Ancestors, Memory, Trauma: The Grenada Revolution Alive Kimalee Phillip Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 143 Paradoxical Memories: Inquiry into the Remembering and Forgetting of the Grenada Revolution Malaika Smith-Brooks-Lowe Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 157 Unearthing Maurice: Reviving Local History in the Grenadian History Curriculum Marie Benjamin and Kadon Douglas Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 171 Memories of Grenada: The Arts, the Ordinary and the Reconciliation Shalini Puri Select Bibliography ................................................................................. 179 Contributors ............................................................................................. 184 Index ........................................................................................................ 187

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1-1 Fig. 1-2 Fig. 1-3 Fig. 1-4 Fig. 1-5 Fig. 1-6 Fig. 1-7 Fig. 3-1 Fig. 3-2 Fig. 3-3 Fig. 4-1 Fig. 4-2 Fig. 4-3 Fig. 4-4 Fig. 6-1 Fig. 8-1 Fig. 8-2 Fig. 8-3 Fig. 8-4 Fig. 8-5 Fig. 8-6 Fig. 8-7 Fig. 8-8 Fig. 8-9 Fig. 8-10 Fig. 8-11 Fig. 8-12 Fig. 8-13 Fig. 8-14

Artist’s impression of Julien Fédon (Michael Donelan) Military barracks at True Blue, St. George after being attacked and burnt on March 13, 1979 Radio Free Grenada on the morning of March 13, 1979 First rally after the Revolution, March 1979 Second rally after the Revolution, 1979 Maurice Bishop at La Force Estate May Day Celebrations Joseph Ewart Layne Revolution billboard- International Airport Maurice Bishop, Raul Castro and Fidel Castro Phyllis Coard Revolution billboard – Women Jacqueline Creft Dessima Williams Young Pioneers Gordon Hamilton - Education A Right Not a Privilege, 2011 Trish Bethany- Memorial to Simon: ‘for peace comes dropping slow...,’ 1984 Erik Johnson- The legacy or ... and they said, 2011 Susan Mains – Alimenta’s Sorrow, 2010 Gordon De la Mothe – Coke in the Caribbean, ca 1990s Jim Rudin – US Soldier on the Esplanade Grenada, 1983 Poster Grenada 1979-1983 Revolution: An Art Perspective Sue Coe – U.S. Military Successfully Bombs a Mental Hospital in Grenada, 1984 Artists and their work on the poster Poster collage of the revolution using works of various artists Renate Krohn – Erinnerung An Die Opfer, 2011 (In Memory of the Victims) Yvonne Roberts – Forget Me Nots, 2011 Oliver Benoit – Defective Birth, 2011 Canute Calliste – Killing Maurice Bishop on Fort Rupert in St. George’s

viii

Fig. 8-15 Fig. 8-16 Fig. 8-17 Fig. 8-18 Fig. 8-19 Fig. 8-20 Fig. 8-21 Fig. 8-22 Fig. 8-23 Fig. 8-24

Fig. 9-1 Fig. 9-2 Fig. 9-3 Fig. 9-4 Fig. 9-5 Fig. 10-1 Fig. 11-1 Fig. 12-1 Fig. 12-2

Illustrations

Doliver Morain – Assassinated on Fort Rupert October 19 1983, 2011 Alexandra Quinn – Forgotten Relics, 2011 Gilbert Nero – Revolutionary Door, 2011 Malaika Brroks-Smith-Lowe – Conversation Piece #1, 2011 Lilo Nido – Revo Installation, 2011 Turid Erichsen- A Grimm Fairie Tale ,2011 Suelin Low Chew Tung – Untitled, 2011 Bernadine Antoine – Untitled (My Backyard Until...) Roland Benjamin – Untitled Various Artist from left to right. Top: Stacey Byer - Silent Witness, Lizda Sookram - Untitled, Ricardo Francois - Known Before as (PSIA). Bottom: Jennifer Alexis - October 19th 1983, Nickel Fortune, Untitled, Roslyn Dewsbury- Grenada Under Fire Grafitti with pro-revolutionary slogans Graffiti on dilapidated building at Tempe, St. George CIA propaganda comic book - part one CIA propaganda comic book – part two Monument to US soldiers at Point Salines, St. George Maurice Bishop and Bernard Coard Heroes of the World – Grenada Revolution Boy and Cubana plane, Pearls, St. Andrew Children playing basketball at Fort George

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is the end result of the UWI Open Campus Grenada Country Conference, March 3-5, 2016. The conference was held as part of the outreach programme of The University of the West Indies Open Campus Grenada. Fifteen papers were presented at the two-day conference of which twelve form part of this book. We would like to sincerely thank the contributors: Marie Benjamin, Merle Collins, Claude Douglas, Kadon Douglas, Claudette Joseph, Lawrence Joseph, Joseph Ewart Layne, Suelin Low Chen Tung, Kimalee Phillip, Shalini Puri and Malaika Smith-Brooks-Lowe.

ABBREVIATIONS

CCC CIA CPE CSEC GNM GNP GULP JEWEL MACE MAP NISTEP NLA NJM NWO NYO PRA PRG RMC UWI YWCA

- Caribbean Conference of Churches - Central Intelligence Agency - Centre for Popular Education - Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate - Grenada National Museum - Grenada National Party - Grenada United labour Party - Joint Endeavour for Welfare Education and Liberation - Movement for Advancement of Community Effort - Movement for Assemblies of the People - National In-Service Teacher Education Programme - National Liberation Army - New Jewel Movement - National Women’s Organisation - National Youth Organisation - People’s Revolutionary Army - People’s Revolutionary Government - Revolutionary Military Council - University of the West Indies - Young Women’s Christian Association

INTRODUCTION

The history of the small island state of Grenada has been tumultuous. In just over three hundred years the island witnessed three popular uprisings that brought about profound changes in the society. The socialist revolution of 1979 orchestrated by the New Jewel Movement culminated four-and-a-half years later in a U.S.-led military invasion/intervention which threw Grenada full-fledged onto the international political stage. Research on this third revolution and its untimely and violent demise has captured the imagination of numerous writers, scholars, academics, poets, artists and playwrights. Over four hundred books, articles, plays, and videos have documented this event in excruciating detail, yet the vast majority of the authors have been non-Grenadian. This collection of essays captures the Grenada Revolution from a Grenadian perspective. All the contributors, except one, are Grenadian. In this regard, it is unique, and captures the voices of persons who were active participants, children, teenagers, young adults, and some yet unborn in the 1979 to 1983 period. They all, regardless, have a deep interest and attachment to the Grenadian experience. Those who witnessed it are still enthralled by the Grenada Revolution three decades later, and continue to question and assess its place in Grenadian society. Those who did not live it are captivated by its historicity and seek to understand how it affected the lives of Grenadians in and out of the island. The legality of the revolution is questioned; the historical connection between Grenada’s first revolution in 1795 and its third revolution in 1979 is examined; the nation’s collective memory of the revolution is pondered by its second generation; the conflict between the role of religion and revolution is analysed; the empowerment of women by the revolutionary process is critiqued; the role of poetry and art in raising salient and often difficult and painful aspects of the revolution is investigated. John Angus Martin, historian and archivist, examines the 1979 Grenada Revolution as a continuation of the struggle against colonialism begun by the 1795 Fédon’s Rebellion. The causes, internal and external conflicts of both revolutionary processes are investigated, detailing the congruence that might explain their popularity and why they ultimately failed. Martin asks if the architects of the 1979 revolution had possessed more than a superficial knowledge of the 1795 revolution would they have

xii

Introduction

avoided the internal struggles that derailed the Grenada Revolution, recognizing full well that the follies of human nature were the deciding factor. Lawrence Joseph, a legal professional, examines the 1979 historic occurrence in Grenada from a legal, political and philosophical perspective in order to determine whether or not that occurrence was a revolution or a mere coup d’état. Joseph critically analyzes the key doctrinal concepts which were utilized in various “extra-constitutional cases” in Africa, Asia and Europe, over the years in common law jurisdictions. This important question Joseph posits had an impact on the outcome of the Maurice Bishop murder trial. Though primarily the legal aspects of the debate are examined, many still react emotionally to whether the Grenada Revolution was a revolution or a classic coup d’état. The title of Joseph Ewart Layne’s chapter, “Overstretch to Bursting Point,” aptly reflects the arguments he presents. As a member of the revolutionary process he critically analyses, in hindsight, the internal and external pressures the fledging four-and-half year-old Revolution had to grapple with. Among the matters discussed includes Grenada’s relationship with two diametrically opposed ideological fronts in the form of Capitalism – the United States, and Socialism – Cuba and Sovietsocialist bloc nations; flaws in the organisational structure of the People’s Revolutionary Government, as well as personality differences between the revolution’s two main personalities Maurice Bishop and Bernard Coard. It is a unique perspective from an insider looking critically at one of the most vigorously debated issue of why the Grenada Revolution failed. In the next three chapters, Chapters four to six, the effects of the revolution on women, youth and religious relations is critiqued. PhillipDowe, historian, investigates the role of women in the revolutionary process and the effect the revolution had on them. It provides an analysis of the policies of the People’s Revolutionary Government and the agencies responsible for the execution of these policies. It seeks to ascertain whether these policies encased in socialist theory and a socialist mindset “empowered” Grenadian women during the four-and-a-half-year period of the revolution. Women accounted for half of the island’s population and as such their voices provide a valuable perspective on the revolutionary process. It also begs the question as to whether this empowerment can be considered a legacy of the revolution. Claude Douglas, a sociologist, expounds on the Revolution’s irreligious undercurrents that strained its relationship with the religious community, including the Rastafarian sect and the small Muslim community, members of whom were initial supporters of the revolution. Douglas noted that

Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

xiii

riding on the wave of Karl Marx’s perspective on religion, many young revolutionaries distanced themselves from religion and things religious. Religion, though important in the lives of many Grenadians, was viewed with a degree of scepticism. This scepticism, set against a largely religious community determined to protect its influence, led to discomfort, misgivings, and conflict that threatened the PRG’s ideological control. Claudette Joseph, a legal professional, provides a perspective of the pioneer movement that she was a member of as a young girl. She speaks of the benefits of the movement that positively impacted her own life, and discusses the lessons that could be learnt from the successes and failure of the revolutionary process. It is a look through adult eyes of a childhood experience that was transformative as a young person and influenced her adult political outlook. Through poetry and art Merle Collins and Suelin Low Chew Tung are both able to capture some of the salient emotions of the period, celebrating, critiquing and analyzing the promise and optimism of the Grenada Revolution. Through her poetry, Collins, poet and novelist, explores the period before the revolution, with responses from a location in the Diaspora, and then moves through the revolutionary years, recording and sharing the excitement and hope of a period of anti-colonial, antiimperialist and cultural awakening. The work then comments on feelings of unease and emergent critiques during the period of the revolution, and finally culminates with emotions felt surrounding the 1983 collapse and the subsequent United States Invasion. Suelin Low Chew Tung, a mixed media artist, uses the artistic interpretations of the revolution to paint a picture of emotions extant during the four-and-a-half-year period of change and socio-political turmoil. Most of the art work focuses on the painful experiences of the collapse of the revolution which speaks to the aspect of the revolution that has remained at the forefront of our memory. It is an emotional presentation of art that evokes memories and longing for a failed promise that many still struggles to understand. In chapters 9, 10 and 11, four young writers, Malaika Brooks-Smith Lowe, Kimalee Phillip, Marie Benjamin and Kadon Douglas have all encountered in their research the power of forgetting with regard to the revolution. All born after the Grenada Revolution, they continually strive to understand this unique experiment that so captivated the island, and struggle to explain its demise. In interviews conducted with young adults, ages 18 to 21 years, memories of the revolution are relegated to a squabble for power, murder and invasion. Their research unearthed the apathy of the youth towards the revolutionary process and that of educators, including

xiv

Introduction

the Caribbean Examination Council, towards the inclusion of the topic of the Grenada Revolution in the study of Caribbean History. The book closes on a hopeful note with the chapter by Shalini Puri, noted scholar on the Grenada Revolution. Puri looks at the memory of the Grenada Revolution, suggesting that we should emphasize “the joyfulness and profound creativity of the revolutionary years” instead of tragedy, which focuses on “dead heroes” and “not the living chorus” of the many who continue to try to understand their revolutionary experiences.

CHAPTER ONE CITIZENS AND COMRADES IN ARMS: THE CONGRUENCE OF FÉDON’S REBELLION AND THE GRENADA REVOLUTION JOHN ANGUS MARTIN

Introduction Fédon’s Rebellion and the Grenada Revolution are both defining events in Grenada’s history for what they set out to achieve and the impact they have had on Grenadian society ever since.1 These two events are foremost 1 For detailed accounts of Fédon’s Rebellion see: D.G. Garraway, A Short Account of the Insurrection That Broke Out in Grenada in 1795. Grenada: G. Wells & Son, 1877; Gordon Turnball, A Narrative of the Revolt and Insurrection in the Island of Grenada. London: Verner and Hood, 1796; Thomas Turner Wise, A Review of the Events that Happened in Grenada from the Commencement of the Insurrection to the First of May. Grenada: The Author, 1795; A Grenadian Planter (anon), A Brief Enquiry into the Causes of, and Conduct Pursued by the Colonial Government, for Quelling the Insurrection in Grenada, 1795. In a Letter from a Grenada Planter to a Merchant in London. London: J. Budd, 1796; John Hay, A Narrative of the Insurrection in the Island of Grenada Which Took Place in 1795. London: J. Ridgeway, 1823; Francis M’Mahon, A Narrative of the Insurrection in the Island of Grenada in the Year 1795 by Francis M’Mahon, One of the Three who Escaped the Massacre on the 8th of April. Grenada: Printed by John Spahn, 1823; Raymund Devas, A History of the Island of Grenada, 1498-1796. Grenada: Carenage Press, 1974; and George Brizan, Grenada: Island of Conflict. Oxford: Macmillan Caribbean, 1998. For detailed accounts of the Grenada Revolution and US Invasion see: Joseph E. Layne, We Move Tonight: The Making of the Grenada Revolution. GRMF, 2014; W. Richard Jacobs & Basil Ian Jacobs, Grenada: The Route to Revolution. Casa de las Americás, 1979; Gordon K. Lewis, Grenada: The Jewel Despoiled. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987; Anthony Payne, Paul Sutton and Tony Thorndike, Grenada: Revolution and Invasion. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984; Frederic L. Pryor, Revolutionary Grenada: A Study in

2

Chapter One

on the islands’ historical landscape because of their tremendous impact on people and society, then and now, the changes brought to the political and social landscape, and the influences on future political thinking. Though just over two centuries separate these events, they have been ideologically linked in the island’s historical struggles against colonialism. Many revere Fédon’s Rebellion as a “slave revolt” second only to the Haitian Revolution, and regard Julien Fédon (see Fig. 1-1) as a national hero for his leadership of that revolt.2 The Grenada Revolution emulated Fédon’s Rebellion, and saw itself as the continuation or embodiment of the anticolonial struggles begun by Fédon and his compatriots.3 Despite its disastrous end and the subsequent US invasion, the Grenada Revolution remains highly regarded by many, both locally and internationally, and some Grenadians greatly regard its populist leader Maurice Bishop as a national hero.4 Both events share an interesting historical congruence such that at least an academic exploration is warranted. The stark similarities make for quite fascinating analysis, including the causes of the respective events, their internal and external influences, and internal rivalries that led to their subsequent demise. This research explores these issues and ponders what lessons, if any, could have been learned by the leaders of the Grenada Revolution had they a more profound understanding of Fédon’s Rebellion?

Background On the night of 2-3 March 1795, French free coloureds, whites and their enslaved, led by a free coloured (mixed race) named Julien Fédon (with the title of “general”), staged a rebellion against an increasingly oppressive Political Economy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1986; Tony Thorndike, Grenada: Politics, Economics and Society. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1985; Gary W. Williams, U.S.-Grenada Relations: Revolution and Intervention in the Backyard. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007; and Shalini S. Puri, The Grenada Revolution in the Caribbean Present: Operation Urgent Memory. New York: Palgrave, 2014. 2 Grenada does not have an official system for recognizing national heroes of any kind. 3 The People’s Revolutionary Army’s primary camp at Calivigny, St. George was named Camp Fédon; ironically it became the site of the burning of the bodies of Bishop and his supporters following their executions on October 19, 1983. 4 See footnote 2 above. October 19, the day Bishop and his allies were executed, is annually commemorated, and his supporters advocate for that date to be made a public holiday instead of October 25, the day the US invaded, which is a public holiday and celebrated as Thanksgiving Day.

Citizens and Comrades in Arms

3

anti-French, British colonial government. They attacked the towns of Gouyave, St. John and Grenville, St. Andrew, beginning what became known as Fédon’s Rebellion (or the “Brigands War” as the British termed it). At the west-coast town of Gouyave, led by free coloureds Etienne Ventour and Joachim Philip, rebels captured about 40 British residents following their midnight attack on the town, and took them back to their headquarters at Belvidere estate, the remote coffee/cocoa plantation of Julien Fédon. On the eastern coast, almost at the same time and under the command of Julien Fédon and Jean Pierre Lavallee, the rebels stormed the small seaside village of Grenville (or La Baye), massacring eleven of the fifteen British residents, but blamed it on a non-existent invading French Republican force. On the way back to their hillside camp, they took more hostages and gathered supporters to their cause, including enslaved who awoke to the sounds of rebellion in the pre-dawn hours of March 3rd.

Fig. 1-1 Artist’s impression of Julien Fédon (Michael Donelan)

With a combination of planning and good fortune, the rebels captured Lieutenant Governor Ninian Home, the head of the British colonial government, just hours after the rebellion’s outbreak, thus inhibiting an immediate government response. By the end of the first week, over 7,000 people–French free coloureds and free blacks, whites and self-emancipated

4

Chapter One

slaves (of both French and British plantations)–had gathered at the rebel camp, its leaders vowing to force the British colonial government from Grenada and replace it with a pro-French Republican one.5 The British, taken by surprise, were in disarray and unprepared to respond to the rebellion of its French subjects and a large force of rebel ex-slaves. The rebels immediately called on the government to surrender, which they declined, vowing to resist the brigands at all cost. The rebels dug in for the defense of their camps while the British struggled to defend the besieged, but fortified town of St. George. The rebellion raged for fifteen months, and saw extreme brutality and destruction across the island, and to all segments of the society. The rebellion had temporarily achieved a quasi-freedom for a large portion of the enslaved population that dared to rally to the rebel cause. The majority of the enslaved, however, remained on the side lines, fearful of choosing sides and thus retaliation.6 The rebels, though commanding an overwhelming “army,” orchestrated what appeared to be an haphazard offensive. At its height, the rebels gained loose control of a large portion of the island, but were unable to dislodge entrenched British forces from their stronghold in St. George’s, or force them to surrender. The British gained some control of the seas, thus restricting the needed external support for the rebels. Personality and possibly ideological differences quickly led to internal conflicts that created divisions within the rebel hierarchical structure, forcing a confrontation between the rebel leaders Julien Fédon and (his brother-in-law) Charles Nogues, and their French Republican supporters in Guadeloupe and St. Lucia. Disunited and beaten back to their interior camps, the might of the British Empire descended on the island and crushed the revolt in June 1796, resulting in the deaths and capture of many rebels, and the executions and banishment of over 200 rebels and their families. As many as seven thousand enslaved (25 percent of the total enslaved population) were killed during the rebellion, and over five hundred charged with bearing arms were sold off the island.7 On the night of 12-13 March 1979, members of the National Liberation Army (NLA) of the New Jewel Movement (NJM) staged a coup against the increasingly repressive rule of the Eric Gairy government. It attacked government installations, capturing the Grenada Defense Force’s barracks at True Blue by setting it on fire (see Fig. 1-2) and Radio Grenada at Grand Anse, thus beginning the Grenada Revolution. The NJM claimed 5

Garraway, A Short Account, 9-12. The first so-called rebel to be executed was an enslaved whose only crime was to accompany his master to the rebel camp. 7 See Garraway, A Short Account, 77, 80. 6

Citizens and Comrades in Arms

5

that they had no option but to act immediately, having received reliable information that Prime Minister Gairy had left orders to have its leadership “silenced.” The NJM called on members of the Gairy government to surrender, and all police stations to do the same by hoisting a white flag. By the end of the day, the NJM was in full control of the islands, staging a successful, armed overthrow of the elected Gairy government it had opposed for almost a decade (see Fig. 1-3). Though taken by surprise, a large segment of Grenadian society welcomed the coup, and the NJM soon gained widespread local and international support.8 The rule of the Eric Gairy government, characterised by corruption and mismanagement, had brought the country to the brink of political and financial bankruptcy, and many saw the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) as a positive force to bring about needed change.

Fig. 1-2 Military barracks at True Blue, St. George after being attacked and burnt on March 13, 1979 (GNM)

With ideological and material support from Cuba, the USSR, other socialist and non-aligned states, and under the banner of international Socialism, the NJM embarked on innovative economic and social policies 8

Ann E. Wilder, The Grenada Chronicles: NJM Takeover of Government, 1979. St. George’s, Grenada: The Grenada National Museum Press, 2016.

6

Chapter One

that tackled many issues plaguing Grenadian society, with the goal of dramatically altering it to the benefit of “the masses.” The four-and-a-half years old Grenada Revolution enjoyed initial successes, stemming from the exuberance among Grenadians who, for the first time, felt that they were part of something special and larger than themselves. Foreign workers, realizing the dream of a socialist revolution, flocked to Grenada to give of their energies and contribute to the Revolution (see Fig. 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7). Confronted with growing internal opposition from critics, some of them former supporters and members, the PRG responded by arresting many as “counter revolutionaries,” even incarcerating Rastafarians at a reeducation camp for illegal drug production.9 Added to this were economic, structural and political pressures, especially from the United States government which viewed Grenada as a threat to stability in the region.

Fig. 1-3 Radio Free Grenada on the morning of March 13, 1979 (GNM)

Internal differences, however, proved to be the bane of the Grenada Revolution. Issues over different approaches and style of leadership between Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and his deputy Bernard Coard soon surfaced, and would, over time, disastrously impact the course of the Revolution. The subsequent house arrest of PM Bishop in October 1983, his release by his supporters, and the assassinations of Bishop and his 9 See Ras Herb, Rehabilitation or Death, St. George’s, Grenada: Anansi Publications, 1991.

Citizens and Comrades in Arms

7

allies led to the implosion of the Revolution, leaving the door wide open for a massive US military invasion that finally crushed the Revolution in 1983.10 It also resulted in the convictions of seventeen of the leaders who were only released from prison in 2009 after most having served twentyfive plus years.

Internal Causes For both Fédon’s Rebellion and the Grenada Revolution, internal issues were at the foundation of their grievances, and the catalyst for revolt came directly from within. Fédon’s Rebellion can be viewed as an antidiscriminatory rebellion for social, political and religious rights by the French who orchestrated and led the rebellion against the British colonial government. Almost all analyses of Fédon’s Rebellion to date define it as a slave revolt or a revolt against the slave system, but this analysis, however, would like to suggest a more nuanced view. Fédon’s Rebellion was a revolt by French free coloureds and whites primarily to destroy the British colonial government and replace it with a pro-French Republican one, which, in all probability, would have ended slavery as was the case in Guadeloupe.11 I would also contend that the rebellion of the enslaved was in support of that end, but they also orchestrated an haphazard attempt to gain their own freedom. The Grenada Revolution can be viewed as an anti-colonial, anti-capitalist revolution directly stemming from the Gairy government’s persecution of the opposition, and its capitalist economic and social policies that the NJM wanted to change. In the case of Fédon’s Rebellion, it was a direct reaction to the increasingly oppressive British colonial government, particularly towards its French subjects, all occurring within an oppressive slave plantation complex.12 Beginning with the British takeover of Grenada in 1763, the French population that remained, the “New Subjects,” experienced determined efforts by the British to restrict the power and influence of their larger population. Representative government was delayed because of the fear that the French would dominate it. Once the representative system was in place, election laws made it difficult for the French to 10 Jorge Heine, “The Hero and the Apparatchik: Charismatic Leadership, Political Management and Crisis in Revolutionary Grenada,” in A Revolution Aborted: The Lessons of Grenada, ed. Jorge Heine, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990. 11 See letters in Garraway, A Short Narrative, 9-12. 12 Edward L. Cox, “Fédon’s Rebellion, 1795-96: Causes and Consequences,” Journal of Negro History 67, 1 (1982): 7-10; Brizan, Island of Conflict, 59-62.

8

Chapter One

participate; it was a concerted effort to disenfranchise the French population.13 To hold official positions in the government, the French had to swear to the Test Act, which most viewed as a negation of their religious beliefs. The majority protested, but this religious and social discrimination continued throughout the 1760s. Even when the legal discrimination was removed, the “Old Subjects” made every attempt to thwart the participation of the French in local government. The situation got dramatically worse when the British regained the island in 1783, following four years of French interregnum, which the British characterized as “being in the most despotic manner.”14 For the French free coloureds, the situation was worse than their fellow white compatriots. Within the slave system, free coloureds and blacks were less regarded, and were more akin to third-class citizens despite their free status and often ownership of property, including enslaved. Julien Fédon, Louis La Grenade and other prominent free coloureds were representative of that group. They encountered religious, ethnic, and racial discriminations at the hands of the British population in a country where they may have once experienced a milder form of discrimination under the French. The free coloureds may have felt added pressures that made the rhetoric of revolution and the “Rights of Man,” then igniting the region, appealing. Between 1784 and 1795, the British government engaged in religious and social discriminations against its French inhabitants, especially its free coloureds and blacks. This systemic persecution only reinforced the belief that there was no relief to be achieved from within the system, cutting off all possible compromise. For the French inhabitants in Grenada in the 1790s, the revolutionary upheavals taking place in the region presented a solution to their situation, and they seized the opportunity. In the case of the Grenada Revolution, it was a direct response to the increasingly oppressive Eric Gairy government and its social and economic policies, within a growing advocacy for ideological change in Grenada and throughout the region.15 But it was the concerted efforts by the Gairy government to stifle the opposition that created the conditions for revolt.16 At the base of its opposition, the NJM saw the Gairy government as a continuation of the colonial system and status quo it had just extricated itself from through Independence. Though Gairy had 13

Brizan, Island of Conflict, 52-7. E. Gittens Knight, The Grenada Handbook and Directory, 1946. Barbados: The Advocate, 1946, 26. 15 Brizan, Island of Conflict, 384. 16 Brizan, Island of Conflict, 367-388. 14

Citizens and Comrades in Arms

9

challenged the colonial system and radically altered the course of the country with his mass revolt in 1951 and Independence in 1974, the NJM advocated more drastic changes so that a larger portion of Grenadian society, which had been exploited since slavery, could benefit.17

Fig. 1-4 First rally after the Revolution, March 1979 (GNM)

Due to its consistent opposition and growing influence, the Gairy government pursued policies that targeted the NJM members in a determined effort to block their path to power. The opposition encountered repeated harassment of their persons and organization to participate in the political process.18 The general elections of 1976 is a prime example of the lengths the ruling party pursued to block the opposition when it introduced the Newspaper Amendment Act, and other measures to limit political activities.19 Though the NJM had always regarded the Westminster political system with skepticism, the Gairy government’s attempts to manipulate the electoral process only fueled their disregard and reinforced their desire to act outside of it. With many grievances against the system and the existing government, the NJM believed that its agenda would be better served by bringing down the existing system rather than working against its undemocratic tendencies and change it. Thus, like the leaders of Fédon’s Rebellion, the NJM embarked on a course of rebellion to address their grievances and to create a new society in Grenada through violent revolt.

17

Brizan, Island of Conflict, 375-378. Report of the Duffus Commission of Inquiry into the Breakdown of Law and Order, and Police Brutality in Grenada. Kingston, Jamaica: Duffus Commission, 1975. 19 Patrick Emmanuel, “The Grenada General Elections, 1976,” Bulletin of Eastern Caribbean Affairs 2, 1 (1977): 1-3. 18

10

Chapter One

External Influences Though the causes of both Fédon’s Rebellion and the Grenada Revolution were primarily internal, they were influenced, sometimes strongly, from outside, and received material and ideological support from powerful external advocates. As detailed above, the causes of Fédon’s Rebellion were decades of persecution and discriminations by the British against the French, but the turbulent political environment in the region in the 1790s aided their efforts. It is certain that the rebels were influenced by the French Revolution, the tenants of “Rights of Man,” the slave revolt taking place in the French colony of St. Domingue (Haiti), and other struggles taking place in the region in the turbulent 1790s. The initial supply of arms, ammunition and finances came directly from the French Republicans at Guadeloupe under Victor Hughes where rebel leaders Charles Nogues and Jean Pierre Lavallee travelled to just days before the rebellion in Grenada.20 It is evident that the rebels identified with the ideology of French Republicanism, wearing their uniforms, adopting the slogan “Liberté, equalité ou la mort,” and used the French tri-color as their own flag.21 Once the rebellion got on its way, Hugues sent French Republican forces to Grenada to support the rebels, and they eventually established Port Libre (formerly Gouyave) as an administrative region under their full control.22 A close relationship also existed between Victor Hughes and some of the rebels, particularly Charles Nogues, whose son was hosted by Hugues in Guadeloupe during the rebellion. The communications between the French in Guadeloupe and St. Lucia, and rebels in Grenada provide a rare glimpse into their uneasy relationship. It reveals that though the French Republicans tried to play a greater role, the rebels, particularly Julien Fédon, may have discouraged it because he did not want checks on his own authority.23 The external support, however, was vital to the success of the rebellion, and it proved detrimental when British forces succeeded in cutting it off.

20

Garraway, A Short Account, 2. Turnbull, Narrative of the Revolt, 15-16. 22 Thornhill, A Narrative of the Insurrection, Appendix, 11-13; Curtis Jacobs, “Fedon’s Rebellion,” in Encyclopedia of Slave Resistance and Rebellion 2 vols, ed. Junius P. Rodriguez. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, 1: 194. 23 See La correspondances addressée par Victor Hugues à Feydon, 1795-96. Colonies C10A4, Archives Nationales, Paris; and John Debrett, A Collection of State Papers Relative to the War Against France (J. Debrett, 1796), v.3, 2: 170172. 21

Citizens and Comrades in Arms

11

In the case of the NJM, external influences were a major stimulus, beginning with the ideology of its members. In the early 1970s, it was Maurice Bishop, Unison Whiteman, Bernard Coard and others, returning from studies in the UK and the US with new ideas of politics and government, who embarked on creating social movements to challenge what they saw as colonial exploitation of the masses. Premier Gairy, however, saw them differently: “These irresponsible malcontents, these disgruntled political frustrates coming from abroad,… coming here, metaphorically and literally hot and sweaty, and shouting ‘Power to the People.’”24 They returned influenced by the Cuban Revolution, the ideology and economics of Socialism, and other anti-colonial struggles across the globe, particularly in Africa, even the Black Power and Civil Rights movements in the US and Canada where Caribbean nationals were heavily involved. These struggles reverberated throughout the Englishspeaking Caribbean and threatened the political status quo in the region as was the case in Trinidad in 1970, with Premier Gairy using it as a cautionary tale when he said “When your neighbours’ house is on fire, keep on wetting your own house.”25

Fig. 1-5 Second rally after the Revolution, 1979 (GNM) 24 Chris Searle, Grenada: The Struggle Against Destabilization. London: Writers & Readers Publishing Cooperative Society, 1983, 15. 25 See Taimoon Stewart, The Black Power Revolution of 1970: A Retrospective. Barbados: Institute of Social and Economic Research, UWI, 1995; for details; Eric Gairy, “Black Power in Grenada,” Speech, Radio Grenada, 3 May 1970.

12

Chapter One

The NJM was formed in 1972 as a grassroots organization against the ruling Grenada United Labour Party of Premier Eric Gairy and the opposition Grenada National Party of business interests. It secretly became a vanguard party modelled on the Cuban Revolution and the Tanzanian Ujaama system. Following its failure to forestall Grenada’s Independence through mass protest against Eric Gairy in 1974, it reluctantly participated in the 1976 general elections and became a significant member of the opposition. However, it did not abandon other options to remove the Gairy government. Leading up to the 1979 revolt, members of the NLA secretly went to Guyana, under the socialist government of PM Forbes Burnham, for military training as preparation for military action in Grenada. Once the revolution proved successful, the new revolutionary government received direct support of military hardware and financial resources from Cuba under Fidel Castro, and other socialist countries, including the USSR and North Korea. Though the NJM criticized the US government for not responding positively to their early request for financial assistance, thus forcing them to seek that help elsewhere, they wholeheartedly identified with the ideology of Socialism as an appropriate system for Grenada’s development and friendly relations with socialist countries, particularly Cuba. Within a few months of the Revolution, Cuban personnel and others from socialist countries exerted influences on the PRG, both internally and in its international relations. Hundreds of Cuban workers assisted with the construction of the international airport at Point Salines, and the PRG accepted military and educational training/scholarships in socialist countries. A strong personal relationship developed between Fidel Castro and Maurice Bishop, viewed by some as one of mentor to mentee, which may have led to a deeper involvement of the Cuban government in Grenada’s internal affairs. This became a point of contention between members of the NJM and PRG, especially in the final days of the Revolution. To the very end, however, the influence of Cuba was unmistakable when “Cuban workers” stationed at the Point Salines airport construction site were called upon to defend the island in the wake of the US invasion.

Internal Struggles Both Fédon’s Rebellion and the Grenada Revolution were initially successful in carrying out their immediate objectives, so a high degree of organization, discipline and trust must have existed among the leaders of the respective revolts. In both cases, the populace was taken by surprise, as the rebels succeeded in keeping their plans secret despite having to

Citizens and Comrades in Arms

13

inform many people. The level of comradery among the members of both groups was evident in the immediate aftermath of staging their respective events. For the planners of Fédon’s Rebellion, their organizing may have been as many as eighteen months prior. It included a diverse group, numbering as many as fifty core people, including French free coloureds and blacks, and white property owners from across the island; it does not appear that their enslaved were in on the initial plans. It wasn’t until the day leading up to the rebellion that some British residents began to notice unusual activities among the rebels, but by then it was too late to act.26 However, internal dissention surfaced almost immediately among the rebel leadership, culminating in the deaths in the first week of a number of rebels, including the prominent leader Jean Pierre Lavalee by a murderous rebel who Fédon immediately had shot.27 Maybe the chaotic nature of Fédon’s Rebellion and the precarious situation of not achieving the immediate surrender of the British brought out differences, or showed the stark diversity of ideas and personalities among the leadership. The violence created by the internal conflicts scared many of the whites who had joined the revolt out of fear for their lives in the first place. In the following months, many of them surrendered to the British, insisting that they did not join the revolt of their own free will and hoping to be given dispensation. The hierarchy of Fédon’s rebellion comprised primarily French free coloureds, free blacks, and whites. Prominent whites like Clozier D’Arcuiel, Jean Baptiste Olliviere and Chevalier du Suze played important roles in the organization and planning of the military operations and administration of the revolt. Many prominent free coloureds and blacks led military companies, including Stanislaus Besson, Joachim Philip and Charles Nogues. Fédon, as general, sat at the head of the leadership and seemed to exhibit final, almost dictatorial control, but nonetheless maintained a consultative “body” known as the “Commission of 24,” and sought advice from those around him.28 Many on that body, free coloureds and whites, had a personal relationship with Fédon, and were either from the town of Gouyave or the parish of St. John as was Fédon. He appeared to be always surrounded by some of the prominent whites who were,

26

Hay, A Narrative of the Insurrection, 21-22. M’Mahon, A Narrative of the Insurrection, 29-30. 28 See Hay, A Narrative of the Insurrection, 76 for Hay’s appeals for mercy (for the British hostages who were being killed) made to Fédon’s white advisors who replied that “they had no influence whatsoever over him [Fédon].” 27

14

Chapter One

according to Dr. Hay, his advisors.29 Prominent leaders like his brother-inlaw Charles Nogues was not on that body, or had left it as a rift developed between them early in the rebellion. The origin of the dispute between Fédon and Nogues is unknown, but Goyrand, the Republican leader in St. Lucia, referred to “several individuals have desired to act a part in this revolution, who, from a spirit of jealousy, of ambition, or the insanity of pride, have endeavoured to revive prejudices condemned to profound oblivion.”30 Hugues writes that “We are pained to see how divided you are; the enemy will hear of it, and will take advantage of it to fall upon you and defeat you. Let ambition give way to love of the Republic. It is impossible for you all to be in charge; obey those who command you and do not force us to use harsh measures against you. Listen to our appeals, they are for your own good.”31 It is not clear who Hugues is criticizing, but the letter is addressed to Fédon. The relationship between the rebels and the French Republicans deteriorated further, forcing Hugues to beg Fédon, “We had predicted, citizen, you are divided, you were overcome, thus re-join that love of the Republic to replace your ambitious desires. We want to send you forces to repair the loss that disunion has just made you.”32 With no reply from Fédon, Hugues again writes: “Our colleague has just informed us that despite our advice and our exhortations, there is still dissension among you.... We reiterate that as long as your motivation remains an ambition to wear epaulettes, and as long as your passions take precedence over your devotion to the Republic, you will suffer defeat....”33 By October 1795 it all came to a climax when Goyrand ordered the dissolution of the so-called Commission and called Fédon to Guadeloupe to answer charges brought by Nogues and La Grange against him.34 Fédon refused to report, and it appeared that Nogues, unable to continue under Fédon, decided to leave Grenada to take up a position in St. Lucia with the French Republicans. Because of Fédon’s refusal to respond to Hugues’ request, he lost the command of French troops in Grenada, but remained head of the rebel forces of free coloureds, blacks and freed slaves from Grenada. 29

Hay, A Narrative of the Insurrection, 44. Debrett, A Collection of State Papers, 2: 172. 31 Hugues à Feydon, 24 November 1795, La correspondances addressée par Victor Hugues à Feydon, 1795-96. 32 Hugues à Feydon, 31 July 1795, La correspondances addressée par Victor Hugues à Feydon, 1795-96. 33 Hugues à Feydon, 8 September 1795, La correspondances addressée par Victor Hugues à Feydon, 1795-96. 34 Debrett, A Collection of State Papers, 2: 170-172. 30

Citizens and Comrades in Arms

15

For the Grenada Revolution, it would take much longer before differences surfaced and affected the course of the Revolution, ultimately derailing it. The immediate success of the revolution brought people together as the tasks at hand required that unity, and things went well for at least the first two years. Though numerous analyses of the demise of the Revolution point to ideological differences between PM Bishop, his Deputy Coard and their allies as the primary cause of the rift between them, others contend that it was more about personality differences. Maurice Bishop, charismatic, handsome and congenial, immediately became the popular leader of the Revolution and loved by everyone. His laidback, outgoing style and desire to please everyone contrasted with Coard’s discipline, organized, often undiplomatic and straight forward approach towards everything. This brought them into contention as Bishop was often criticized for not adhering to decisions taken through consensus. It may have been a case more of wanting to be all things to everyone than just going against the decisions of the party, but it was an issue that vexed the members of the Central Committee.

Fig. 1-6 Maurice Bishop at La Force Estate (GNM)

This and other “failings” soon developed into a rift between the populist leader of the Revolution and the ideological wing. A direct

16

Chapter One

consequence was the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Coard from the Central Committee, despite his staunch support among its members and across the party. Pressures on the PRG from within and especially from the outside, particularly the US government, seem to have increased the tensions within the NJM. The internal rift soon consumed the government and party, leading to an internal coup when Bishop was placed under house arrest for refusing to comply with the party’s decision to create joint leadership between Bishop and Coard. The conflict over leadership led to a bloody confrontation on 19 October 1983 when the PRA attacked Bishop and supporters at Fort Rupert (currently Fort George) to retake control. PM Bishop and seven top supporters were later executed in the Fort’s courtyard. Six days later the US initiated military operations against Grenada in a massive invasion that buried the Grenada Revolution.

Fig. 1-7 May Day Celebrations (GNM)

Summary Fédon’s Rebellion and the Grenada Revolution are important events in the islands’ history though separated by almost 200 years. The similarities between the two events, however, are remarkable in their internal origins,

Citizens and Comrades in Arms

17

the external influences, and the internal struggles that ultimately derailed both. On the face of it, Fédon’s Rebellion was not what it appeared to many of its modern admirers. It is clear that the details of Fédon’s Rebellion, particularly the internal conflicts among its leadership, were not known to most people and definitely not the members of the NJM and PRG who revered it. They, like many others, had only a superficial knowledge of the internal workings of the rebellion, and the role internal conflicts played in weakening its command and thus derailing the rebellion. Unbeknownst to them, the leaders of the Grenada Revolution would make similar errors when they allowed personality differences and styles to weaken their leadership and ultimately destroy the Revolution. Goyrand’s critique of Fédon and the rebels almost 200 years ago is probably pertinent today about the revolutionaries during the Grenada Revolution. He saw the failure of the rebellion to take control of Grenada from the British due to “passions, inherent in human nature, [that] have excited a domineering faction, which has substituted private interest to the public good.” He chastises the leadership of the rebellion, where “several individuals have desired to act a part in this revolution, who, from a spirit of jealousy, of ambition, or the insanity of pride…,” destroyed the core ideals of the rebellion.35

35

Debrett, A Collection of State Papers, 2: 171-172.

CHAPTER TWO WAS THE 1979 HISTORIC OCCURRENCE IN GRENADA A REVOLUTION OR A MERE COUP D’ÉTAT? LAWRENCE A. JOSEPH

On 13th March 1979, a most historic event occurred in Grenada. For the first time in the English-speaking Caribbean, a constitutionally elected government was overthrown unconstitutionally. Members of the New Jewel Movement (NJM) which was one of the opposition parties in the Grenada Parliament seized power unconstitutionally from the constitutionally elected government of Prime Minister Eric Gairy. The usurpers then suspended the constitution and established a regime which they called the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG). They exercised executive and legislative control of the country and the Political Leader of the NJM and then Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Maurice Bishop, was appointed as Prime Minister. Shortly after the March 13th event, then Prime Minister Maurice Bishop made a public declaration which stated that “the constitutional government in Grenada has been interrupted as a consequence of the violations and abuses of democracy committed by the administration of Eric Gairy under the guise of constitutionality.”1 Since that period the March 13th event, together with later developments, was referred to by many as “the revolution”. Upon proper examination of this historic event, some doubts may be raised as to whether in truth and in fact that that event was indeed a revolution. If in fact it was not a revolution, then what was it? Was it a mere coup d’état? It is postulated that for any proper analysis to be made on the nature and character of that historic occurrence in Grenada in 1979, the analysis 1 President Haynes of the Grenada Court of Appeal in Mitchell & Others v. Director of Public Prosecution (1986), Law Report Commission (Constitution) 35.

Was the 1979 Historic Occurrence a Revolution or a coup d’état?

19

must be done from a legal/political/ philosophical perspective. One significant way of so doing is to examine the way in which the event was treated by the courts. In the meantime, it is important to have common ground as to what constitutes some of the important concepts which are to be used in this presentation. A coup d’état may be defined as an unconstitutional seizure of governmental power with or without force. For example, in Grenada there was the use of force when several insurgents stormed the army barracks at their headquarters in True Blue on the morning of 13th March 1979. However, in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), there was no use of force when the then Prime Minister Ian Smith made a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom government in 1965. Social scientist Tayyab Mahmud explains, “Only that part of the constitution which bears on the formation of political organs of the state is subverted.”2 A revolution may be defined as a complete overhaul of the existing legal order giving rise to a completely new one which is by and large endorsed by the bulk of the population. Mahmud identifies it as “a complete metamorphosis that affects both civil society and the entire state; the transformation is so pervasive that legitimacy of the new order is completely autonomous of the processes and institutions of the old order.”3 It is to be noted however, that an initial coup d’état could give rise to a revolution. Another social scientist Farook Hassan points out, “if substantial dysfunctional conditions do exist at the time of the coup d’état, revolutionary changes could result. If this is the case, the coup d’état acts as a triggering event that brings about the revolutionary change which shapes the future state of affairs in the body-politic of that society.”4 In some of the literature regarding extra-constitutional issues the terms “coup d’état” and “revolution” are sometimes used interchangeably. To a large extent, the interchange is unimportant however in certain instances as would be later elucidated, a distinction ought to be made. For the purposes of this presentation the legal order of a state may be regarded as a system of rules, principles and standards which a state relies upon to regulate the behaviour of individuals within the society. It includes 2

Tayyab Mahmud, “Jurisprudence of Successful Treason: Coup d’état and Common Law,” Cornell International Law Journal, 27 (1994): 103. 3 Ibid, 102. 4 Farook Hassan, “A Jurisprudential Critique of Successful Treason: A Jurisprudential Analysis of the Constitutionality of a Coup D’état in the Common Law”. S.J. International (1984): 197.

20

Chapter Two

the constitutional provisions of a state. The term legal order may be used interchangeably with the term “legal system”. Notwithstanding this simple definition, it is acknowledged that different approaches utilizing the principles of natural law theory5, those of legal positivism6 and Kelsen’s theory of normativism7 may also be adopted. The concept of discontinuity of an existing legal order refers to a break or gap in the legal order as a whole and is not concerned with a break or gap in connection with individual laws. However as recognized by political scientist, de Smith, there is “no neat rule of thumb available to judges during or immediately after the ‘revolution’ for the purpose of determining whether the old order survives wholly, in part or not at all.”8 It all depends on the facts and circumstances of particular cases. Where the old order survives wholly, even after a revolution then it may be said that there is continuity of the existing legal order. Continuity or discontinuity of an existing legal order following an usurpation of government has implications for establishing whether there is just de facto status of a usurper regime or whether there is de jure status. De facto status means governmental control in fact only, and de jure status means governmental control both in fact and in law. If a court determines that a usurper regime only has de facto status, then it may be reasonably presumed that there is continuity of the legal order. However, if a usurper regime is considered to have de jure status it is highly probable but not necessarily the case that there is discontinuity of the legal order. Discontinuity of the legal order is a necessary condition for establishing the legitimacy of a usurper regime. The concept of legitimacy relates to the political endorsement of a regime by the bulk of the population and has very important implications for the resolution of many extra-constitutional issues. Following the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by then Prime Minister Ian Smith in Southern Rhodesia in 1965 the judges in the Madzimbamuto case9 were faced with a serious dilemma as to whether the grundnorm changed, that is, whether there was discontinuity of the legal order, and if so, when it 5

See John Rawls, Theory of Justice, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd Edition, New York: Oxford University Press. 7 Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law. California: University of California Press, 1967. 8 De Smith & Brazier: Constitutional and Administrative Law, 8th Edition, London: Penguin,72. 9 Madzimbamuto vs. Lardner-Burke, Rhodesia Appeal Court, African Law Report, 25 (1968):457. 6

Was the 1979 Historic Occurrence a Revolution or a coup d’état?

21

was changed. The court ultimately decided that there was no discontinuity of the legal order as the UK government still had control. The court therefore adopted the doctrine of necessity to justify certain actions of the Ian Smith regime. However, in the later Ndhlovu case10 in 1968 the court determined that there was discontinuity of the legal order as the United Kingdom government was no longer recognized as the sovereign authority in that country. Kelsen’s theory of revolutionary legality was therefore adopted. The question therefore as to whether or not an unconstitutional change of government was done by a revolution or by a mere coup d’état is most important. Whereas a revolution is likely to cause a discontinuity of the existing legal order of a state, a mere coup d’état is unlikely to do so. It must be understood however that even if a revolution has taken place it does not necessarily mean that there was discontinuity of the legal order as a lot depends upon the facts and circumstances of the situation. It is postulated however that the occurrence of a mere coup d’état which does not give rise to a revolution cannot cause a discontinuity of the legal order and therefore cannot establish a de jure government. In other words, the legitimacy of the relevant usurper regime will be non-existent. In the Mitchell case11 in Grenada, commonly referred to as the Maurice Bishop murder trial, the judges were faced with a similar dilemma as that which existed in the Madzimbamuto case. They therefore had to decide as to if and when the legal order was discontinued. The facts of the case are as follows. The PRG ruled Grenada for four and a half years until its own demise on 19th October 1983 when its offshoot the Revolutionary Military Council (RMC) purportedly led by one Bernard Coard, ousted it from power. The RMC ruled for approximately five days up to the 25th of October of the same year. The military intervention by American and Caribbean forces put an end to their rule. That intervention enabled the Governor-General of the country, Sir Paul Scoon to restore normalcy to the state after he declared a state of emergency by virtue of his reserve executive powers. In the interim, Bernard Coard and eighteen others were arrested and charged with the murder of former Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and

10

Regina vs. Ndhlovu, South African Law Report, 4 (1968): 515 (Rhodesia Appeal Division). 11 Mitchell & Others vs. Director of Public Prosecution, Law Report Commission (1985):127; and Mitchell & Others vs. Director of Public Prosecution, Law Report Commission (1986): 35.

22

Chapter Two

others on 19th October 1983.12 During their trial in the Grenada High Court in 1984, by way of a pre-trial motion the defendants challenged the constitutionality, validity and competence of the Court to undertake their trial. The situation was that although Sir Paul Scoon had restored a substantial segment of the Constitution, for a number of technical reasons which were identified by the Grenada Supreme Court13, the provisions which enabled Grenada to return to the regional constitutional court were not restored. The court which was established by the PRG was therefore left to function even after the 1984 installation of the first constitutionally elected government following the March 13th 1979 event. There is no doubt therefore that at the time of what has been referred to as the Maurice Bishop murder trial the Grenada Supreme Court (comprising a High Court and a Court of Appeal) was an unconstitutional court. This court was established by the PRG in accordance with People’s Laws Nos. 4 and 14 of 1979 and was therefore established outside of the provisions of the Grenada Constitution Order of 1973 which became effective on 7th February 1974 when Grenada became independent. This unconstitutional court replaced the regional constitutional court known in Grenada as the Supreme Court of Grenada and the West Indies Associated States which court was provided for by section 105 of the Grenada Constitution. Other Eastern Caribbean States were and are still participants in this court which they call the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. In the High Court, Chief Justice Archibald Nedd dismissed the application of the defendants. The Chief Justice took the position that although the Grenada Supreme Court was unconstitutional, it had the validity and competence to try the defendants on the ground of necessity. The defendants then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. President Haynes of the Court of Appeal identified four doctrinal concepts which courts used over the years in common law jurisdictions in efforts to resolve extra-constitutional issues. These were the doctrine of strict constitutionalism; the doctrine of necessity; Kelsen’s theory of revolutionary 12

The 19 defendants were: Bernard Coard; Andy Mitchell; Vincent Joseph; Callistus Bernard (Iman Abdullah); Cosmos Richardson; Lester Redhead; Christopher Stroude; Fabian Vernon Gabriel; Hudson Austin; Liam James; Leon Cornwall; John Anthony Ventour; Dave Bartholomew; Ewart Layne; Colville Mc Barnette; Selwyn Strachan; Phyllis Coard; Cecil Prime and Nelson Raeburn. 13 President Haynes of the Grenada Court of Appeal in the Mitchell case determined that in order for Grenada to return to the Constitutional Court, all participating states had to agree to that return and that there was no guarantee that that would have been the case; that the Governor-General was not the right functionary to negotiate the return but ought to have been an elected government.

Was the 1979 Historic Occurrence a Revolution or a coup d’état?

23

legality; and the doctrine of successful revolution. The court then analysed those concepts whilst taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and came up with its decision. The judges considered that if they adopted the strict letter of the 1973 Constitution, by way of the doctrine of strict constitutionalism, then they would have had no choice but to agree with the defendants that the court was unconstitutional, invalid and incompetent to undertake their trial. The judges then would have had no choice but to set the defendants free as their continued incarceration would have jeopardized their fundamental rights and freedoms especially so under section 8 of the Constitution.14 On the other hand, setting the defendants free on mere technicalities on a charge of murdering a Prime Minister, some of his cabinet colleagues and a number of civilians seemed however, to be anathema to the court. At the time of the hearing of the pre-trial motion, the predominant doctrinal concept which was adopted by common law jurisdictions for resolving extra-constitutional issues was Kelsen’s theory of revolutionary legality. This theory postulates that with the occurrence of a successful coup d’état or revolution in a particular state the legal order becomes discontinued and a new legal order becomes established. The test as to whether a new legal order has succeeded the old one is its ‘efficacy’ which involves endorsement by the bulk of the population. Once the coup d’état or revolution has been successful, it is considered to be effective and legitimate. The first case which adopted this doctrinal concept was the Dosso case in Pakistan in 195815 when the question as to the legitimacy of a usurper regime was in issue. This theory may be considered to be commensurate with another well recognized doctrinal concept entitled, the doctrine of successful revolution. This latter theory recognizes that certain states in fact became valid and legitimate even when their rulers gained legislative and executive control by revolution.16 For example, new states were created in England following what is referred to as ‘the Glorious Revolution’ of 1688; in the United States of America following the American War of Independence between 1775 and 1783 and in France following the French Revolution between 1789 and 1799. New legal orders were created in those countries. The Court of Appeal judges gave consideration to these two latter doctrines to see whether they could have assisted the court in resolving the issue before them. The judges however did not consider that these doctrines would have been helpful to the court as these doctrines inherently 14

Provisions to secure protection of law. State of Pakistan v Dosso 1 Pakistan Legal Decisions (1958) SC 533. 16 Lord Reid in the Madzimbamuto case (1968) 574. 15

24

Chapter Two

determine that there is discontinuity of existing legal orders giving rise to new legal orders. In such situations, whatever activities that have been undertaken by a usurper regime, would be considered to be legitimate and valid. If for example, the Grenada Court of Appeal adopted either Kelsen’s theory of revolutionary legality or the doctrine of successful revolution, then the court would be enabled to determine that despite the unconstitutionality of the court because of its establishment by an illegal regime, it had the validity and competence to try the defendants. On this basis the application which was made by the defendants that the court was unconstitutional, incompetent and invalid to undertake their trial could have been dismissed by the court. On the contrary, the majority in the Court of Appeal considered that whilst the usurper regime in Grenada had de facto status, there was insufficient evidence adduced to the court for a determination to be made that the usurper regime had acquired de jure status. The judges were of the view that de jure status was a condition of legitimacy. The Court looked at a number of common law cases which involved extra-constitutional issues, from Dosso17 in Pakistan in 1958 to Valabhaji18 in the Seychelles in 1981, and surmised that for a revolutionary government to achieve de jure status, that is, to become internally a legal and legitimate government, the following conditions should exist: (i) the revolution would have to be successful, in that the Government was firmly established administratively, there being no other rival one; (ii) its rule was effective, in that the people by and large were behaving in conformity with and obeying its mandates; (iii) such conformity and obedience was due to popular acceptance and support and was not mere tacit submission to coercive fear of force and (iv) it must not appear that the regime was oppressive and undemocratic.19 The whole jurisprudential issue of the pre-trial motion therefore boiled down to the question as to whether or not the PRG had acquired de jure status. The Court of Appeal judges observed that after the coup d’etat, the regime promised to develop a new constitution to replace the suspended one; this was never done. A promise was also made to have general elections within a reasonable time frame; this was never done. As a consequence of the above, the judges considered that it was reasonable to presume that there was no discontinuity of the legal order following the suspension of the Constitution which they considered was left in abeyance. 17

State of Pakistan v Dosso, 1 Pakistan Legal Decisions (1958) SC 533. Valabhaji vs Controller of Customs, Civil Division, Seychelles Court of Appeal, Commonwealth Law Bulletin 11 (1981): 1249. 19 President Haynes in the Mitchell Case, 71-72. 18

Was the 1979 Historic Occurrence a Revolution or a coup d’état?

25

Consequently, the court could not find that the PRG had achieved de jure status. One may argue, as was argued by one of the Appeal Court judges, Justice Liverpool, that because the regime was recognized by other independent states de jure status ought to have been allocated to it. However, as President Haynes correctly determined, and was adequately supported by Justice Peterkin, recognition in accordance with international law is insufficient to grant de jure status to a usurper regime. De jure status must be determined in accordance with municipal (local) law, and in order to meet that determination the regime must be legitimated either by general elections or by referendum. This situation was non-existent in the Grenada case. The Court made reference to the Valabhaji case20. The facts were that in 1977 a coup d’état occurred in the Seychelles located in the Indian Ocean. A new Constitution was adopted, and new general elections were held which the usurper regime won. In that situation, President Haynes felt that it was correctly decided by the court that a new legal order was created because the populace had given the original usurper regime legitimacy and validity. The doctrine of successful revolution was therefore correctly adopted by the court because what occurred in the Seychelles in 1977 was not a mere coup d’état but was a successful revolution. The same principle may be applied to what took place in the Republic of Fiji. Between the twelve year period from 1997 to 2009, there were four coups d’état in that state: two in 1987, one in 2000 and the fourth one in 2009 which latter one came one day after a court ruling which went against the interim President Commodore Bainimarama in the Qarase case.21 Following the holding of general elections on 17th September 2014 which Bainimarama’s party won under a new Constitution referred to as “People’s Charter for Change and Progress” a new legal order was created giving the original usurper regime legitimacy and validity. Based upon the above principles, the judges then correctly ruled out the options of adopting either Kelsen’s theory of revolutionary legality or the doctrine of successful revolution. They then correctly concluded that despite the unconstitutionality of the ‘revolutionary’ court, the wellrecognized doctrine of necessity was the best available option for furnishing validity (i.e. official binding acceptability) and competence (i.e. legal authority) to the court. This doctrine caters for the accommodation of unconstitutional or illegal activities in necessitous situations for a 20 21

Ibid. Qarase & Others v Bainimarama & Others, 2009 3 Law Report Commission.

26

Chapter Two

temporary period, even recognizing that constitutionalism still prevails, albeit in a flexible sense. An important implication of adopting this doctrine is that the legal order is still presumed to have had continuity. The Ibrahim case22 which was heard in Cyprus in 1964 established certain preconditions for the full operation of the doctrine of necessity. Further limitations were established by President Haynes in the Mitchell case23 which conditions were generally endorsed by the later Fijian cases of Prasad (2001)24 and Qarase (2009)25. The facts and circumstances which were connected with the Mitchell pre-trial adjudication rendered a perfect fit for the application of the ‘necessity conditions’ which were established by President Haynes. As a consequence, the Grenada Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Grenada High Court. These conditions were: 1) “An imperative necessity must arise because of the existence of exceptional circumstances not provided for in the Constitution for immediate action to be taken to protect or preserve some vital function to the state; 2) there must be no other course of action reasonably available; 3) any such action must be reasonably necessary in the interest of peace, order and good government; but it must not be more than is necessary or legislate beyond that; 4) it must not impair the just rights of citizens under the Constitution; and 5) it must not be one the sole effect and intention of which is to consolidate or strengthen the revolution as such.”26 Based upon the above considerations, it is posited that what occurred in Grenada on 13th March 1979 was not a successful revolution but a coup d’état, as Grenadians were not given the opportunity to legitimize and validate the usurper regimes. The doctrine of necessity was therefore correctly applied by the Grenada Court of Appeal indicating that there was continuity of the original legal order. This was so for up to the time of the military defeat of the RMC on 25th October 1983 by American and Caribbean Forces, the Grenada Constitution was still in suspension and none other was put in its place. This Constitution was reactivated by the 22

Attorney General v Ibrahim, (1964) Commonwealth Law Report 195 (Cyprus). Ibid. 24 Prasad v Republic of Fiji, (2001) New Zealand Administrative Reports 21. 25 Ibid. 26 President Haynes in the Mitchell Case, 88-89. 23

Was the 1979 Historic Occurrence a Revolution or a coup d’état?

27

Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon when he declared a state of emergency and assumed executive and legislative control of the state following the military intervention. It is to be noted that this presentation has not addressed the question as to whether or not the New Jewel Movement was justified in overthrowing the Gairy government. It may well be that at the time of the overthrow circumstances may have warranted such action. Whether this was so or not depends on further research and analysis. It is postulated however, that in principle, once there is the support from the majority of the populace, which support may be manifested by way of popular insurrection, general elections or by referendum, there is a right of revolution directed against existing legal orders. Most theorists hold the view that there is no absolute obligation to obey the state and its laws; some, such as Peter Singer, John Rawls and H.L.A. Hart assert that there is just a prima facie obligation to obey; and fewer still such as Joseph Raz and M.B.E. Smith have argued that there is not even a prima facie obligation to obey.27 According to Joseph Raz,28 besides having objections to individual laws either by way of “civil disobedience” or by way of “conscientious objection,” there could be “revolutionary disobedience” which may be described as a politically motivated breach of law designed to change or to contribute directly to a change of government or of the constitutional arrangements….” However erstwhile revolutionaries must be conscious of the possible repercussions if an attempt to mount a coup d’état or a revolution fails. Failure would inevitably result in a charge of treason being laid against the perpetrators which charge may lead to the death penalty being imposed. What has been referred to as the “Arab Spring Uprisings” which occurred around the Mediterranean Region over a three-year period beginning on 18th December 2010 in Tunisia may be regarded as revolutionary disobedience. During that period, there were violent and non-violent demonstrations, protests, riots, and civil wars. By September 2012, several rulers had been forced from power: Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak and Mohamed Morsi on separate occasions in Egypt, 27

See Peter Singer, Democracy and Disobedience, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973; John Rawls, Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, 1999; Hart; H.L.A. Concept of Law, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997; Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality, Oxford University Press, 1979; M.B.E. Smith, “Is There a PrimaFacie Obligation to Obey the Law?”, Yale Law Journal (1973): 950. 28 Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law, 1979.

28

Chapter Two

Colonel Muanmar Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen. Despite these occurrences, the question as to whether these uprisings gave rise to the establishment of legitimate new legal orders is one that needs to be addressed separately. In conclusion, it must be observed that the title to this presentation spoke of “a mere coup d’état” in the alternative for the occurrence of a revolution in Grenada. However, the term “mere coup d’état” may not be appropriate in the circumstances as following that ‘historic occurrence’ the lives of many Grenadians seemed to have been affected most emotionally. However, it is most unfortunate that the main usurper regime did not take the opportunity to receive the endorsement from the bulk of the population either by way of general elections or by referendum. As a consequence, whilst in the legal/political/philosophical sense, that historic occurrence in Grenada on 13th March 1979 may not be regarded as a revolution per se, from all appearances in a very loose sense, it was more in the nature of “an emotional revolution” and not “a mere coup d’état” despite the fact that it was indeed a coup d’état in the strict sense.

CHAPTER THREE OVERSTRETCH TO BURSTING POINT: THE DEMISE OF THE GRENADA REVOLUTION JOSEPH EWART LAYNE

In 1988-1989 while in prison1, I wrote a manuscript, the final version of which has been unfortunately misplaced. That manuscript is titled, The US Invasion of Grenada in the Context of Cuba-Grenada Relations 19791983. Since my liberation from prison in 2009, I have given more thought to the revolutionary process and its demise, and I intend to build on the prison manuscript and produce a full book in which I will put forward, in a more comprehensive manner, my view of the primary reason for the demise of the Grenada Revolution (see Fig. 3-1). This chapter provides an insight into that impending book. The tentative title for the book is, Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution. Hereinafter, I will refer to it simply as Overstretch. In my prison manuscript, I wrote at the start of Chapter 5 that, “In September 1983, the NJMCC [New Jewel Movement Central Committee] concluded that the main problem in the Grenada Revolution which was causing persistent crises was the weak leadership of Bishop. In retrospect, I submit that that was a wrong conclusion. I submit that the number one problem in the Revolution was that of overreach arising from an incorrect leftist political strategy.”

I think that in those words I summed up my main thesis as to why the Grenada Revolution failed. I intend to build on this reflection in Overstretch. The main thesis of Overstretch, that the demise of the Revolution had considerably more to do with missteps in strategy formation and implementation than with ideological conflict and personal ambition for 1

The author was the youngest member of the leadership of the Grenada Revolution. He was imprisoned for 26 years following the US invasion in 1983.

30

Chapter Three

power by a small clique led by Bernard Coard. The conventional view to this day is that the aforesaid ideological conflict and quest for power was the main cause for the demise of the Revolution. Many scholars and leaders of powerful political movements have peddled that thesis for such a long time that it has ossified in the minds of many.

Fig. 3-1 Joseph Ewart Layne (UWI Open Campus Grenada)

Core Objectives of the Grenada Revolution Socio-Economic Transformation In Overstretch I will argue, if argument is necessary on this point, that the main objective of the Grenada Revolution was the socio-economic transformation of Grenada. This transformational objective was summed up in the words of Maurice Bishop on March 13th 1979 when he announced the

Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution

31

advent of the Grenada Revolution to the world. “This revolution is for work, for food, for decent housing and health services, and for a bright future for our children”, Maurice eloquently proclaimed. In pursuit of that transformational objective, over the 4½ years the Revolution unleashed a series of social and economic programmes including: x The house repair and low income housing programmes which impacted thousands of Grenadians. x The school books and uniforms programmes which benefitted thousands of students and their families across the country. x The milk feeding programme which provided free milk across the country on a weekly basis. x Free secondary school education. x Free university and tertiary education in the form of hundreds of annual scholarships for Grenadian students to study in universities and technical colleges overseas. x A vibrant primary health care system through the construction and equipping of health clinics in communities across the country. x The Centre of Popular Education (CPE) programme aimed at wiping out illiteracy was instituted. x Construction, expansion, renovation, rehabilitation and development of sporting facilities and community centres to stimulate community activity and community life. x Passage of social legislation such as Maternity Leave Act and the Trade Union Recognition Act. x Massive infrastructural expansion through the expansion of roads, expansion of electricity capacity, expansion of water capacity and the construction of the international airport (see Fig. 3-2). x By 1983, the PRG was engaged in 164 construction projects simultaneously. This did not include the scores of other microprojects undertaken by the people voluntarily at a community level every week of the year.

32

Chapter Three

Fig. 3-2 Revolution Billboard- International Airport (GNM)

What was also new was the fact that this was not a top down process. It was not a case of the PRG doing and the people being spectators. The people were involved at every stage. Organizational forms for the participation of the people developed. Organs of popular democracy were established in the form of village councils, parish councils, youth councils, workers’ councils, women councils, where the leaders touched base with the masses regularly. These organs also allowed the people to participate in the day to day administration of the affairs of state. These social and economic programmes resulted in enormous increase in the social wage, in great reduction in unemployment and increase in household income. They also engendered a feeling of ownership of the process on the part of the people and inspired massive and enthusiastic support for the Revolution among the Grenadian masses as they participated in the transformational process the likes of which had never been seen in Grenada.

Internationalist Policy In addition to seeking to transform Grenada, the PRG also pursued a strong internationalist policy. We Grenadian revolutionaries were always conscious of the fact that Grenada was an example for our Caribbean brothers and for small nation peoples the world over of what is possible when a people take control of their own destiny. Additionally, we considered that we had a moral obligation to provide assistance to others who were

Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution

33

struggling against oppression in other parts of the world. Hence the PRG provided moral, diplomatic and to a lesser degree material assistance to liberation movements in Africa and Latin America and other regions. By 1983, pursuant to our internationalist policy, at least 50 top members of the African National Congress (ANC) and Cuban National Party (PAC), including two subsequent presidents of South Africa received Grenadian passports to travel all over the world on diplomatic missions aimed at undermining and ultimately removing the apartheid system. Also in 1983 members of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), the liberation movement in El Salvador traveled to the non-aligned movement as part of Grenada’s delegation.

Newton’s Third Law: The Grenada Revolution and the US Reaction There is a law of nature, discovered by Sir Isaac Newton and referred to as Newton’s Third Law of Motion that every action leads to an opposite reaction. This law when applied to the field of social science is sometimes referred as the principle that revolution breeds counter revolution. In Overstretch I will seek to establish how this theorem applied in the Grenada Revolution. I will assess that as the transformational force of the Revolution grew, the reaction to the Revolution also grew. What were the sources of this reaction? I contend that internally there was very little resistance to the Grenada Revolution; that the Grenada Revolution could not be overthrown internally.2 Hence the major resistance to the revolution came from outside of Grenada, principally from the US.

Grenada-US Relations Mutual Distrust At the time of the Grenada Revolution and during its first two years, the US was in the throes of a serious political and identity crisis which created the atmosphere for the emergence of Ronald Reagan as president with his agenda to make America great again. A part of this agenda was his undertaking during the US primary campaign leading up to the elections, 2

The research conducted by Patrick Emmanuel and his team noted the high popularity of the PRG. Patrick Emmanuel, Farley Brathwaite. Eudine Barriteau. Political Change and Public Opinion in Grenada 1979-1984. Cave Hill, Barbados: Institute of Social and Economic Research, 1988, 33-35.

34

Chapter Three

to roll back communism in America’s backyard by rolling back Nicaragua and Grenada. On the other side of the equation, it is a fact that from the inception of the Revolution there was a perception among the revolutionary leaders that the US government was hostile to the Grenada Revolution. Various contemporary documents bear out the mutual suspicion and hostility between the PRG and the US government. In Overstretch I will examine speeches of Maurice Bishop and other Grenadian leaders which demonstrate the Revolution’s attitude to the US government. I will also examine of documents from US officials to demonstrate US government’s attitude and intentions towards Grenada.

Military Threat to the Revolution: Marines or Mercenaries? What Overstretch will also reveal is a very important nuance that emerges from speeches of Bishop which is of great significance with regard to issues taking place behind the scenes in Cuba/ Grenada military relations which would later be of great, indeed, fundamental significance. The issue of assessment of the threat is a fundamental issue of military and security strategy. Indeed, I posit that it is the fundamental issue and the point from which other matters would be hinged. It is also a fundamental issue of overall state policy. The main function of the state is to provide security for its territory, institutions and citizens. In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution the threat to the Revolution was portrayed as a threat of an attack from mercenary forces mobilized by Eric Gairy. Later, from 1980 or thereabout, the threat was perceived as a threat from mercenaries organizing and training in Miami for use against Cuba, Nicaragua and Grenada. In this regard, in a speech to that effect was given by Bishop on July 23rd 1981.3 Bishop was speaking of the threat of invasion by a mercenary force. In August 1981, the US held its war games Ocean Venture 81 which included an operation code-named “Amber and the Amberines.” The Amber scenario depicted a government hostile to the US, seizing US hostages, negotiations failing, Amber being invaded and militarily occupied until a friendly government is installed through elections. The reference to Grenada was unmistakable down to the fact that Amber was depicted as having a fighting force of 2,000 men and being supported by a country code-named Orange (Cuba) which in turn 3

Maurice Bishop. “The US has embarked on a massive offensive” in Maurice Bishop Speaks: The Grenada Revolution 1979-1983. London: Pathfinder Press, 1983, 209-216.

Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution

35

was supported by a country code-named Red (Soviet Union)4. In fact, at the time of the Amber exercise, the PRG construed the war games as representing an imminent invasion of Grenada and the international community was alerted and mobilized. In March 1983 President Ronald Reagan on two occasions personally described Grenada as a threat to the national security of the United States. However even after those speeches by President Reagan, with regard to the military threat, Prime Minister Bishop said on March 23rd 1983: “From the evidence in our possession we are convinced that an armed attack against our country by counterrevolutionaries and mercenaries organised, financed, trained and directed by United States imperialism is imminent and can come any day now!”5

Grenada-Cuba Relations Relations between the Grenada Revolution and the Cuban Revolution were central to development and, I will argue in Overstretch, the demise of the Grenada Revolution. That relationship was multi-faceted ranging from economic and social relations, military relations, party to party relations and relationships between the various mass organizations from both processes. It also took on personal dimensions most notably the virtual father–son relationship between Fidel Castro and Maurice Bishop (see Fig. 3-3). However, in Overstretch I will classify Cuba–Grenada relations under two categories. The first is political and economic relations. These relations were geared towards achieving the transformational objective of the Revolution. Here the massive assistance provided by the Cuban Revolution to Grenada directly and that facilitated by Cuba, through serving as a gateway to the Soviet Union and other then socialist countries will be set out. The second category is military and security assistance which was aimed at addressing the reactionary threat (in the Newton sense) to the Revolution. I will chronicle and analyzes a very spirited and sometimes acrimonious debate between Cuban military advisors and Grenadian military leaders about the nature of the threat that the Grenada Revolution faced. I can speak to this first hand for I was a senior military officer and interfaced with the Cuban military advisors regularly. 4

Jorge Luna, “United States Rehearses Invasion to Grenada,” Prensa Latina. Grenada Revolution online, accessed November 30, 2016, http://www.thefrenadarevolutiononline.com/invasionthreatluna.html. 5 Maurice Bishop, “An Armed Attack Against Our Country Imminent,” in Maurice Bishop Speaks: The Grenada Revolution 1979-1983 (London: Pathfinder Press, 1983), 279-286.

36

Chapter Three

Fig. 3-3 Maurice Bishop, Raul Castro and Fidel Castro (GNM)

The Cuban military advisors view handed down by their political superiors was that the threat faced by Grenada and hence that which the Grenada military should be structured, equipped and trained to meet would come from a force of mercenaries comprised mainly of Cuban and Nicaraguan exiles and mercenaries. The Grenadian military leaders flatly rejected this view contending that any military aggression against Grenada would come by way of a US invasion; not by mercenaries but marines. This issue remained unresolved at the political level in Grenada for the entire period of the Revolution with far reaching consequences. One of the consequences of not resolving the issue of the nature of the threat was that the real, clear and present danger of the US using its military might to defeat the Grenada Revolution was not sufficiently and adequately considered. I will argue in Overstretch that if the leaders of the Revolution, in particular the senior political leaders, had seriously engaged their minds to the issue they would in all probability have concluded correctly so that Grenada could not withstand a US invasion and that would have focused their minds on measures to mitigate the danger. Part of the reason why the nature of the threat was not properly assessed, I believe, was due to the fact that there was still the view that the US was shy following Vietnam to commit its forces in combat. Further, there was an underlying assumption

Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution

37

that Grenada could withstand and in fact defeat an invasion by mercenary forces similar to a la Playa Giron in Cuba in 1961.

Revolutionary Strategy Cuban Political Model By 1980 it was clear that the Grenada Revolution was pursuing the Cuban political model of Revolution, as distinct from its economic model.6. With regard to strategy formation, this was an emergent rather than a deliberate strategy. It was more Minzberg than Porter. In fact, there is an intriguing story about the first week of the Revolution when the PRG was on the verge of announcing that it was restoring the 1973 Constitution and that elections would be held as Maurice Bishop had promised in his speech announcing the Revolution to the world. The leaders had by then been bombarded with representations from other Caribbean governments in particular governments with which Grenada shared the Court system and the common currency. To implement the decision, Maurice called in Allan Alexander and Frank Solomon noted Trinidadian lawyers and personal friends of his, to give effect to the decision. Alexander and Solomon were taken aback by the decision to immediately restore the constitution. They patiently explained to Maurice and the other leaders that they if they took that course they could end up in a legal quagmire because by restoring the

6

The economic model followed by the PRG was distinctly different from that followed by the Cuban Revolution. Whereas under the Cuban Revolution virtually the entire economy was socialized, and private property was severely restricted; Grenada was not following that path. The economic policy of the PRG was one of socialist orientation. This policy conceived of the building of a state sector of the economy to be the dominant force in economic development but in partnership with the private sector. While elements of planning were introduced to rationalize the use of state resources, there was still heavy emphasis on the market and on economic competition as the main mechanism for the allocation of productive resources. Further, there was a clear understanding of the dangers of bureaucratizing the economy; so even when state bodies were established they were given broad policy objectives but independence to operate as businesses with a view to commercial success. A typical example was the state banks. The PRG owned two banks. Those banks were set up as independent units, encouraged to operate independently of the ministry of finance and in competition with each other. Further, the PRG was actively engaged in seeking to mobilize foreign investment in pursuit of its economic development goals and pursuant to this objective had, by 1981, developed an investment code.

Chapter Three

38

constitution as contemplated, they would thereby declare their PRG illegal and turn themselves into criminals. From being on the verge of “declaring the revolution illegal” the political strategy of the revolution emerged by 1980 into a full-scale Cuban model characterized by: x x x x

Intense and dynamic socio economic transformational process; Fervent anti-imperialism; in particular, anti-American imperialism; Pro-soviet foreign policy; Revolutionary internationalism, not so much in the material assistance Grenada was giving to other revolutionary process but in our rhetoric, and the positions Grenada advocated and adapted in international fora; and x Curtailing of rights and freedoms for internal opposition groups to freely operate, fearing that the US would exploit these freedoms to organize, finance and arm internal opposition to destabilize the Revolution.

This Cuban political model placed Grenada in direct confrontation with the US, leading to even greater pressure from the US when we should have been aiming to release that pressure. It made Grenada a piece on the Cold War chess board; a soft target in terms of size, but a big target in terms of propaganda value. The irony is that one of the main motivations behind the Cuban model was the belief that it offered the greatest chance of survival for the Revolution. One of the arguments that was often used to justify the Cuban model, in particular the aspect of “not giving imperialism space to organize internal counter revolution”, was this: of the three progressive/revolutionary movements that emerged in the Caribbean/Latin American region since 1959, Cuba, Jamaica, under Michael Manley and Chile, under Allende, the only one to have survived was Cuba. This was because imperialism was not given any space to organize inside the country to establish a Trojan horse to bring down the process. Hence, one of the slogans among leaders of the Grenada Revolution to reflect the overall policy path of the Revolution was: “Firm in politics; Flexible in economics.” However, looking at the matter purely from the standpoint of strategy, the question jumps out: Did the Grenada Revolution have the resources to sustain a Cuban model Revolution in America’s backyard?

Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution

39

The Organizational Machine of the Grenada Revolution In Overstretch I will examine the resources available to the Revolution, and in particular, the organizational machine that the Revolution depended on as its engine. This machine consisted of the following parts: x NJM Party structure comprised of full members, candidate members, applicants and potential applicants and various committees thereof including those as the Workers’ Committee engaged in organizational work among mass organizations such as trade unions which were not affiliated to the party. x Mass Organizations: National Youth Organizations, National Women Organization which were affiliated to the party. x Fraternal comrades from the Caribbean and elsewhere x State machinery including the PRA and Militia, comprising over 3000 cadres. With this machine the Grenada Revolution had to pursue the twin task of undertaking the scope of work described above which was aimed at socioeconomic transformation while at the same time withstanding US pressure and the constant threat of military action.

Strategy and the Organizational Machine: A Mismatch of Required Tasks and Available Resources A reading of the minutes of the NJM Central Committee and Organizational Committee from 1981 to 1983 enables one to trace the immense pressure placed on the revolutionary machine and the organizational disarray which was setting in. In Overstretch, I will undertake that task. Such a survey would show that from April 1981 up until September 1983 the minutes of the party meetings reflect increasing pressure on the organizational machinery of the revolution. The party records are replete with language reflective of increasing despair and disarray within the revolutionary machinery. I contend that the strain on the organization was a natural consequence of a small country with severe resource limitations, seeking to radically transform the socio-economic circumstances of the country and at the same time face up to the reactionary challenge of the mightiest power on earth, which was determined to overthrow it. In this sense, in my hereinbefore mentioned prison manuscript, I compared the revolutionary process in its effort to cope to a juggler trying to juggle 100 balls at the same time. Some were bound to fall. As the

40

Chapter Three

revolutionaries became more and more tired with each new attempt to juggle, more balls fell until it seemed as if all areas of work were crumbling. Under the blistering pace inherent to the attempt to accomplish this impossible mission - the twin tasks of radically and rapidly transforming the socio-economic circumstances of the country and resisting US and US inspired aggression, with severely limited resourcesmany dropped out; resulting in more pressure on those left behind. Those who dropped out were condemned as being petty bourgeois or not committed enough, and of those who remained we demanded iron discipline and even harder work. The result of it all, is that there was a serious mismatch between resources required and resources available for the strategy we were pursuing. Among other things, on the ground, this mismatch manifested itself in a squabble for resources, manpower and otherwise, resulting in internal conflicts which also fractured many relationships most notably, the relationship between Bishop and Coard.

October 1983, A Greek Tragedy: Destruction of the Bishop-Coard Partnership In Overstretch, I will look at the October 1983 crisis and seek to provide, not a justification, but a non-conspiratorial narrative for the “joint leadership” decision. I will also seek to provide an explanation for the alignment of forces in that crisis. One of the puzzling things that many have noted about the demise of the Grenada Revolution is the fact that despite his immense popularity, at the critical moment in 1983, Maurice Bishop found himself in a minority within the NJM party and without the support of the military. Several explanations have been offered for this phenomenon. One explanation is that the party was split into two ideological wings, the hard-line Marxists led by Bernard Coard and the softer socialist oriented faction led by Maurice Bishop. The hardliners had by 1983 gained ascendancy in the party and armed forces. I will argue in Overstretch that the fundamental though insufficient cause of the split in the party and thereafter in the revolutionary movement was the overwhelming pressure on the organizational apparatus which I addressed above. I will argue that as a result of that pressure, by mid-1983, the situation within the organizational machine of the Revolution reached the point where we simply could not continue in the same way. The revolutionary machine was running out of gas and experiencing constant crises and remedial action was urgently required. This was the context for the attempted reorganization in October 1983. It was not a power grab as

Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution

41

some have asserted but genuine though mistaken steps to address a serious situation real and perceived. Further, I will argue that the manner in which the party attempted to address the urgent situation had much to do with the different personality make up of Bishop and Coard than any ideological differences between them.

Bishop and Coard: Partners, but Different Bishop was the man of the people; the charismatic leader; the one who could and did mobilize and inspire the masses with his charismatic presence and eloquent speeches. He was generally easy going, easy to get along with, accommodating, and very warm and sensitive to the feelings of people. He was what Grenadians would simply describe as “a nice man.” However, he was relatively laid back with regard to issues of organization, implementation of tasks, and attention to important details. Additionally, though highly intelligent and a brilliant lawyer, he was not the creative spark when solutions to difficult or pressing problems were required. Further, the side of him which sought to accommodate could at the same time cause him to be indecisive, to constantly change positions so as to accommodate all sides. This often resulted in frustration in others who in the belief that there was a decision on a matter would invest time and effort only to later realize that the decision had changed. It is this side of Bishop that I believe cost him the support of the armed forces in October 1983. In the many disputes with the Cuban military advisors which I alluded to above, Bishop would be constantly changing his position. He would agree with the Grenadian officers when they suggested solutions or took positions on matters and then change his position when the Cubans came with a different position, on many occasions conveyed through the Cuban ambassador, or by some special envoy sent directly from Cuba. This greatly undermined Bishop’s leadership credentials in the eyes of his soldiers, a consequence I am sure that was not intended by our Cuban brothers. Coard on the other hand was very cerebral and yet practical. He was a bundle of creative ideas, intellectual energy and great vision. He was disciplined and exacting in organizational matters; displayed perfectionist tendencies; was abrasive and sometimes undiplomatic in his utterances; not in any way as outgoing as Bishop. He was always eager to see decisions collectively agreed on, implemented and things moving forward. He is what Grenadians would call “a brilliant man” or “a serious man”. Where Bishop would inspire love and affection for his personality; Coard inspired respect and admiration for his intellect and organizing ability.

42

Chapter Three

Bishop and Coard together formed a partnership that was unbeatable. Together they led the party in opposition. They led the party in making the Revolution and they led the Revolution in the early years. Although Bishop in the eyes of the masses was the undoubted leader of the Revolution persons close to the centre of the Revolution were fully aware that in reality the Revolution was led by a partnership. It was a partnership that was natural; that did not appear to have any friction; and that worked beautifully. However, the toll that the unsustainable strategy took on the revolutionary machinery as a whole also exerted its pressure on the Bishop-Coard relationship which was magnified by their different personality make up.

The Fracture to the Bishop-Coard Partnership and the Joint Leadership Decision It is still widely unknown that the Bishop-Coard partnership was badly fractured by 1982, resulting in Coard resigning from the NJM Central Committee. The departure of Coard from the upper echelons of the party was a watershed moment in the Revolution. It greatly affected the work of the party. Although, Coard remained as the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, the effect of his absence was clear. When in 1983, “water became more than flour”, as we say in Grenada, and things were falling apart organizationally, it was quite natural for the party to look to Coard to return to help find a way out of the crisis the organization was experiencing. Coard himself had clear reservations about returning to the same situation that he left and the party opted to formalize what existed in practice before 1982. Given the knowledge of the various strengths and weaknesses of both Bishop and Coard and the knowledge, through experience, of how things functioned in the past, party cadres saw the formalization of joint leadership as just making formal what existed before. However, others, including fraternal friends, in particular our Cuban brothers, who got wind of the decision saw it differently. Thus, what was intended, naively I must now say, to be the foundation upon which the party would find a way out of crisis, itself, became the cause of the crisis that destroyed us all.

The Issue of Ideology Implicit in the above explanation is a rejection of one of the usual explanations for the internal party crisis namely that the party was divided

Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution

43

along ideological lines with one faction led by Coard being hard line Marxists and the other faction led by Bishop being softer socialist. In my view, there was no such ideological division since we all considered ourselves Marxist revolutionaries. We all desired to see socialism built in Grenada. We all appreciated and accepted that the road to socialism in Grenada would be very long. Grenada would be required to pursue what was described as a non-capitalist path of development in which the state sector of the economy would be dominant but the private sector would have to play an important role. So, in my view and experience, there were no ideological differences among the leadership of the NJM on the fundamentals or at all. However, I would concede that there was an ideological issue, which I will briefly address hereinafter and more extensively in Overstretch, that contributed to the 1983 crisis. But it was not an issue that cause any divide within the NJM. That issue has to do with the question of the appropriate organizational form that progressive organizations should adopt in the Caribbean. The divide being between those who supported mass parties along the lines advocated by CLR James versus those who supported vanguard parties based on Marxist Leninist principles of organization. By 1983 this distinction had become an issue among the Caribbean left organizations but it was not one within the Grenada Revolution as such. The issue of whether to have a mass party or a vanguard party was resolved in Grenada since 1977 when the NJM was reorganized along vanguard party lines. It was that organizational form that allowed the NJM to make the Grenada Revolution of March 13th 1979. However, I now hold the view, that though the vanguard party was appropriate for the taking of power, a much broader form of party, which would have incorporated, into the bowels of the party, the thousands of Grenadians who were ardent supporters of the Revolution, was required post 1979. Such a broad-based party, operating along democratic rather than democratic centralist lines, would have allowed the NJM to draw on the wisdom and experiences of the thousands of older and more mature Grenadians who, though not having the energy, time and adventurism of the youth, would have brought wisdom and realism to the work of the party and to our decision making. Additionally, it would have given full participatory rights for thousands rather than hundreds of young people who were daily in the trenches for the Revolution. It would have widened the decision-making base of the party and remove the emphasis on secrecy which was the hallmark of the pre-1979 party and remained at the centre of the post-1979 party. A case in point: the fact of the resignation of Bernard Coard from the Central Committee in 1982 was treated as a party

44

Chapter Three

secret which was not to be shared with anyone outside of the Central Committee. Naively we also expected the decision on joint leadership to be similarly treated, with the one difference that it would be shared with a few dozen senior party members outside of the Central Committee.

Reflections: Alternative Strategy of the Grenada Revolution Using as the premise all that I said above, l submit that the most fundamental question the Grenada Revolution needed to resolve if it was to succeed was this: How to avoid, minimize or relieve United States pressure and threat of United States invasion direct or inspired? Nothing in my view was more fundamental than this. Yet, insufficient time and reflection was devoted by the leadership of the Grenada Revolution to studying and answering this question7. I submit that if that question was correctly resolved, then the survival of the Grenada Revolution would have been assured: the crisis after crisis resulting from systems– overload which culminated in the October 1983 crisis and gave birth to the tragedy would not have been with us. And even if difficulties arose, the context would have been different and not allow for a tragic climax. The very realities of the world in the period of the Grenada Revolution, with its great East-West divide, Grenada’s location in the heart of the West’s sphere of influence - the Americas, its tiny size (344 sq. km), small population (100,000), and extremely limited resources ($100 million US GDP at the time), imposed upon us severe limitations. Grenada’s quest for sovereignty, national development and international recognition had to be achieved within these limits. It is in this context that I speak of Grenada during the years of the Revolution, pursuing a leftist political strategy. A strategy that was ultimately unsustainable and placed such an enormous 7

By 1983 the NJM was groping for answers to this question. Bishop’s visit to the US in August 1983 was perceived and designed as part of the solution. His visit was aimed at strengthening relations with influential organizations and personalities in the US which were supportive or sympathetic to the Revolution and also at opening a channel of communication with the US government of Ronald Reagan. However, in my view it was too little too late. However, what is highly interesting about this attempted effort to address the US issue, including Bishop’s visit to the US, is that it was an initiative that Bernard Coard proposed to the party leadership, even though he was not formally part of the leadership, having resigned in September 1982. Coard not only suggested the initiative but he personally worked on the design and details of the form in which the initiative should be implemented. In post October 1983 propaganda Bishop’s US visit was said to be one of the reasons the hardliners within the Revolution, led by Coard, decided to move against Bishop.

Overstretch to Bursting Point: The Demise of the Grenada Revolution

45

burden on the revolutionaries that they departed from some of the values they upheld in the anti-Gairy struggle in the 1970s. A strategy that unless radically changed, sooner or later, was bound to catch up with us. It did so sooner and most tragically! To have resolved the most fundamental issue of getting the US off our backs, I submit that the following, among other measures, were necessary. A comprehensive overhaul of Grenada’s international relations. We needed to change from a markedly pro-Soviet bloc policy to a more neutral foreign policy. This would have entailed: x Downgrading in Grenada-Cuba relations to a more prudent level, with emphasis on economic and social relations. x Change in Grenada’s voting pattern at the United Nations and other international bodies, with abstentions on ideologically loaded and East-West issues. x Fundamental toning down in Grenada’s rhetoric; indeed, the elimination of rhetoric. x Concerted effort to mend Grenada-US relations, which the changes mentioned herein would have facilitated. With this objective, the development of a Grenada lobby in the US through developing extensive relations with liberals inside the US. x Stepping up of relations with the United Kingdom in particular, and other European Countries and Canada as a check against the US. x Broadening and deepening relations with world social democracy, again as a check to and balance against the activities of the US. x Rapprochement with Caribbean neighbours by addressing their main concerns and increasing contacts with them. All of these measures would have had the effect of removing any serious threat of foreign military aggression, thereby creating the basis for downscaling the military, de-emphazing its role, and freeing up manpower and other resources utilised in maintaining an army and militia of 4,000 to 5,000 people. The NJM policies on the domestic front should have been a process of relaxation and democratization, including (a) the release of all political detainees, (b) unhindered freedom of the press and freedom of expression, (c) the holding of national elections, (d) the guaranteeing of other rights and freedoms of the people under a new constitution and (d) respect for and adherence to the rule of law. These measures, in addition to being important in and of themselves, would have greatly facilitated the thrust on the international front. They could have been pursued in conjunction with

46

Chapter Three

broadening of the democratic base by institutionalizing the village councils, parish councils, and other organs of popular democracy. These measures, adopted internally, would have removed any legitimate basis for subversive activity, and help contain political activity within the bounds of the law, by providing the people with channels to freely express their views and criticisms, and a mechanism to change their government if they so desired. These developments on the internal front would also have greatly facilitated the work of the Grenada Revolution to win over the Caribbean masses on our side. In a region where the people place great value on personal freedom, and freedom of expression in particular, the perceived lack of freedom in Grenada symbolized by the holding of political detainees and the default on the Revolution’s promise to hold early elections were big negatives for the Revolution, even in the eyes of some fervent supporters. All of these measures, if implemented from the first day of the Revolution or from the very early period, would have made for a completely different path than that followed in the four and a half years; and if implemented later, would have resulted in a radical change of the Revolution’s path. The path here advocated would not have been without dangers. The US, at the height of the Cold War and wary of the sight of revolutionaries in power, may still have decided to mount a programme of destabilization á la Jamaica between 1974 and 1980 to effect regime change. But in my view, for the reasons stated above, the US would not have been able to mount the kind of campaign in Grenada as they had done in Jamaica. There was no equivalent to Seaga’s Jamaica Labour Party in Grenada; and in any case, it is significant that with all the destabilization, Manley and the People’s National Party, though defeated electorally, were not crushed organizationally, enabling them to return to power eight years later. The experience of the Sandinista in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador are also instructive in this regard.

CHAPTER FOUR ‘CATERPILLAR DEAD BUTTERFLY BORN’: EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN IN THE GRENADA REVOLUTION, 1979-1983 NICOLE PHILLIP-DOWE

On March 13, 1979, the New Jewel Movement (NJM) staged a military coup that marked the beginning of a new political epoch for Grenada, and for the entire English-speaking Caribbean. A part of this revolutionary process was an attempt to empower Grenadian women and meet their needs hitherto not attained by previous administrations. Eric Matthew Gairy held the reins of power from 1951. His tenureship saw an increase in wages and an improvement in working conditions for agricultural workers, most of whom were women. It also saw the establishment of a number of women’s groups including the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), Soroptomists, Lioness Club, Home Industries Association, Home Markers Association and Grenada Women’s League. These groups were mainly charitable organizations that catered to the needs of poor women, especially those in rural areas. For example, the YWCA and the Home Makers Association provided advice on domestic science and home management. With the exception of the Grenada Women’s League these groups had no political affiliation. The Grenada Women’s League was the woman’s arm of E. M. Gairy’s Grenada United Labor Party (GULP). However, like the other women’s groups, its vision was limited to charitable work. The Gairy regime encouraged the movement of women into positions of power by his appointment of Dame Hilda Bynoe as first female Governor and the first in the British Commonwealth. He also appointed two female ambassadors. Three women won their parliamentary positions on a GULP ticket. One became a minister and the other two were parliamentary secretaries. The Gairy government also encouraged the

48

Chapter Four

establishment of a national commission on the status of women in 1975 and the Caribbean Regional Seminar on Women that same year. There were, however, pockets of discontent with the Gairy regime. Some women joined and took an active role in, the opposition parties: the Grenada National Party and New Jewel Movement. These women felt that despite Gairy’s projection of an image of promoting and encouraging women, many of their demands were not met. For example, few day care centers were built, scholarships for women were not extended, equal work for equal pay was not implemented, and women in positions of power within the Gairy regime (indeed like men) were not expected to oppose the decisions of his government. The women’s groups in existence at the time had raised these issues, yet they were not adequately addressed or not addressed at all. The new People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) sought to ‘empower’ Grenadian women through the development of revolutionary social policies and through the establishment of two organizations namely the National Women’s Organization (NWO) and the Women’s Desk. An examination of the policies implemented and the work of these two organizations would determine whether or not the PRG fulfilled its mandate to ‘empower’ Grenadian women. Using the Cuban model the PRG sought to establish the NWO as a mass organization that would encompass women from all walks of life and all strata of the society. Phyllis Coard was elected president (see fig. 4-1) and Rita Joseph vice president. The executive included Claudette Pitt and Tessa Stroude. By 1980, the NWO comprised 1500 members operating in forty-seven groups in all the parishes except Carriacou. By November 1982 membership stood at 6,500 women organized in 170 groups, with eleven groups in Carriacou and one in Petit Martinique.1 Phyllis Coard, NWO president, aptly expressed the ostensible objective of the organization when she noted that “The main aim was to have programs to cover the needs of women of all types, NJM, Gairyite, GNP, old, young and all classes.”2 Despite the efforts of the NWO to expand the organization into a mass movement, it can be reasonably argued that it remained a tool of the PRG. Every Government agency or party arm, whether socialist or capitalist, tends to propagate the views of the regime in power. If the NWO remained 1

“The Part the N.W.O. Must Play in the Development of women in Grenada from 1983 – 1989” (Public Library, St. George’s, Grenada), 5. This document was published by the National Women’s Organization in 1983. It included the achievements of the organization up to that point and a projection up to 1989. 2 Phyllis Coard, interview with author, 16 February 1999.

Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

49

to a large extent an arm of the PRG (as it did), it fulfilled its function as part of the ruling party. This reality does not diminish the accomplishments of the National Women’s Organization. In fact, the National Women’s Organization sought to address one of the criticisms of the Gairy regime that of its lack of accountability to the people. The PRG sought to rectify this by holding public meetings and explaining the programs of the Revolution to the people. The NWO groups met once a week and discussed matters of relevance to their individual communities. Once a month or once every two months a member of the NWO executive attended these groups and explained the programs of the revolution. The NWO was able to distribute approximately four thousand kilograms per month of free dried milk as well as cooking oil to the needy.3 Through its efforts, cooperatives were established which provided employment to both women and men. For example, Patsy Romain, executive member of the NWO, remarked on the establishment of the Byelands Bakery Cooperative: “The government had a campaign going around to grow more food. It is the idle lands for idle hands program to help ease unemployment. When we looked around Byelands there were no idle lands… Then the suggestion came for a bakery, The National Cooperative Development Agency did a feasibility study. The bakery has helped to employ ten sisters from NWO in Byelands and four men.”4 At Requin in St David, an agricultural cooperative was established which employed three women, one of whom was President and a foundation member. A dried fruit project was also established in Mount. Rose. The NWO along with the Women’s Desk took an active role in voluntary projects like road repair, building of community centers, community clean up and island wide beautification programs, for painting bridges and walls, clearing drains and overgrown shrubbery and house rebuilding. By December 1982, one in every nine families had received house repair materials. These families would have been selected by field officers of the NWO from among the poorest families in the island.5 With financial aid from the Women’s Desk, a schoolbooks and uniforms program got underway. Tessa Stroude explained the difficulty in implementing the program since there was a majority of very poor families and most people were part-time wage earners. This presented a problem in identifying those who were most needy. In spite of this, it was one of the 3

National Women’s Organization (pamphlet, Public Library, St. George’s, Grenada, November 1981). 4 Miranda Davis. Third World Second Sex: Women Struggles and National Liberation. (London: Zed Books, 1983), 158- 159. 5 “The Part the N.W.O. Must Play”, 6.

50

Chapter Four

main social welfare programs of the NWO. By 1981, the NWO was also responsible for the creation of six new pre- primary schools and a day nursery. Two of the former were in the island’s largest parish, St. Andrew, at Byelands and Conference.6 The government provided training and salaries for the women who ran these schools. In addition, the PRG took measures to ensure that females had the opportunity to be educated to the same standard as males. These measures included: i A mass literacy campaign known as the Centre for Popular Education, which began in September 1980. A high proportion of students were women. i The reduction of school fees from E.C.$37.00 to $12. 50 per student and then free secondary education. i The adoption of a policy of teaching technical subjects for example agricultural science, carpentry, and metal work to both girls and boys. i A greatly increased number of scholarships to universities and further education at institutions abroad (108 scholarships in 1979 as compared to 3 in 1978), 22 per cent of which went to women.7

Minister of Education Jacqueline Creft declared that the “new education” was geared to educating ‘all people not just a few, with the self-knowledge and self-confidence which would motivate them to make important decisions about and participate fully in their country’s development’.8 In an attempt to further enhance education, the PRG implemented the National In-Service Teacher Education Program (NISTEP) and the Community School Day Program (CSDP). The programs complemented each other. The NISTEP program ensured that a number of female and male teachers would attain their teacher certificate while they remained in the service. The teachers were to attend the NISTEP courses one day a week during the school year and for several weeks during the vacation. The day that was missed was filled in by volunteer teachers from the 6 Byelands and Conference are villages in the parish of St. Andrew. “Preprimary Schools Open in St. Andrew”. The Free West Indian 6 June 1981,10; “Successful Year of N.W.O. The Free West Indian 21 November 1981,5. 7 Rita Joseph. ‘The Significance of the Grenada Revolution to Women in Grenada’. Bulletin of Eastern Caribbean Affairs 7, no. 1 (1981): 17. 8 Valerie Gordon (former Coordinator for the Center for Popular Education), interview with author, 24 February 1999; Jacqueline Creft, “The Building of Mass Education in Free Grenada,” Grenada is Not Alone: Speeches by the PRG at First International Conference in Solidarity with Grenada (St. George’s: Fédon Publishers, 1982), 52.

Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

51

community, who taught a wide range of practical subjects like handicraft, agriculture, sewing, fishing, the island’s cultural heritage and its oral history. Most of the teachers of this Community School Day Program were women. While they were not highly paid, it offered a source of income and a sense of meaningful participation.9 The NWO also encouraged women to take up the challenge of doing non-traditional jobs. According to Phyllis Coard (see Fig. 4-1), the NWO’s ideological stance embraced the dictum that ‘women were equal to men. They were equal in society’. She noted that women were registered for carpentry, welding and woodwork courses at the Technical and Vocational Institute. A project for women in motor mechanics was established at Queen’s Park in St. George’s (see Fig. 4-2). Women also registered at the True Blue Fisheries School in St. George. When the National Transport Service (NTS) buses came on stream in 1980 it was decided at the parish council level that all the conductors should be female.10 Within approximately four to five months of taking office the PRG launched two significant initiatives for women, maternity leave (which was written into the law in October 1980) and equitable wages law.11 The Maternity Leave Law (1980) entitled women who had worked for more than eighteen months for the same employer to three months maternity leave, two of these three months they were to be fully paid. It also guaranteed women the right to reemployment with the same employer after three months. Women had to work for at least forty percent of the work week or fortnight to qualify for the three-month maternity leave. Daily paid workers were entitled to one fifth of their annual pay that was about two and a half months’ pay. Prior to this law unwed women were fired once they got pregnant. Married women were kindly asked to leave in many instances.

9

“CSDP looks forward to a brighter year”. The Free West Indian 25 July 1980, 7. Phyllis Coard, interview; “Fisherwomen join True Blue school”. The Free West Indian, 31 January 1981, 6. 11 The Maternity Leave Law entitled women who had worked for more than eighteen months for the same employer to three months maternity leave, two of these three months they were to be fully paid. It also guaranteed women the right to reemployment with the same employer after three months. Women must work for at least forty percent of the work week or fortnight to qualify for the threemonth maternity leave. The employers must be notified by the worker at least three weeks before she chooses to take her leave and she must notify the employer that she intends to come back to work. Daily paid workers were entitled to one fifth of their annual pay that was about two and a half months’ pay. See Free West Indian 11 October 1980, 1. 10

52

Chapter Four

The Equitable Wages Law or ‘Equal Work for Equal Pay’ entitled both men and women to be paid equally for jobs completed. Prior to the revolution women were paid 1/3 less than men particularly in the agricultural sector and road maintenance sector.

Fig. 4-1 Phyllis Coard (on the far left) (UWI Open Campus Grenada)

In May 1979, The PRG passed the Trade Union Recognition Law (People’s Law No. 9 of 1979). It made the recognition of trade unions compulsory for employers, after a poll had positively indicated the workers’ choice of a union. The result was that the percentage of unionized workers jumped from 30 to 80 percent between May 1979 and May 1980. Women dominated three of the largest trade unions at the membership level. Prior to this, trade unions were male dominated entities. Jeanette Dubois (1981–1983) headed the Grenada Union of Teachers, one of the largest unions. Its membership comprised over 60 per cent women. Jeanette Dubois leadership role in the trade union movement began in the late 1970s when she held the post of secretary then vice president of the St. John’s Branch. Her responsibilities as president of the union included presiding over executive meetings, representing the union at regional and international conferences and meetings and collective bargaining and settling disputes. During her period in office, the health plan and credit union was started. Under her leadership, the union fully supported the PRG’s NISTEP program. Her contribution to the union brought about the revival of the branches in the rural areas, for example, St. Andrew, St.

Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

53

Patrick and St. David. By 1983, she was president of the Trade Union Council.12

Fig. 4-2 Revolution Billboard – Women (Courtesy Peggy Nesfield)

In the areas of decision and policy making, women were positively affected. Between 1979 and 1982, there was one female minister and two deputy ministers. Jacqueline Creft was minister of education, youth and social affairs (see Fig. 4-3); Phyllis Coard was deputy minister of women’s affairs, president of the National Women’s Organization and a member of the Central Committee. Claudette Pitt was deputy minister for community development and Dessima Williams was Grenada’s representative to the Organization of American States see Fig. 4-4). There was one female cabinet secretary and four female permanent secretaries: Marcella David was the cabinet secretary, Dorcas Braveboy was permanent secretary in the Ministry of Health, Lew Bourne in the Ministry of Housing, Gloria Payne -Banfield in the Ministry of Planning and Florence Rapier in the Ministry Legal Affairs. In program planning women held key roles in education, telecommunications, health and agriculture. Valerie Gordon, national coordinator for the Centre for Popular Education, Sharon Fletcher 12 Jeanette Dubois (former president of the Grenada Union of Teachers), 31 October 2006, interview with author.

54

Chapter Four

was the national coordinator for Community School and Day Program, Candia Alleyne was the coordinator of the Food and Nutrition Council, Yvonne James was health planner in the Ministry of Health, Jane Belfon was director of Tourism, Pamela Buxo, secretary for Tourism, Joan Ross was program director for Television Free Grenada, Regina Taylor was general secretary of the Agency for Rural Transformation, Angela Cape was deputy manager of the National and Marketing Importing Board and Bridget Horsford was manager of the Agro-Industries Plant. Monica Joseph became Grenada’s first female Judge in 1982. She acted as a diplomat, negotiating with James Mitchell’s administration in St. Vincent on the issue of escaped prisoners.13

Fig. 4-3 Jacqueline Creft (courtesy Peggy Nesfield)

How did women feel about the NWO and the work of Revolution as it affected them? A seventy-two-old great grandmother of Birchgrove had this to say: “I am with the revolution and the government one thousand and nine per cent. After the revolution, we formed our women’s group 13 Epica Task Force, Grenada the Peaceful Revolution. (Washington DC: EPICA, 1982), 99, Monica Joseph (retired judge), interview with author, 17 March 1999.

Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

55

here in Birchgrove. Progress gave me new energy. I wanted to fight on for my grandchildren because I saw in it some future. Woman is real real out now … we feeling more confident. We heart open now.”14 Twenty-twoyear-old Catherine Mapp of L’Esterre village in Carriacou reported: “Above almost everything, the revolution has been a revolution for women. Women definitely see it as a change in their direction, something which they could benefit from directly. Free secondary education, free milk distribution, electricity at last in our village and the maternity leave law. These are the things which affect their daily life and make a real difference to them.”15 There were shortcomings of the NWO, and the PRG was hardly above criticism in its relations with women. There were Grenadian women who vehemently opposed the revolution and others opposed aspects of the process. The NWO gave support to the involvement of women and youth in the armed forces.16 The Revolution as whole has been criticized by women both inside and outside of Grenada for the extension of violence in the society, the breaking up of families and the reduction of regular church going during the period. One woman noted that the community cleanup was held on Sundays. Some of the older folks preferred to go to church, however they were ‘reported’ by their own children. Older persons, who did not understand the revolutionary process or were opposed to it, were seen as being subversive. She also complained of children handling guns such as AK 47’s from an early age. She noted seeing boys between eight and ten years blindfolded and putting guns together in the Grenville car park in St. Andrew.17 Mary Jane (pseudonym) also claimed that prior to the Revolution pregnancy outside of marriage was seen as shameful. During the Revolution, young girls were encouraged to have children, especially those who joined the militia and army. They were reportedly told they would produce the flowers of the Revolution.18 She had risked imprisonment in the mid-1970s to sell the New Jewel newspaper, yet by 1983 she had reservations. She noted: “I was turned off when on the first 14

Merle Hodge and Chris Searle, “Is Freedom we making” The New Democracy in Grenada (Government Information Services: Grenada, 1981), 48-49. 15 Chris Searle, Carriacou and Petite Martinique in the mainstream of the Revolution (St. George’s: Fédon, 1982), 108. 16 Peggy Antrobus, “Lessons from the Grenada Revolution”, Caricom Perspective No.222 (November-December 1983) Women and Development Unit, Extra Mural Department, UWI, Barbados, 1984, 3. 17 Mary Jane (pseudonym), interview with author, 22 February 1999. 18 Ibid.

56

Chapter Four

anniversary of the revolution Daniel Ortega gave Maurice Bishop a gun from the freedom loving people of Nicaragua to the freedom loving people of Grenada. Guns meant death and destruction. I just stopped.”19

Fig. 4-4 Dessima Williams (courtesy Peggy Nesfield)

Lucy Lace (pseudonym) complained of lack of freedom of speech: ‘you could not say anything with a semblance of disagreement, you had to be careful what you said.’20 One woman noted that she did not get involved in the Revolution because “it was a coup and it was not as popular as they tried to make it.”21 Another claimed that ‘a Russian’ viewed the St. George’s harbor from her home. She claimed that the plan was for ‘the Russians to take over the area overlooking the harbor.’ She believed that the proposed International Airport was really “a jumping off 19

Ibid. Lucy Lace (pseudonym), interview with author, 24 February 1999. 21 Mary Theresa (pseudonym), 9 March 1999. 20

Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

57

point for the Russians to take over South America.”22 This fell in line with the theory advocated by some writers that Grenada was to be used by the Soviet Union as a launching pad for moving into South America. The NWO has also been criticized for not measuring up to its claim to be a mass organization. It has been pointed out that it did not involve middle class women’s organizations. It made no attempt to ally with the existing women’s groups or encourage their participation whether or not they had been supportive of the revolution. The older organizations went dormant during the PRG, losing their younger members and craft and nutrition teachers to the NWO. The only exception was the Airport Development Committee that was organized and led by women.23 Despite the efforts of the NWO to expand the organization into a mass movement, it can be reasonably argued that it remained a tool of the PRG. Every Government agency or party arm, whether socialist or capitalist, tends to propagate the views of the regime in power. If the NWO remained to a large extent an arm of the PRG (as it did), it fulfilled its function as part of the ruling party. The NWO has been criticized for encouraging women to enter the field of male dominated jobs, yet failing to re-evaluate the female dominated fields. The NWO, it has been argued, should have given similar encouragement to boys and men to enter these fields e.g. home economics, early childhood education and secretarial studies. The NWO has been charged with being too aggressive in its rhetoric and proposing radical ideas such as marriage being outdated. Furthermore, certain crucial laws affecting women were not dealt with. For example, the punishment for rape remained at a minimum of a three-year sentence, and restrictive laws against illegitimate children remained up to 1983.24 The organization was further criticized for not confronting the issue of abuse of power and violence within the Revolution. There were problems with NISTEP and the corresponding CSDP program. Often there were not enough volunteer members of the community willing to take classes when the teachers went off to their training 22

Mary Annie (pseudonym). interview with author, 26 March 1999. Rosemary Porter, “Women and the State: Women’s Movements in Grenada and their Role in the Grenada Revolution 1979 -1983” (PhD diss., Temple University, 1986), 349. The Airport Development Committee was set up in St. George’s in November-December 1979. Other Committees were formed in other parishes. Although the Airport Development Committee was organized by women, it was not for women exclusively, men were free to join. 24 Beverley Steele (former resident tutor of the UWI Centre, Grenada), interview with author, 19 February, 1999. 23

58

Chapter Four

program. It was noted that often at the Methodist school in St Andrew only three teachers were left to handle the children.25 The opportunity for free education offered by PRG helped to make secondary and tertiary education more accessible for the Grenadian populace especially women. Over the last 32 years following the 1983 collapse statistics in education have revealed more females attending secondary schools than males. Girls have been bestowed the Marryshow Cup Award for excellent performance in the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examinations twenty-eight times in 37 years. Three of these young ladies have won the regional award for these examinations. There has been a significant increase in the number of women in middle management positions most of whom would have gained their secondary and tertiary education in the revolutionary period 1979 -1983 i.e. the senior position of permanent secretaries for government ministers are predominantly female. While the PRG did take the placement of women in areas of decisionmaking further than the previous regime, it has still been criticized for not taking the process far enough. For example, there were no female majors, lieutenants or colonels in the army. Bernard Coard (Deputy Prime Minister of the People’s Revolutionary Government, member of the Central Committee) gives an explanation as to why this was the case in Grenada. He noted that the under-representation of women in positions of power in the military was global since the army has “always been conceived of traditionally as a male preserve.”26 However, in relation to Grenada in particular he recalled that there was one woman in the armed wing of the NJM or National Liberation Army (NLA). This army existed from 1973. He noted: “She received exactly the same military training as the men. She was on par with them militarily in terms of skill and training. However, when the revolution came she branched out into other areas of work, nonmilitary areas of work, had she stayed in the military she would have been one of the top commanders.”27 He further noted that the men who filled the positions as commanders in the PRA were members of the National Liberation Army. They had proved themselves through the years and as such gained senior positions in the army. He was of the opinion that over the process of time some women would have risen to the top but by 1983 none of them had. The women who did hold decision-making posts in the PRG had the serious problem of balancing their work with maintaining their home life. In May 1982, Phyllis Coard, as Chairperson of the Women’s committee of 25

Mary Jane, interview, 22 February 1999. Bernard Coard, interview with author, 17 August 2000. 27 Ibid. 26

Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

59

the NJM, noted the complaints of her colleagues and wrote a letter to the Political Bureau (PB). The main problems identified were as follows: The special problems of women with children are rarely if ever considered when fixing hours of study classes and committee or PCB (Parish Coordinating Bodies) meetings. When some women members raised the problems of having no one to leave their babies with at 5.00 a.m. or no one to get the children breakfast or ready for school, the attitude of many heads of the PCB’s, committees and study groups has frequently been that “you just have to solve that problem”. As a result, some women members have been deemed “indisciplined” for missing meetings, others have taken serious risks with their children like leaving babies in the care of young children of ten or twelve years. Some have faced criticisms from the masses for “neglecting” their children.

The maternity leave law must be respected by the party. The experience over the past two years shows us that even some senior party comrades expect that women members will continue political work almost until she gives birth and will take on work again shortly afterwards. Furthermore, women with babies or young children should always be consulted before being directed to go abroad for the party, to ensure that arrangements can be made to look after their children. The party should seek actively to change the attitude of party men to the questions of babysitting, child care, housework and should ensure that all fathers support their children equally both financially and psychologically. The party should make male party members understand that it is their duty to spend equal time looking after their children whether or not they live in the same house as the mother. Party men are pressing sisters to have babies for them yet afterwards they take little or no responsibility for them. All party men and women must share housework and baby care equally in order that both should have an equal opportunity to develop as party cadres. Otherwise women part cadres will always be held back in their development…relative to what they are capable of.28 At a meeting on 22 September 1982 the political bureau answered these complaints. It concluded that there was a lack of day care centers and pre-primary schools. Men had shown a lack of concern and support for the women, and the women had developed an attitude of laziness and ill-

28

Problems Affecting Women Party Members. Letter given to the Political Bureau NJM from Chairperson, Women’s Committee, NJM, 11 May 1982. Document 79– 1, Grenada Documents and Selection (Washington D.C.: United States Department of State and Department of Defense, September 1984).

60

Chapter Four

discipline.29 By July 1983 the matter reached the Central Committee yet little was done to assist the women’s plight and the chauvinist attitude of the men remained. According to the Central Committee, the work of the Women’s Committee was weak, due to ‘deep petty bourgeoisie trends’ in some of the members, though concrete attempts were being made to solve the problems faced by women through the provision of day care centers, kindergartens, pre-primary facilities, and skills training. The Central Committee further noted following standard Marxist rhetoric, that it ‘would not encourage weakness, or breed cynicism or put the party in the position of a privileged clique or encourage disunity between men and women in the party’s rank and file.’30 In general, Marxist ideology does not deal with the relations between men and women. Sheila Rowbotham noted that: “Marx’s thought could be applied by women to reveal and illuminate aspects of their oppression, but in his work women’s relations to men and women’s capacity to shape society and culture are extrinsic. Although Marx was formally committed to the legal emancipation of women and to their right to work his intellectual passion was not directed towards the relations between men and women but towards class”.31 Frederick Engels, in his seminal Marxist work the Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, did not shed much light on the issue either. While he saw women’s subordination as being linked to certain social processes along with biological differences, he did not address the relations between men and women. He stated that women’s emancipation could only take place when their participation in social production had increased and domestic work claimed only an insignificant amount of their time. He did not say whether they could obtain this with the support of men. Within the Grenadian context, the Central Committee followed orthodox Marxist doctrine which did not provide them with a cue to follow regarding the relations between men and women. In spite of the attempts of the Political Bureau and the Central Committee to ‘sweep the problem under the carpet’, it was a very real one and the issue remained a thorn in the side of the regime until its collapse. Two of the women in positions of power explained how they coped. Tessa Stroude noted:

29

Minutes of Public Bureau Meeting, Wednesday, 22 September 1982. Document 81-2, Grenada Documents an Overview and Selection. 30 Central Committee Report on First Plenary Session, 13 - 19 July 1983. Document 110 -18 Grenada Documents an Overview and Selection. 31 Sheila Rowbotham, Women in Movement: Feminism and Social Action. (London: Routledge, 1992), 141.

Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

61

Every day of the week there was something to do (NWO meeting, militia, selling of party papers, community work and party meetings). You hardly had enough time to yourself. We were doing it because we were committed to a cause and we were doing what was best for a cause and we were doing what was best for the country. You found ways and means to continue family life but it was difficult.32

She recalled taking the children with her to do party work: I used to take the children with me. As NWO organizer I used to do spot checks. I would go up to the country and I took the children in the back of the car with me…As party members we had (herself and her husband Lt. Chris Stroude) to sell the party paper on Saturdays. We would make it a family thing; we would sell the paper together and take the children with us for the walk. On Sunday morning, also compulsory for us was to go to a community and do community work. We took the children. The children enjoyed it. They had fun, they could play and it was good for them too, to understand the concept of community. In the evening (Sunday) we took the children to the beach.33

Another such couple, they called in baby sitters: “They did the work of mother and father for us.”34 She recalled the “serious debates” held in the party on the issue and noted that the men took it ‘chauvinistically.’ Were Grenadian women ‘empowered’ in the period 1979 – 1983? Did the revolutionary process transform their lives? What is the legacy of the revolution for Grenadian women? Under the Eric Gairy regime some women were placed in positions of power within the government. The PRG took the process further. However, how much further the process was taken can be questioned. Grenada was on par with Barbados in this period in terms of women in the highest echelons of power.35 However Dominica and Montserrat fell behind.36 In the number of permanent secretaries in government ministries, 32

Tessa Stroude, interview with author, 2 February 1999. Ibid. 34 Claudette Pitt, interview with author, 27 February1999. 35 There were four women in the senate between 1976 and 1981. Three served on the Barbados House of Assembly between 1976 and 1983. There were two ministers between 1976 and 1981. See Kenneth O’ Brien and Neville Duncan Women and Politics in Barbados 1948-1981, (Cave Hill: ISER, 1983), 50-52. 36 Between 1979 and 1983 there were two women in high echelons of power in Dominica, the prime minister and a minister of government. See Lennox Honychurch, The Dominica Story: A History of the Island (Roseau: The Dominica Institute, 1984). Between 1979 and 1983 Monserrat had one female minister of 33

62

Chapter Four

Grenada ranked among the best in the region. Yet it can be argued that in spite of its socialist revolution, the positions of power held by women in Grenada were of the “kitchen cabinet” type. Grenadian women were placed at the head of ministries like education and women’s affairs. Thus, while the Grenadian revolution may have numerically increased the number of women in positions of power, it did not revolutionize the type of positions they held. The woman as minister was limited to her traditional role as social worker and teacher. The shortcomings of the policies of the PRG and the work of the NWO and the Women’s Desk beg the question whether Marxist ideology, in its strictest sense, superimposed onto a Grenadian context had worked. Could Marxist ideas of a classless society work in Grenada or any Caribbean territory with its inherent chauvinist and machismo influences? Marxist ideology did not advocate the equality of women as a priority. If Grenadian women demanded it, was it going to be given to them in this relatively short period 1979 to 1983? Grenadian women would have had to experience a revolution within a revolution to address their needs. The argument rages on as to whether or not socialism rather than capitalism was instrumental in enhancing the conditions of women. According to Sheila Rowbotham: Marx was primarily concerned with the social consequences of class antagonism not conflict between men and women. By the time he wrote Capital he concentrated on exploitation and alienation of the worker who sells his or her capacity to labor to the owner of capital who gives only part back in the form of wages. Though this covers the situation of the workingclass women as a wage earner, it does not explore the position of women working in the family, the sexual relations between men and women, our relationships to our bodies. In Capital Marx takes for granted the necessity of women’s labor in maintaining and reproducing wage earners but he does not examine this in any detail or discuss its implications for women’s consciousness.37

The failure of Marxism to deal with this issue manifested itself, in the Grenadian context, in strained relations between men and women in the PRG and the NJM. The problems included the responsibility for child care and household chores devolving largely on women when both sexes had to attend meetings or functions. Also, women within the party were not government. See Verene Shepherd ed. Women in Caribbean History: The British Colonized Territories (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers, 1999),183-184. 37 Sheila Rowbotham, Hidden from History: Rediscovering Women in History from the 17th century to the Present (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), xxiv.

Empowerment of Women in the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

63

expected to take maternity leave. The concern of the revolutionary leadership to end women’s confinement to traditional roles too often seemed limited to making their labor available to the regime. Women became as free as men to work outside the home while men remained free from work within it.38 The revolution of 1979 attained victories for women in the areas of education, health, housing and representation in government. It can be ascertained that while the transformation was not complete four and a half years was indeed a short time. It can also be argued that the seeds for empowerment of women were sown in that short period have blossomed in a number of areas the benefits of which are seen today. Thirty years later in the political arena women have continued to be well represented. In the successive governments from 1983 to the present there has been at least one female minister of government. By 2007 there were six. There has also been a female leader of the opposition, three female presidents of the senate and a female Governor-General. However, one can still argue that there is still no female minister of finance or foreign affairs. These remain the preserve of men. Women have used education as a medium of advancement. The period 1979- 1983 afforded women a significant boost in the establishment of free secondary education and scholarships to tertiary institutions regionally and internationally. The effect is a significant number of women in middle management positions mainly in the public sector. Women have moved into male dominated jobs like medicine and law. In areas of law enforcement and engineering remain a male preserve. There has been only one female superintendent of police from 1983 to the present. There are three female engineers all of whom have attained employment outside of Grenada mainly due to machismo attitude that still pervades this field. The maternity leave law was an emancipatory piece of legislation though it was ridiculed by some detractors in the period 1979 -1983. It allowed women the ability to reproduce without fear or favor. The law is still in existence today, additional benefits have been added for men in terms of paternity leave and monetary benefits. The equitable wages law passed in the 1979 – 1983 period while there were some difficulties of implementation on some estates has been fully adopted and is functional today. The words ‘caterpillar dead, butterfly born’ is taken from a poem by Merle Collins of the same name. It aptly expressed the beginning of the 38 Catherine A. Mac Kinnon “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory”. Signs 7 (1982): 523.

64

Chapter Four

transformation of women in the Grenadian society. The process of empowerment started in the 1979 -1983 period came to fruition thirty years later. The evidence is seen in the Maternity leave law still being operational, both men and women work for the equal wages, women have used the secondary and tertiary education afforded them during the period of the revolution as a medium of advancement into professional fields including medicine, law, and public administration.

CHAPTER FIVE RELIGION AND THE GRENADA REVOLUTION CLAUDE J. DOUGLAS

Grenada’s earliest recorded religious practitioners were the Amerindians. They represented the island’s first known inhabitants. Since the time of these earliest inhabitants to the present, religion has been an essential part of Grenadian life. Religion can be defined as a system of beliefs.... In short, religion can be defined as belief in spiritual beings. More broadly, religion can be defined as a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate questions of human life. The quality of being religious implies two things: first, a belief that evil, pain, bewilderment and injustice are fundamental facts of existence; second, a set of practices and related sanctified beliefs that express a conviction that man can ultimately be saved from those facts. It would not be an exaggeration to say that religion is inseparable from the daily life of the Grenadian people, particularly the working class. Religious world view is a great part of their mental construction. In addition, important periods in an individual’s life cycle are marked by some religious ritual. Religion also plays a major role in other institutions such as education. This is indicative by the number of parochial schools that exists in Grenada today. The power and influence of religion in the Grenadian society is immense. Grenada’s colourful history has greatly influenced its religious landscape, which is now dominated by Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. These two major religious organizations were introduced to Grenada by French and British colonists respectively, as early as the 15th century to assist with the colonization of the island and the subsequent institutionalization of slavery among other things. During chattel slavery, the African born slaves did not rely totally on European Christianity to maintain their religiosity. They retained some of their African ethnic beliefs and practices and combined them with elements of Catholicism and

66

Chapter Five

North American Baptists, which mushroomed into syncretised AfroCaribbean creolized cults such as the Shango Baptists. During the colonial period, Protestant denominations such as the Presbyterian, Baptists and Methodists, whose mission was to improve the social conditions of the slaves, followed on the heels of the French Catholic and Anglo-Saxon Anglican churches. At the dawn of the twentieth century, other fundamentalist religious denominations such as the Seventh Day Adventists and Pentecostals came proclaiming distinctive religious doctrines. In the 1970s and 80s, the Rastafarian cult, which originated in the ghettos of Kingston, Jamaica in the 1930s and is considered by mainstream society as a pseudo-religious movement, flourished among the lower-class youth in Grenada. The Grenada Constitution provides for religious freedom. Article 9 of the Constitution confirms this. It says: “Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, including freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” 1 Discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice is a rarity in Grenada. However, religion experienced its most trying moments during the period of the Grenada Revolution 1979-1983; the Maurice Bishop led People’s Revolutionary Government and the religious community endured a strained relationship. Today, Grenada is predominantly a Christian society in which almost half of its population is Roman Catholic. According to the 2007/2008 Grenada Poverty Assessment Survey, in 2001, Roman Catholics had the largest single group of adherents (46%). Anglicans accounted for the second single largest grouping (12 %), while Seventh Day Adventists and Pentecostals represent 11.1 percent and 11.4 percent, respectively. Those representing no religious affiliation accounted 3.8 percent of the population.2

1

“The Grenada Constitution Order, 1973,” Government of Grenada, accessed 29 December 2016, http://www.gov.gd/egov/docs/legislations/constitution/grenada_constitution_order _1973.pdf. 2 Final Report Country Poverty Assessment: Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique, 2007/2008, Government of Grenada, accessed 29 December 2016, http://www.gov.gd/egov/docs/reports/Grenada_CPA_Vol_1_Main_Report_Submit ted.pdf.

Religion and the Grenada Revolution

67

Religion and the Socialist State Historically, in most Marxist-Leninist inspired revolutionary states, there has not been a peaceful coexistence between the state and religion. Alexis De Tocqueville, in his book The Old Regime and the French Revolution, observed that “The Church was hated not because its priests claimed to regulate the affairs of the other world but because they were the landed proprietors, lords of manors, tithe owners, and played a leading part in secular affairs.”3 During the 1789-1992, there was a concerted attack on the church as part of the Revolution’s aim to construct a new society. When the Communists took over power in Russia in 1917, religion and church were suppressed because, like in France of 1789, they were seen as a part of the old regime and thus deemed as a threat to the new political order.4 Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Russian Communist Party who was also the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution and the architect of the Soviet state, argued that “Religion is a kind of spiritual gin in which the slaves of capital drown their human shape and their claims to any decent life.” 5 Unlike the French revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks aim was to legitimize the ideology of Marxism and in doing so rejected both the necessity of religious institutions and religious faith itself. In China, the unrelenting growth of communism led to a protracted conflict between religion and Chinese atheism which, according to Fengang Yang, “exists in various forms such as Leninist militant atheism that supports religious eradication and suppression, modernist enlightenment atheism that supports religious repression and restriction through scientific education, and mild atheism that advocates religious tolerance while debasing the socioeconomic foundation of religion.”6 Today, religion in China is still under attack by militant atheism and enlightenment atheism which continue to dominate the thinking among Chinese officials about religion.

3 Alexis De Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution, New York: First Anchor, 1955. 4 T.S. Tsonchev, “Religion and Communism in Modern China: Clashes or Synergy of Ideologies?”, The Montreal Review, April, 2011. Accessed 29 December 2016, http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Religion-and-Communism-in-ModernChina.php. 5 Vladimir Lenin, Lenin Selected Works (Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR, 1970), XI:658. 6 Fengang Yang. Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule. Oxford Scholarship online, January 2012.

68

Chapter Five

Even though Cuba was one of the reliable bastions of Catholicism in the Latin American region, Revolutionary Cuba has also made life a difficult existence for religion, especially during the period 1959-1989. In 1976, the Cuban government amended the country’s constitution to make scientific materialism or atheism the official or established philosophy or religion. The provision was deleted after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992.

Religion and the Grenada Revolution When the Maurice Bishop led New Jewel Movement (NJM) overthrew the Grenada United Labour Party’s administration on March 13th, 1979, the Conference of Churches in Grenada gave the Revolution its blessings because the Revolutionaries restrained themselves and conscientiously tried to avoid bloodshed. It also commended the Revolutionary government’s intention to call an early “free and fair” election. A statement of the Conference of Churches in Grenada (CCG), dated 25 March 1979, voiced the churches’ position clearly: “While regretting the circumstances under which the new Revolutionary government in Grenada has come to power, we are thankful to God for the way in which the armed Revolutionaries have restrained themselves and made efforts to avoid bloodshed…. We are thankful to hear that all those being held in protective custody are being treated humanely and given due care and attention. We welcome the intention of the Revolutionary Government in their aim of bringing about ‘free and fair’ elections as speedily as possible, so that democracy which we cherish may prevail.”7

Some influential liberation theologians within the Caribbean Conference of Churches (CCC), the regional ecumenical body, also expressed support for the Revolution. During African Liberation Day, on 25 May 1981, the General Secretary of the CCC, Dr Roy Neehall, said: “Liberation theology which is developed within the churches of the Caribbean and Latin America is going to be the basis upon which many Christian people can participate in the revolutionary change that is needed in order that we overthrow the forces of colonialism and imperialism.8 Unfortunately, the churches hope of seeing imminent free and fair elections, among other things, as promised by People’s Revolutionary 7

“Statement from the Conference of Churches, Grenada,” The Torchlight, March 25, 1979. 8 Catherine Sunshine, ed. Grenada: The Peaceful Revolution (Washington DC: EPICA Task Force), 198

Religion and the Grenada Revolution

69

Government (PRG), crumbled into despair as it chose to embark on an alternative political path to development – socialism. This was deeply entrenched when Grenada established diplomatic relations with Cuba on April 14, 1979. Thus, Cuba became a major political and ideological role model for Grenada. The socialist path chosen by the PRG strained its relationship with the religious community. In a parliamentary democracy, an election as a political process is considered the single most important mechanism for citizens, particularly the electorate, to participate in the selection of a government. The popular belief is that free and fair election confers legitimacy on a government and is one of the defining characteristics of democracy. In the opinion of the PRG, Westminster parliamentary democracy is a farce and does not guarantee real people’s democracy, which it wanted to establish in Grenada. Bishop derogatorily described parliamentary democracy as a “five-minute democracy.” Within the first few months of the Revolution, it was made abundantly clear that parliamentary democracy would not be a part of the new Grenadian society it envisioned. Some disappointed church leaders lamented the fact that free and fair election, as promised by the PRG, was no longer a defining feature of Grenada’s political culture. According to documented evidence, the influence of the churches in Grenada was of particular concern to the PRG. It saw the Church in the immediate period as being the most dangerous sector for the development of internal counter revo1ution. The PRG felt that if serious measures were not taken, it would find itself faced with a Poland situation. During the same period in Poland, the predominantly Catholic Church was viewed as a primary site for anti-communist activism and provided strong resistance to the communist regime. Concerned about the churches’ threat to the Sovietisation of Grenada, the Cuban Communist Party willingly gave substantial help to the PRG to counter religious activities. The PRG’s covert surveillance reports stated that the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist and Seventh Day Adventists churches were considered as posing the greatest threat to the Revolution. At that time, the four aforementioned churches accounted for the vast majority of Christians in Grenada. The counterrevolutionary label placed on those churches created some heightened tension between them and the PRG. The tension worsened when the PRG suspected some church leaders to be agents of the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Given the socialist path taken, the PRG obsessively believed the United States, given its Munroe Doctrine led foreign policy toward the Latin America

70

Chapter Five

and Caribbean region, was determined to invade Grenada and turn back the Revolution. Anyone whom the PRG felt was conspiring with the United States through its CIA or other opposition forces to destabilise or overthrow the PRG was labelled as counterrevolutionary and would have been dealt with definitively. During the four and one-half years that the PRG ruled Grenada, approximately one (1) percent of the island’s population was detained at varying times for political transgressions. The PRG’s unsubstantiated suspicion of the clergy’s involvement in counterrevolutionary activities consequently caused the PRG’s coldness to religion to reach freezing point. Although the conflict between secular power and religious authority did not escalate into brutal oppression as was the case in the French and Russian revolutions, there were growing concerns among the clergy that that was about to happen. In his study on Church and State in Grenada during the Revolutionary period, 1979-1983, J. A. Emerson Vermaat concluded: “As far as religion was concerned there was no direct religious persecution (closing down of churches, arresting members of the clergy, etc.) between March 1979 and October 1983. But the basis for a policy of religious repression was laid down in the course of 1983 and church leaders were justified in their apprehension that 1983 and following years would be of crucial significance for the free practice of religion.”9

The Revolution and the Catholic Church The Roman Catholic Church is the most populous of the churches in Grenada. As a result, the church was seen as the most influential and therefore posed the greatest threat – real or imagined - to the Revolution. According to documented evidence, in November 1982, the PRG dubbed the Roman Catholic Church as the No.1 antagonist of the Revolution. The PRG claimed that the church placed tremendous emphasis on distorting the teachings of Marxism/Leninism and offered Christianity as the only way to solve society’s problems. The PRG felt it was up against an experienced and skilful counter revolutionary organization. The antagonism was not so much with the broad membership but more so with the leadership of the church. The PRG felt that the church leadership sought to prevent its membership, particularly the youth from being swallowed by the tsunami of anti-religion and anti-church 9

J.A. Emerson Vermaat, “Church and State in Grenada during the Bishop Regime, 1979-1983,” Religion in Communist Lands, 14,1 (1986): 43-58.

Religion and the Grenada Revolution

71

sentiments that swept through the island-nation during that period. In one of his investigative reports on the church in Revolutionary Grenada, Senior Security Officer in charge of the church activity file, Officer Cadet Michael D. Roberts, confirms this belief: “It is safe, here, to say that there is no clear “left” religion in Grenada, but, since our Revolution enjoys popular support, then the broad mass of church goers are to varying extents supporters of the Grenada Revolution. This cannot be said about the Leaders of the Churches in Grenada and I contend that we have no support among them; all are to different degrees hostile to the Revolution. This is true even though some are less vocal than others.”10

Although the majority of its laity were, in one way or another, involved with the Revolution, the church’s leadership was not happy with the rapidly growing trend of scientific socialism (socialism with atheism) that threatened to turn the hearts of its members against religion in general and the church, in particular. It also feared that there would have been a consequent drastic reduction in regular church attendance, as was the case in early revolutionary Cuba. The Catholic Church’s subtle criticisms of the Revolution were communicated mainly through its homilies. In another investigative report submitted by Michael D. Roberts to Major Keith Roberts, Chief of Internal Security, it was noted that the “main line pushed for this period (1980-81) by the traditional churches was the question of the detainees at Richmond Hill and the holding of elections. The Roman Catholic Church, in particular, used every forum to push this line. This church organized retreats, seminars and conferences, and at every one of these activities, hostile statements were hurled against the Grenada Revolution on socalled violation of human rights. Every Sunday at one Church or another priest were heard to ask people to ‘pray for the detainees’ whose rights have been denied.”11 When the PRG closed The Torchlight newspaper in October 1979, the Catholic Church stridently criticized the government’s action. In a letter dated Sunday 21 October 1979, which was to be read in all churches and chapels, Bishop Sidney Charles, head of the Church in Grenada at the time, lamented:

10

US Dept. of State and US Dept. of Defense, eds. The Grenada Documents: An Overview and Selection (Washington, D.C.: Dept. of State & Dept. of Defense, 1984) 154. 11 US State Dept. et al., The Grenada Documents, 154.

72

Chapter Five “My dear brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, I am making the following statement, not in order to enter into the political arena, not for the sake of opportunism, not with a motive of destabilizing either the Revolution or the People’s Revolutionary Government; not, indeed, for any negative reason whatsoever. I make this statement out of a deep sense of duty, as Bishop, to Christ, to His Church, and to the People of God in Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique, whom I am committed to serve... Whenever freedom of the press is at stake in any country, ways and means are always invented to exercise this basic human right, even to the extent of going underground as obtained in the last regime, in fact, when the New Jewel newspaper was outlawed. Let it be clearly understood, that I am not taking any side in this issue. Communicators in the mass media have indeed a very strict obligation to act with the greatest respect for the TRUTH. They must also have a great respect for the common good of society. No one has a right to propagate lies or distort the truth, inciting towards actions damaging to the human rights and dignity of others. The Torchlight newspaper has been accused of serious, dangerous and false statements; if these accusations are true, there are existing laws and the law-courts to deal with those responsible. Let the offenders be charged and, if found guilty, by due process of law, be punished accordingly.”12

The Revolution and the Anglican Church The Anglican Church, the second largest religious organisation in Grenada, became the official church of the state of Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique when the island was restored to British rule in 1783. This church was also seen by the PRG as engaging in anti-revolution rhetoric. Though not seen as influential in the state as the Catholic Church, it too was considered a major threat to the Revolution. In a PRG’s surveillance report, it was noted that Archdeacon Hoskins Huggins, the leader of the Anglican Church was becoming more and more critical of the Revolution. He was, according to the PRG, pushing the same “challenge line” although in slightly different words. Archdeacon Huggins, in his 24 December 1982 sermon, was reported to have told the congregation at the St. George’s Church that they should guard the right to freedom of worship, and to do all in their power to ensure that this right be always part of the people. He was also reported as telling the congregation that “for 1983 freedom of worship may not exist and that this is a grave challenge to us a freedom loving people.”13 12 13

The Torchlight, 10 October 1979. US State Dept., et al., The Grenada Documents, 154.

Religion and the Grenada Revolution

73

The Revolution and the Methodist Church Even though the Methodist Church is not as populous as the Catholic and Anglican churches, the PRG also blacklisted the Methodist Church as one of the major religious antagonists of the Revolution. The PRG identified Eileen Byer as the most reactionary and clearly anti-PRG influential lay member of the church. Byer became of interest to the PRG when she reportedly told a congregation in St. George’s that the PRG was wilfully and deliberately hampering the work of the Methodist church. Byer, at the time, was remonstrating with the PRG over its untenable delay in granting two desperately needed work permits for priests. The relationship between the PRG and the Methodist church was exacerbated by the Ledson’s case. Reverend Keith Ledson’s refusal to comply with a request from the PRG to conduct a state funeral service for Godden “Cacademo” Grant, an early member of the NJM, a strong supporter of the Revolution and long-standing Methodist, on the Sunday after he died (16 December 1982) kindled the wrath of the PRG. According to Richard Hart, “the PRG saw this as an insult to the memory of a man seen as a national hero.” Ledson was therefore asked to leave the island and promptly did so.14 Sir Paul Scoon, in his book, Survival for Service, justifies Ledson’s action and chronicled Ledson’s expulsion as an example of religious persecution.

The Revolution and the Seventh Day Adventists The Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) church was also a target of the PRG. The Revolution dubbed the SDA church ‘the business church’ of Grenada because of its ingathering campaign, that is, an annual solicitation of funds from the public to support its social welfare programmes. The PRG described the SDA church’s relationship with the revolution as hostile. Like the other churches, Seventh Day Adventists fundamental beliefs strongly advocate the existence of a creator triune God and any other teachings that challenged such a strongly held belief would be considered an affront. The atheistic teachings that flourished during the 1979-83 period made the SDA church become guarded and unresponsive to the PRG. During the period of the Revolution, the SDA church in Grenada was a part of the East Caribbean Conference of Seventh Day Adventists which 14

Richard Hart, The Grenada Revolution: Setting the Record Straight, UK: Caribbean Labour Solidarity and the Socialist Society, 2005.

74

Chapter Five

also included St. Vincent and Grenadines, St. Lucia, Dominica and Barbados, where it is headquartered. The funds collected as tithes and offering in those islands had to be sent to the Conference as is customary. The PRG felt that too much money was leaving the island and consequently stopped the transfer of funds from Grenada to Barbados. Though adversely affected by the PRG’s action, the SDA church in Grenada was forced to become an autonomous organization by establishing a Mission in 1983. For the church, it was good coming out of evil. About two decades later, the church went a step farther by becoming a Conference.

Future Trends Going forward, the PRG in its surveillance report recorded the future trends of the churches as follows: it foresaw the continuation of the organization of all Youths by the Catholic and Anglican Churches. It also predicted stronger unity among all G.C.C. members. More specifically, it thought that the unity among the Catholic Clergy will grow steadily and that the Catholic Church overall will harden its position against the Revolution and the Bishop becoming bolder in his attacks against the Revolution. Moreover, the PRG envisaged an infiltration of antiMarxists/Leninists from outside. This, it believed, would be sustained by more and more foreign Pastors and Preachers of non-traditional religious coming to Grenada to work and hold crusades. To neutralize the work of the church and ensure that its subtle antirevolutionary efforts do not take root among the masses, Major Keith Roberts, Chief of Internal Security, signed off on several recommendations aimed at reducing the influence of religion on the masses. Some of the major recommendations were: x Ensuring that Michael Roberts continue a permanent and full time way to be in charge of Church work and obtaining a second person to work in this area in order to control all churches, their leadership, membership and their activities. x Removing from Primary Schools, all deeply religious head teachers by whatever means most suitable, replacing them with more progressive elements. x Cut back on all religious programs on R.F.G. Substitute on Sunday morning voice cast of the masses on the progress of the projects. x To promote contacts among Clergymen and members of Laity from Nicaragua and other Latin American countries linked to the

Religion and the Grenada Revolution

75

theology of liberation and, in general, to the idea of a church commented to Revolutionary positions. x To implement the visits of Pastors from the Grenada Protestant Churches belonging to the Caribbean Conference of Churches (CCC) of which the Evangelical Churches of Cuba in a number, to short annual course, in light that the comrades can solve the language question. x More dialogue with West Indian Priests, Nuns and Brothers in the Church and schools by the Leadership. x Start Progressive Church (talk with Nicaraguans and Cubans) (Signed) Major Keith Roberts, Chief of Internal Security, New Jewel Movement.15

The Revolution and Rastafarians The PRG also had a strained relationship with the Rastafarian cult. Their living in the hills as they called did not go down well with the PRG who became highly sceptical of their separatist lifestyle. During the Revolution, the PRG saw the Rastafarians as a threat. As a consequence, the PRG, through the People’s Revolutionary Army (PRA), pursued those who lived in the hills and subsequently detained hundreds of Rastafarians at the infamous detention centre at Hope Vale, St. George. The fall out between the PRG and the Rastafarian sect was a bitter experience for most Rastafarians, especially those who were not closely associated with the Revolution. Those who resided in the hills lived in constant fear of harassment, capture and detention. In his seminal work titled Rehabilitation or Death, Ras I Herb laments the Rastafarians’ horrid experience at the Hope Vale Detention Centre. He wrote: “The thirteen of ‘I an I’ (us) present in this cell [sic Richmond Hill Prison cell) had lived together for the past ten months in Hope Vale (Hope Vale Detention Centre). Out of the thirteen, five of ‘I and I’ (us) had been there from the beginning of the process in June 1981. Therefore ‘I and I’ (we) were there for two years and four months. This was the reason for the slogan, ‘Hope Vale Jail is the worst jail and you can’t get no bail’. Although ‘I and I’ (we) were not tried in the magistrate’s court, it seem ‘I an I’ (we) were tried, found guilty and sentenced.”16

15 16

US State Dept., et al., The Grenada Documents, 154. Ras Herb. Rehabilitation or Death (St. George’s: Anansi Publication, 1991), 6.

76

Chapter Five

The Revolution and Islam The enmity between the Revolution and religion transcended the boundary of Christianity and Rastafarianism and spilled over into the infinitesimal Islamic community. Unlike the Rastafarians, the Muslims did not play any major role in the making of the Revolution. Grenadian scholar Maurice Patterson, in seminal work titled So Far, So Mad, highlighted the antagonism between the Revolution and Muslims, particularly those who resided in the St. Patrick’s area. The relationship between the PRG and the Muslims turned deadly ugly in 1981. Hudson George corroborates: In the village of Mt. Rich, St. Patrick, the Bishop revolution faced its biggest challenge. Three young men from the village, who were Muslim converts and former friends of the Revolution, after two of them were jailed by the Revolution and labelled as counter-revolutionaries. One of them died early in a shootout with soldiers form the People’s Revolutionary Army (PRA) and he was buried according to Muslim rites. Therefore, he got a distant funeral. However, the other kept up the resistance for months against the Revolution. They gave them a tough time and, in the course of resistance, innocent civilians lost their lives, many people were arrested and thrown into prison, until one day the army surrounded a house in Mt. Rich and shot the two men dead.”17

Conclusion Undeniably, there was a strong undercurrent of religious scepticism during the revolutionary period. During the reign of the PRG, religion and church had lost a significant amount of influence among the Revolution’s rank and file. The spurt growth of secularism, that is, the lack of any apparent overt, visible interest in God, the Bible, religion, or spiritual values, was evident. For instance, even some religious folks became sceptical and questioned the legitimacy of some of their religious beliefs. Secular intellectualism – doubts about the inspiration of the Bible, the existence of God, and organized religion - was the most common type of secularism that existed during the Revolution. Though those secularists might have been interested in the moral ethic of Christianity, they were not too interested in the Christ of Christianity. As religious scepticism flourished, some religious sceptics went beyond doubting the given 17

Hudson George, “Conflicting Memories of the Grenada Revolution,” 29 August 2013. Accessed 27 December 2016, http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstoryCommentary%3A-Conflicting-memories-of-the-Grenada-revolution-17446.html.

Religion and the Grenada Revolution

77

religious beliefs or claims. Some went so far to renounce their once held religious beliefs, claiming that they were brainwashed and were now enlightened by new secular ideologies and scientific thinking. The tsunami of scepticism was due primarily to the Marxist ideological posture adopted by the PRG. In his study of religion, Karl Marx, one of the founders of modern sociology, examined religion in society from a conflict perspective. Karl Marx posited that religion is one of the institutions used by capitalism to promote its interests. To Marx, religion is an illusion which eases the pain produced by exploitation and oppression. It is a series of myths that justify and legitimate the subordination of the subject class and the domination and privilege of the ruling class. It is a distortion of reality that provides many of the deceptions which form the basis of ruling-class ideology and false class consciousness.

CHAPTER SIX THE GRENADA REVOLUTION: PERSPECTIVE OF A YOUNG PIONEER CLAUDETTE JOSEPH

On the morning of 13th March 1979, my family, together with several other families in the neighbourhood were celebrating a big change in Grenada. I understood then that although we did not have a general election, we had a new Prime Minister. Before then, I thought it was impossible to have a change of Government without general elections, preceded by a spirited election campaign. I observed that while my family celebrated, our immediate neighbour was in tears because according to her, Gairy was gone and things would get much worse in Grenada. As she wept, she lamented that among other things, our tourism industry would die because no tourist would want to come to a communist country. I was confused by the different reactions to what was happening but I reasoned that since mine was among the families celebrating, they must be right and weeping neighbour wrong, so I joined the celebration. Although I was just a little girl on March 13th 1979, I am qualified to share this perspective because I lived history in that, I participated fully. The period of March 1979 to October 1983 was alive with activity in Grenada and no one was left out of the action. There was a role for everyone willing to participate in all the action taking place nationwide. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 could become members of the New Jewel Movement Young Pioneers. From age 15 onwards, one could join any number of organisations: The National Youth Organisation, the Militia & People’s Revolutionary Army and the National Women’s Organisation to name a few. At age 9, I became a member of the NJM Young Pioneers. In fact, I was a member of 2 pioneer brigades, one in my primary school – St. Louis RC Girls’ School and one in my community – which we named the Rupert Bishop brigade (see Fig. 6-1). What occurred during the revolutionary years was an upsurge in national pride and patriotism which radiated throughout the different

The Grenada Revolution: Perspective of a Young Pioneer

79

segments of Grenadian society. The notion that young people were specifically targeted for recruitment to those organisations as part of a well organised and executed propaganda machinery is perhaps correct; but that young people were forced into the pioneer movement, the NYO, the Militia and other like organisations is and programmed to spread communist ideology with the state taking precedence over parental rights is untrue. Membership in the young pioneer movement was voluntary, as was participation in the various activities of the respective brigades. We were not taught communist ideology; and, since I was too young to join the militia movement, I have never held a gun.

Fig. 6-1 Young Pioneers (GNM)

My most enduring memory of the period of the revolution was the deep sense of community, national pride and patriotism that was instilled in us as young people. As children and youths, we were constantly made to feel that there was a process of national development taking place and that, since we were the ultimate beneficiaries of that process, we should actively participate and contribute our time and talents. More importantly, we understood that we were integral to the success of national development, for without our youthful energy, the country would not advance. Young people through the Pioneer Movement, the National Youth Organisation and the National Women’s Organisation were integrated into many of the social and economic programs of government. As young pioneers, we were incorporated into the Centre for Popular Education programme. In that programme, young people taught adults basic literacy

Chapter Six

80

skills. So, that a young pioneer named Lyndon Adams from the island of Carriacou received national recognition as the nation’s youngest C.P.E. volunteer teacher. At 11 years, his student was his 73 year old neighbour.1 I therefore take issue with the author of the book Survival for Service when he proffered that: “they [the Revolutionary authorities] had little or no regard for the elderly who did not fit into the new scheme of things and who could not make any significant contribution towards the sustainability of the Revolution”2 The C.P.E. afforded many illiterate and semi-literate Grenadian adults an opportunity to learn to read and write. The programme was not “subtly used to inculcate the tenets of communist doctrine”.3 In the C.P.E. programme, the various levels catered for different degrees of literacy. Basic subjects including: reading, penmanship, math, history and geography were taught. On Fridays, when our teachers went to the Teachers’ College for certification training, other adults from the community came to our school and taught handicraft, music, drama, folk dance etc. As members of the pioneer movement, we were responsible for bringing one member from our community to teach those skills. This programme was called Community School Day Programme. I got Mrs. Dawn Briggs from my neighbourhood to give my class crochet lessons. There was therefore a bond between the youth and adults and the elderly which among other things, enabled oral traditions to be passed on. We were required to participate in community programmes such as community clean up days (usually on a weekend), or visiting the elderly. On a weekly basis, we had to report on what we did to help the community. Community clean up took place mainly on Sundays, so participating in this work may have prevented some from attending Church. Others attend church first and then joined in the community work. Ladies in the community who did not take part in the actual clean up, prepared and served refreshments to those working. These activities helped to develop community bonding and pride. There were beautification competitions among the different communities. Those opposed to the Revolution contend that community clean ups were orchestrated to be on a Sunday, to prevent persons from going to church, thereby advancing the communist/atheist agenda of the Government. .

1

Government Information Services, Grenada. Is Freedom We Making (St. George’s: 1980), 31. 2 Paul Scoon, Survival for Service: My Experiences as Governor General of Grenada (Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Ltd, 2003), 70. 3 Scoon, 96.

The Grenada Revolution: Perspective of a Young Pioneer

81

The older youths in the community (Cheryl Joseph-Barnabe, Christopher De Riggs, Michael “Senator” Mitchell, the late Kenrick Bernard) often visited our pioneer groups and conducted sessions on poetry writing, drumming and folk singing, dancing and drama. With the skills they taught us, we got to proudly show off our talents by providing entertainment at national events and even when Grenada hosted regional and international events and personalities. We held small fund raisers to help with the building of our international airport. As a result of this, even today I feel an affinity to and sense of ownership of our international airport. My Rupert Bishop Brigade also hosted a weekly children’s programme on national radio – Radio Free Grenada. In addition, we did hikes, camps, bonfires, treasure hunts and sporting competitions among the different brigades. Given the array of positive activities we engaged in as young pioneers, no one can seriously assert that this was not a good programme for the young people. The programmes and activities of the pioneer movement helped us to develop respect for the senior members of our community and to bond with them. They gave us a sense of responsibility and instilled in us a deep national pride and patriotism that endures to today. In later years while attending University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, I learnt that we in Grenada were the envy of other young people in the Caribbean. One person told me how badly he wished he was Grenadian at that time. For young people at the time, the revolution presented leaders who inspired. We admired our leaders and how they appeared to us to put country above self. They were not focused on using power to amass personal wealth. That kind of selflessness caused us to aspire to be like our leaders when we grew up. In that regard, they were great role models. As it turns out, they too had certain flaws. Inflated egos, ideological differences and intolerance among them eventually played a pivotal role in the demise of the revolution. Young people of families in the lower income brackets were particularly drawn to the pioneer and other mass movements of the revolution. For the first time, everyone was made to feel that no dream was impossible to dream. It was common knowledge that once you did your bit, by performing well at school, opportunities to lift yourself and your family out of poverty were available through educational advancement would be available and accessible. Universal secondary education was introduced in 1979 and for the first time, the children of poorer families were not deprived of higher learning because they could not afford it. The pioneer movement was for children ages 5 to 14. The programmes of the National Youth Organisation and other mass organisations would no

82

Chapter Six

doubt have been structured differently. For example, persons who are older than me and in secondary school at the time and others who were public servants, have expressed that they were required to attend “socialism classes” several times a month. This lends credence to claims that there was some degree of mandatory learning of socialist or communist doctrine. Such classes were definitely not part of the pioneer programme. There are many valuable lessons that even today, we can learn from the period of the revolution. One such lesson is that as a people, we can and must be visionary in our approach to national development and to that end, we must pursue economically sustainable initiatives. For instance, the international airport forever transformed the south of the island and its operation continues to positively impact the Grenadian economy, particularly in the tourism sector. The Marketing and National Importing Board and the National Insurance Scheme are two other examples of initiatives that have endured and continue to bring benefits to the people of Grenada. Also, it will serve the country well, if present day governments would emulate the emphasis that the revolutionary government placed on Agriculture and Agro-Industries. I often wonder where we would have been today in terms of Agriculture and Agro-processing, had succeeding governments maintained the attention that the Revolutionary Government placed on the agricultural sector. I reckon we would have a rather robust industry, exporting nectar, preserved fruits and other like products to our Caribbean neighbours and beyond, on par with or even ahead of Orchard products from Trinidad and Pine Hill products from Barbados. There is no doubt that the Governments that succeeded the People’s Revolutionary Government did not appreciate the sense of national pride that initiatives such as the Agro- Industry plant evoked in the people. After the fall of the Revolution, there was a deliberate effort to sanitize the country. Unfortunately, in that process, many of the gains of the era were turned back. The perspectives I just outlined are based on my own experiences as child who actively participated in the revolutionary experience. However, as I grew older I realised that some people, indeed some of my peers, had very different experiences. I recall at some point, coming toward the end of the revolution, a quietness coming over my community that had so strongly supported the Revolution. There was a waning in the level of enthusiasm and overt vocal support for the revolution. There were not open expressions of dissatisfaction as such; it was more like a silence had fallen on a once vociferous people. I later realised that the waning enthusiasm and the silence was a manifestation of the people’s dissatisfaction with the path

The Grenada Revolution: Perspective of a Young Pioneer

83

that the revolution had taken, but they were afraid to express how they felt. People were afraid to speak for fear that they would be thrown in jail. Years later, when I served on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,4 I learnt that in excess of 3000 of my fellow citizens were thrown in jail during the revolutionary years without charge or trial. Many were themselves initially strong supporters of the revolution. Their only “crime” was that they dared to express their views and I imagine, in many instances, constructively criticized the government. For that, they were labelled counter-revolutionary. That violation of people’s fundamental right to freely express themselves, and the unlawful deprivation of personal liberty would have significantly negated the impact of many of the gains of the revolution. After all, what was the point of educating people, teaching them how to articulate their thoughts and ideas but then denying them the freedom to express a contrary opinion? As I matured I realise too that the revolution was for many about freeness: free health care, free milk, free hot lunches at school, free education. There was the so-called free media, but in name only, the Free West Indian Newspaper, Television Free Grenada, Radio Free Grenada, were all fully controlled by the State. So in the midst of all this freeness, the people of free Grenada, were not really free. In such an environment social and economic growth could not be optimised or truly enjoyed; and so, despite its many gains, the revolution was bound to eventually collapse.

Lessons from the Revolutionary Experience We now enjoy a free and democratic system of government. In this environment, the culture of national pride and patriotism can flourish even more than it did during the revolution. What is required is the will of our leaders to do as the revolutionaries did and lead by example. Our current leaders can borrow from the revolutionary leaders who, despite all the criticism that can be levelled at them, cannot be accused of using State resources and their positions to enrich themselves and their families. Sadly, today we have politicians who become wealthy overnight once in office. No other government before or since the Revolutionary Government has been able to energise and capture the imagination of the youth as did 4

The Truth & Reconciliation Commission was set up by Government in 2001, to inquire into various events that occurred in Grenada between 1973 and 1983. I served a Secretary to the Commission.

84

Chapter Six

the People’s Revolutionary Government. It is indeed surprising that no government since has developed a youth policy that worked or a youth policy at all! The last population census5 shows that persons between the ages of 0 and 24 make up 41.8% of the population. Yet, no government have seen it fit to seriously design and pursue an appropriate youth policy or to include the youth in any meaningful way in governance. How the revolutionary government was able to capture the youth is something worth enquiring into. Pursuing projects and initiatives that would yield sustainable development and employment for the people is yet another valuable lesson that can be learnt from the revolutionary era. There is a need to return to basics: agriculture, agro-industries/agri-business, fisheries, investing in the people by providing more opportunities for academic and educational advancement are all approaches that worked then and should work now. They focus on the resources that are naturally and readily available to us. Another significant lesson to be learn from the revolutionary experience is the need for the citizenry to know their fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Grenada and to relentlessly and vigilantly guard those fundamental rights and freedoms. Permitting a government to engage in practices that infringe on those rights, no matter how slight, can ultimately result in widespread abuse. We do have a tendency to breed dictators and demagogues and it is these types who are prone to violating our guaranteed rights and freedoms. Citizens must feel free to express themselves without fear of reprisal or victimisation or being labelled anti-government. The press must not be beholden to any political party nor must they be muzzled by oppressive legislation. People must not have their properties acquired by government without being compensated. On the question of the revolutionary experience and its impact, our views are as strong as they are varied. However, to learn from our past requires complete honesty. There can be no denying that there were many positive aspects of the revolution and many gains were realised during that era. For that, we must not be reluctant to give credit. However, there was a dark and unpleasant side of that era which resulted in untold pain and trauma, physical and psychological, on the people. The process of learning from our past includes ensuring that such pain is never again visited on the Grenadian people. Learning from our past and growing because of it, also involves a responsibility on those who are privileged to be authors of our history, to be as fair and balanced as possible when recording same. 5

Grenada Population & Housing Census, 2011.

CHAPTER SEVEN UNDERSTANDING THROUGH POETRY: A STORY OF THE GRENADIAN REVOLUTIONARY JOURNEY MERLE COLLINS

“Poetry played a major role in the ways in which the war came to be understood, shaping history through narrative and scripting wartime identities and attitudes through deployment of figures ... And while poetry was one of the key forms of cultural practice that mediated the wars to the British public, the wars were influential in shaping poetic theories and practices in the romantic period. Writing in wartime, poets reconceived their poetic identities and literary authority, emphasizing and questioning poetry’s authority in facilitating the imagining of war.”1

In this paper, in an effort to interrogate and approach understanding of the Grenada events of 1979 to 1983, a period of political unrest fully detailed in many other accounts, I will refer mainly to how I traced, in poetry, the impact of what became known as the Grenada Revolution, while it was in process and afterwards. Memory seems more ordered when we try to give things form in retrospect, but I believe I began to think deeply about poetic form and how poetry might express the nation and longing for national culture when I lived as a student and searching migrant in the U.S. during the period 1978 to 1980. This was a few years after my University of the West Indies (UWI, Mona) undergraduate experience, when, listening to poetry read by Caribbean writers, I started to think that although my colonial high school education had bequeathed a love for Thomas Hardy and Keats, I had reached Mona not only because of a love for those specific writers, but because of a love for the power of words and of literature to convey



1 Simon Bainbridge, British Poetry and the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: Visions of Conflict, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Chapter Seven

86

emotion and experience, and there just might be space for consideration of voices and perspectives that were more obviously Caribbean. It is perhaps not accidental that at Mona I also discovered a love not just for the British history that had fascinated me during my high school experience, but for West Indian history. All of this is, in my estimation, relevant to the fact that, in the US at the end of the 1970s/beginning of the 1980s, my longing for home was expressed in a poem “Nabel String,” using staccato lines suggesting fracture, and celebrating “The part of me That is there Not here Home not wandering Not chickee baby Not Hey sugar How you doin’ baby? But Doodoo darlin’ You awright?2 Here there is, for the first time in my memory of attempts to write a Grenadian experience in poetry, a conscious celebration of language and voice, and a search for a form that might effectively, to my own ears, express a Caribbean sense of self. Later in the poem, the persona misses places in Grenada – the villages, Belmont, Victoria, and particular locations like down in the Mang by de cinema dey and calls attention to those then in the U.S. and other places, migrants who had left in search of some often indefinable goal:

 2

Merle Collins, Because the Dawn Breaks!: Poems Dedicated to the Grenadian People (Karia Press, 1985), 1.

Understanding through Poetry

87

you I We left to search as always for a better life to escape the lime by the “quay-say” dey by de lance dey by Buy-Rite dey to find jobs to chase education.3 Referencing an education marked by British colonialism and the inability of the emergent postcolonial nation to provide meaningful economic and other opportunities for a populace that included a burgeoning youthful population, the poem traces stories of disappointment, uncertainty, and restlessness: left because every year more out o’ school less work to get becus de landless wid money get land and de widdout money landless was still more landless yet and still lovin because of a memory -Because Chemistry in form Five dis year An’ limin’ on Market Hill straight for de whole o’ nex’ year jus’/din kin o’ make no sense.4

 3

Ibid., 4

88

Chapter Seven

Written in my U.S. location in 1978, just before the 1979 expression of revolutionary upheaval that resulted in the formation of Grenada’s People’s Revolutionary Government, the poem questions the logic of an education system that produces young people who apparently cannot be absorbed by the local workforce, wonders how much good the “land for the landless” scheme of the then Grenada United Labour Party had done for a majority of working people, reflects about confrontations with Grenada’s secret police, a strong-armed unit aimed at controlling dissent, and finally asserts that, in spite of all those problems and the resulting push to migration, the migrant’s umbilical cord, “the nabel string,” continues to be attached to Grenada and the country’s dreams of progress. I think of this poem as in many ways a recording of the immediate pre-revolutionary sentiments of the late 1970s and of many of the young people of that generation. This and other poems, later published in the 1985 collection Because the Dawn Breaks, move to an articulation of some of the concerns that shaped my poetic and political consciousness during the period of the late nineteen sixties, nineteen seventies and early eighties. In “The Search”, another poem in that 1985 collection, the persona describes having to fill in a form that required responses, in the late sixties/early seventies, before Grenadian independence, to questions about nationality and race. The result of the experience of an increasing awareness of issues of race and class during that period, the poem raises many questions. Was one’s nationality really “British”? Was there a race called “Black”? Could one claim to be “African”? What about class? Were the young people coming out of a Caribbean working class experience, being educated at regional institutions of higher learning, effectively also poised to make a change in class identity? What did that mean, or what could that mean, for politics and society in the region? The poem suggests that, for a Caribbean trying to understand itself in the early days of a postcolonial, post-Independence shaping, these might be revolutionary questions, and that questions of the kind might find a home within revolutionary movements concerned about the social, political and economic reshaping of a colonial polity. As we think of these issues today, it is important to remember that Anglophone Caribbean countries first started to become independent in 1962 (with Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica), and that the younger generations of the period were consciously considering who they would be, and what their countries would be, as independent nations and as people no longer British but far removed from knowledge of pre-colonial Amerindian, African, Asian or other realities.

 4

Ibid.,4-5.

Understanding through Poetry

89

When the revolution happened – that is, when the New Jewel Movement took control of the Grenada government on March 13, 1979 – I was not in Grenada. I had been there during the period of strikes and demonstrations in the late sixties/early to mid-seventies. First as a student and then as a young teacher, I had articulated dissent and then participated in demonstrations, but by March 13, 1979, I was in the United States. It was during that period that the poem “Nabel String,” interrogating migration and feelings of alienation, was written. I returned to Grenada at the beginning of 1981, excited that there was now a government featuring people of my generation, with ideas shaped by opposition to attitudes and policies our generation, and those even younger, had considered unacceptable. Poems written in Grenada during that period, 1981 to 1983, record first the early excitement about the Grenada Revolution, subsequently move on to later, emergent critiques, and, eventually, to comments on the murderous turn of events and invasion by the United States. Sometimes, now, I look back to these poems to give myself a more detailed appreciation of what was happening during the period and what were my feelings at particular moments of change. When we are looking back from a distance of thirty years and more, memories are sometimes inadvertently rewritten, shaped by current events. I look to the poems for some indication of what was happening and how I actually felt at the time. The poem “The Lesson” was written in the light of then (1980/82) discussions about education, the expressed need to focus on anti-colonial perspectives, educational programs such as NISTEP, the National InService Teacher Education Program, and CPE, the Center for Popular Education. I remember the involvement and excellent work of people like Merle Hodge, Trinidadian writer and cultural activist, and British educator Chris Searle. The story of my grandmother is memorialized in the poem “The Lesson” as someone who Talked knowingly Of William de Conqueror Who was the fourth son Of de Duke of Normandy He married Matilda His children were Robert Richard Henry William and Adella.5

 5

Ibid., 15.

Chapter Seven

90

As I review the poem now, I note its comment on the psychological shaping encouraged by colonial education. Shaping people in their own image, colonial authorities, the poem avers, insisted on knowledge and appreciation of the heroes of colonial histories. The poem infers that, this being understood, there is nothing wrong with looking around to find new figures shaped in one’s own image and likeness. As the Antiguan writer Jamaica Kincaid has noted, there is something profoundly ironic in her growing up singing, in celebration of Britain and apparently of her young British Antiguan schoolgirl self, “we are Britons/and Britons never ever shall be slaves.”6 The descendants of those who were enslaved, Caribbean young people were not only taught to celebrate those who were responsible for the enslavement of their ancestors, but, in a strange, ironic performance of self-effacement and carnivalesque mockery, to put on the mask of the conqueror and celebrate their subjugation. Considering all of that, I was profoundly aligned with a new revolutionary government that proclaimed itself anti-colonial and committed to finding new images in educational attainment. Referring to Caribbean people who fought colonialism, referencing Grenada’s Julien Fedon and Haiti’s Toussaint L’Ouverture, the poem implicitly critiques the fact that Grannie Din remember No Carib Chief No Asante king For Grannie Fedon never existed Toussaint Was a Whispered curse Her heroes Were in Europe Not In the Caribbean Not In Africa None In Grenada.7

 6

Selwyn Cudjoe, “Interview with Jamaica Kincaid,” in Caribbean Women Writers (Calaloux Publications, 1990), 217. 7 Ibid.,17.

Understanding through Poetry

91

It records an early 1980s excitement about a government that knew all of this denial of self shaped by the colonial experience, and was committed to changing it. Another poem recording the excitement of the period of revolutionary change in Grenada was “Callaloo,” a poem that became something of an anthem of the period of the Grenada Revolution. Comparing the revolution and the hope of revolutionary change to a good Grenadian callaloo soup, it uses local images and local food to articulate the hope and excitement of the period. Mix up/ like callaloo/ not no watery callaloo/ But/a thick, hot, sweet/callaloo/ burnin’you tongue/ Wid dem chunk o’ dumplin’/ goin’ down nice/ an’ wid coconut.8 It affirms, Dat is what it feel like to be part o’ dis Revolution reality o’ dis wakin’ up reality o’dis no more hidin’ you passport reality no more hangin’you head an’ shufflin’ you foot an’ tryin’ to hide behin’ de person in front o’ you like little Janet behin’ she mudder skirt when de man ask whey you from? …

 8 Ibid.,23.

92

Chapter Seven

No more playin’ you doh hear or sayin’ some shit like A…a…a…island near by Trinidad Or a…a few mile off Venezuela but out loud an’ bole like you make de name GRENADA!9 The poem asserts a new pride in being Grenadian, suggesting that this was felt by many of the population. It must be acknowledged that today, after the collapse of the revolutionary process, even people who felt that pride and participated, without duress, in some of the important institutions of the revolution, like the National In-Service Teacher Education Program (NISTEP), the Center for Popular Education (CPE), the National Women’s Organization (NWO), are likely to have different memories because of the sense of betrayal engendered by what came later - the October 19th 1983 murders of Prime Minister Bishop, other members of government and party, and members of the public. People may be reluctant to remember what they then considered good, because what came later was in their estimation so destructive that anything else becomes a painful memory of how they were fooled into thinking that new political leaders were serious about transformation of political attitudes. I find that a review of the poetry helps me remember both – earlier perceptions and how and when things changed. Another memory of that early period of belief and excitement is recorded in the poem ‘The Butterfly Born’, which refers to the political focus on women. Written in real time, and without the benefit of hindsight, the poem does not look at subsequent critiques about the shortcomings of an organization that was in fact an arm of the ruling political party. Rather, it has an overt focus on perceptions of the particular experiences and contributions of women. Viewing the stories of women through the lens of personal, everyday histories, I write of a young woman who remembers voices telling her to

 9

Ibid.,24.

Understanding through Poetry

93

Alé asiz anba tab-la! Zòt fouten twop. Go and siddown under de table You too fas.10 In the poem, one hears Patois/Creole voices shaped by colonization and the particular experience of French colonialism. These are voices instructing little girls to stay “under the table”, properly out of the limelight. After tracing through various narratives, a constant sidelining of women and girls into darkened corners, the poem asserts that now, in the revolutionary present Woman all of a sudden Not under no table But out in de open Demanding equal recognition For equal beauty given.11 Optimistically conceptualizing the focus on women in terms of rebirth and new beginnings, the poem asserts a belief in the revolutionary promise that The caterpillar dead The butterfly born!12 Reviewing these poems now, I note that they refer not to any particular ideological conviction but to a sense of a wish for individual pride and attainment. When reviewing the story of the Grenadian attempt at revolutionary change, I trace the story of poetry written in the moment because I think it is important to recall that many of us who today, with the benefit of hindsight, have cogent critiques focused sometimes on particular ideological approaches, had, at the time, like many others, little more than a sense of the feeling that something positive was happening. The poetic record also helps me to recall that things changed with the gradual swiftness evidenced by the fact that only four years is the time spanning excitement, disappointment, and demise. It seems to me that if the future is

 10

Ibid., 27. Ibid., 32. 12 Ibid., 33. 11

94

Chapter Seven

again to hold the promise of change important to all societies, Grenadians have to accept it all – the wonder of that moment that captured a hope for change because of a sense of unhappiness with what existed and the devastation of what followed. Why was it possible for 1979 to happen? What happened between 1979 and 1983? Why was it possible for 1983 to happen? Elsewhere I have tried to explore the story of what happened in the years before 1979 to 1983,13 and I won’t recreate that history here, opting instead to focus on what was recorded in my own poetic reflections of the period. In this poetic journey, I turn the corner from optimism and celebration to somewhere around the year 1982, when I wrote a poem entitled “Revelation.” As I read the poem today, I’m reminded that it was not the kind of poem that I would have performed publicly, as I did the others that I’ve mentioned, all celebratory and positive about revolutionary change. The poem “Revelation” was quieter, a sort of internal monologue. I remember that, as I wrote the poem, I was thinking about a poet-friend who didn’t have my approach to ideas of revolution, who, I think, had been more conservative and critical about the process from the beginning. And even where he supported, he was not usually given to public displays of emotion. As I read his poetry, supportive, quiet, critical, too, at a time when the revolution’s leaders were becoming more impatient with criticism, more conscious of U.S. opposition and inclined to view criticism as counter-revolutionary, I remember thinking, quietly, that he could be in trouble with the regime if he expressed his views openly. The poem assesses that he had No rushing cry of forward No stinging revolutionary shout Though the thought may be there The feeling even deeper Than many a shouted support14 His critiques suggested, the poem assesses, that he

 13

Merle Collins, “What Happened? Grenada: A Retrospective Journey”, Social and Economic Studies 62:3 (2013): 15-43. 14 Collins, Because the Dawn Breaks!, 37.

Understanding through Poetry

95

May be happy with the dog Not with its bite So will nod at the lick And wince at the bite Won’t lick no asses To summon the praise.15 Inferring questions about art, responsibility, revolution, and clearly sympathetic to the poet, or so it seems to me, the poem ends He’s a poet Poor fool I know of the type A poet No less.16 As I re-read this poem today, I know it was written during that period of questioning, of quiet reflection about the attitudes of revolutionary leaders, and responses from the artistic and other community. I remember, from individuals, critiques of the role of poetry itself in revolutionary processes and of artistic types, more inclined to “dance”, that is, to be reflective and weigh the situation, rather than to be unconditionally supportive. Another poem written around that 1982 period, and entitled “Just Suddenly So,” more explicitly voices my disappointment with the path the revolutionary process and the attitudes of revolutionary leaders seemed to be taking. All of a sudden It not nice again Jus’ suddenly so Wid a funny kind o’ Reasonless reason De experience turn sour Is not a adventure again Mouse-trap smiles clang suddenly shut …

 15 Ibid. 16

Ibid.

Chapter Seven

96

The power wand waves sometimes With a gentleness Suspect because employed And withdrawn at will Smiles come and go Kicks, kisses Come, go Fly, Live, Die And I Bewildered Silently vow To keep screaming Low and loud Not to be caught By gentleness idly tossed Idly withdrawn17 As I re-read this, I am reminded that my poetry was critical as disaffection developed, but that these critiques lived in quiet poems, and were not - in my perception at the time, could not be safely expressed in a public forum. As I read this, I wonder, is it possible to create, in Grenadian politics and society, safe spaces for the expression of unease and disaffection? Is this unrealistic? Are we too much shaped by a notion that critique means condemnation? Is this only the story of Grenada or is it reflective of the colonial political attitudes by which we have been shaped or to which we have been attracted as we look for alternatives? The period of questioning referred to here is also when I wrote a poem entitled “Free” asserting that one is Born free to be caught and fashioned and shaped and freed to wander within a caged dream of tears18

 17 Ibid., 43. 18

Ibid.,50.

Understanding through Poetry

97

Finally, the collection Because the Dawn Breaks! moves to what is recorded as the internal trampling of dreams and to invasion. The poem “To Trample Dreams” takes a snapshot of the seminal image of intra-party conflict, the day on which opposing sides of the ruling party, the New Jewel Movement, confronted each other at the fort in St. George’s: people running screaming stepping movie steps over 50 foot walls to trample dreams.19 It makes reference to Prime Minister Maurice Bishop speaking, in an earlier time, during the revolution, when he was referring to the killings of young people, one of them a school girl named Bernadette Bailey, mentioning a day when a bomb, supposedly placed by those against the Revolution, exploded at a government rally in the Queen’s Park, St. George’s. Bishop had said, “They can kill our bodies; they can never kill the spirit.”20 Now, the poem suggests, after the killings of Bishop and others at the fort on October 19, 1983, and the utter devastation of the Grenadian people, the enemy “they” has become “a literary exercise.”21 In other words, as far as the Grenadian people are concerned, have the revolutionary leaders become the enemy they feared? The final poem of the collection, “Rock-stone Dance,” rues the internal conflict that resulted in the end of the People’s Revolutionary Government, the killings of the many who died at the fort in St. George’s, and the loss of belief in new political directions for the country. Hopefully, perhaps, although the hope seems stated in a very muted voice, it suggests that people should be aware that it is necessary to engage in the rough and tumble of politics in order to make any progress, and should remember the proverbial saying that “egg have no right in rock-stone dance”:

 19

Ibid.,77. Maurice Bishop, “Freedom of the Press and Imperialist Destabilization,” in Maurice Bishop Speaks: The Grenada Revolution 1979-1983 (London: Pathfinder Press, 1983), 152. 21 Collins, Because the Dawn Breaks!, 74-78. 20

Chapter Seven

98

Shake yourself Go back outside Egg have no right in rock-stone dance.22 Reading the poem now, and relying on the fickleness of memory, I think of that end more as a nod to the mandatory optimistic note than a readiness for engagement with the large problems that the New Jewel Movement and the People’s Revolutionary Government had attempted to tackle. Still, as I consider how young people in Grenada are beginning to reflect on the period, with the help of artistic interventions from local theater directors who are encouraging staged presentations23, I hope that this poetic review of responses to the process as it was happening adds something to the consideration of past mistakes and possibilities for the future.

 22

Ibid., 87. For the 38th Annual Conference of the Caribbean Studies Association, held in Grenada June 2013, theatre director Francis Urias Peters worked with young people to do staged presentations of selections from Grenada’s political stories.

23

CHAPTER EIGHT THE GRENADA REVOLUTION: AN ART PERSPECTIVE SUELIN LOW CHEW TUNG

Maurice Bishop publicly acknowledged that if there had been no Cuban Revolution in 1959, there would not have been a Grenadian Revolution in 1979. Artist and Professor Emeritus at Southern Oregon University, Betty LaDuke, visited Grenada in July 1983. Her paper, Women, Art, and Culture in the New Grenada, noted how the arts had become an effective arm of the people’s revolutionary struggle, reflecting the new developing consciousness and pride of the worker-artists. In LaDuke’s report, Grenadian author Jacob Ross, then a director of cultural programs within the Ministry of Culture, spoke of a Department of Culture which had been established to create employment for artists, and to teach “an art for the people to reflect the values of the New Grenada.”1 In a 2013 email to me, Ross wrote “The performing arts suffered less because it was visible, dynamic and had immediate public impact, which is why cultural performance featured so highly in the revolution, including dance, oral poetry, steel pan, calypso and other forms of musical performance. It was a quick and ‘entertaining’ way of showing another level of participation in the revolution and performing arts were used as a political arm of the revolution.”2 Existing documentation suggests the only state-sponsored visual art was the billboards, for which the artist Gordon Hamilton was responsible. Working for the Centre for Popular Education (CPE), Hamilton and his team installed between 20 and 30 billboards a year throughout the countryside. Hamilton said to me that at that time, he did not consider the 1

Betty LaDuke. “Women Art and Culture in the New Grenada,” Latin American Perspectives, 11, 3. Destabilization and Intervention in the Caribbean (1984): 3752. 2 Personal correspondence email 12 July 2013.

100

Chapter Eight

billboards as fine art, nor as potential historical assets worthy of documentation. Jacob Ross recalled that arts development was not one of the achievements of the revolution. Though Hamilton ran some art classes and met with artists, he was crippled by a lack of will and financial commitment. Hamilton’s watercolor submission for the GAC art show titled “Education: A Right Not a Privilege” was created from sketches of the revolution billboard of the same title.

Fig. 8-1: Gordon Hamilton. Education A Right Not a Privilege, 2011

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

101

Six years into Cuba’s Revolution, Fidel Castro’s government put in place an accelerated visual arts infrastructure which trained hundreds of artists/artisans to contribute to the revolution and for export. Grenada’s plans for a national art school focusing on painting and sculpture to reinforce and celebrate Grenadian identity may well have been realized, had the revolution not prematurely ended. After the “intervasion” images of the revolution years were deliberately erased from the landscape by unknown hands. Billboards were converted into materials for housing. At the 1984 GAC show Trish Bethany, won a special prize for her painting “Memorial to Simon: ‘for peace comes dropping slow. . .,” which is now part of the collection of the Marryshow House library. She wrote: Local newspapers published a photo of 15-year-old Simon Alexander, a GBSS (Grenada Boys Secondary School) student who had been killed at then Fort Rupert on October 19th.... “I was inspired to create a very rare (for me) symbolic paintingʊacrylics, except for the portrait of Simon, which is a pencil drawingʊbuilt around the image of the boy whose senseless murder had so affected me… The quote is from Yeats’ poem, “The Lake Isle of Inisfree.” I thought it aptly captured the sense of relief we all felt after the conflagration which had engulfed Grenada, and from which we had been rescued by the brief military intervention of US and Caribbean troops.3

3

Personal correspondence email 12 July 2013.

102

Chapter Eight

Fig. 8-2: Trissh Bethany, Meemorial to Simo on: “for peace ccomes dropping g slow...,” 1984. Marrysshow Memorial Library

The legaacy of the Greenada revolution’s artistic pproject was rep placed by a legacy off forgetting, as a depicted by b Erik Johnsson, who pen nciled an empty rectanngular frame onto the gallery’s white w wall, titled “Th he legacy or . . . and tthey said.” Hee wrote: “A well-defined w pperiod in the history h of our indepenndent nation, a turbulent amalgam of passion, pollitics and greed, and aafter all, what is to be said, let they who say that they know set down the firrst gesture.”4

4

Artist Stattements producced for the 20 011 Grenada Art Council (GAC) ( art exhibition.

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-3: Erik Johnson, The legacy or . . . and they said, 2011

103

104

Chapter Eight

Fig. 8-4: Susan Mains, Alimenta’s Sorrow, 2010

Susan Mains’s “Alimenta’s Sorrow,” inspired by Michelangelo’s La Pieta, was created after Mains heard a 2005 interview with Bishop’s mother who called on the relevant authorities to release her son’s body to her for a proper burial. Alimenta Bishop died in Grenada in 2013 without this closure. During the years of the Revolutionʊwhether through personal disinterest, government intimidation or allegiance to the revolutionary causeʊGrenadian artists could not or did not wish to visually express or comment on what was happening in the country. Interviews with persons living in Grenada at that time suggest that heavily implied/imposed state censorship resulted in very few creative works on the local scene about the

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

105

revolution.5 The late Michael Donelan, who was imprisoned early in 1979, was known for his sketches of the Carenage in all its reincarnations, but the location/existence of his sketches of the Carenage with revolution imagery is unknown. In the 1980s Gordon De la Mothe painted Coke in the Caribbean, referencing the islands as imagined American possessions, fenced in and targeted by America and Cuba.

Fig. 8-5: Gordon De la Mothe, Coke in the Caribbean, ca 1980s

Jim Rudin, owner of Yellow Poui art gallery, in operation since 1968, had several rolls of his film exposed at gunpoint. Rudin said no one brought any paintings with revolutionary images into the gallery for him to sell during those years. He observed that intuitive artists like Elinus Cato and others were trained to paint Grenada so as to beautify it, that is, to do scenics, like a house on a hill or kids flying kites. “The revolution did not beautify,” explained Rudin. “Photos were taken, but almost no thought was given to putting those to canvas, out of the real possibility of offending someone.” Rudin’s own black and white photo called “US

5

Artist comments include: 2013 personal conversations – Gordon Hamilton, Jim Rudin, Trish Bethany, Yvonne Roberts, Freddy Paul, Roland Benjamin, Gordon La Mothe; 2011 artist statements produced for the art exhibition;2010 personal correspondence via email – Jacob Ross, Eric John, Sue Coe, Maxnine Broderick.

106

Chapter Eight

Soldier on The Esplanade,” Grenada 1983 is his only period relic to survive 2004’s Hurricane Ivan.

Fig. 8-6: Jim Rudin. US Soldier on the Esplanade, Grenada, 1983

Whereas the revolutionary landscapes of Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Mexico have been exposed to the world through a host of overtly political artworks by their native artists, Grenadian history has been denied. Apart from a scant chronicling of the Revolution by a handful of mostly international artists whose works have not been displayed on the island itself, there is no counterpart collection that chronicles and analyses that period’s personal and cultural phenomena. Three decades later, as far as local visual art records are concerned, it is as if the Revolution never happened. The Grenada Arts Council (GAC), an NGO established in 1964 to promote the visual arts, issued a call to local artists in early 2011 to revisit the revolutionary years. The idea was for Grenadian artists to produce works for an exhibition titled “Grenada 1979-1983, Revolution: An Art Perspective” that would showcase their feelings about and reflect on the revolution, its goals, the fallout and its legacy. The timing of came within

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

107

months of the release of the last of the Grenada 17. Almost immediately, artists and members of the public called for the show to be cancelled, with the overall sentiment being “they will come for you in your house.” There was clearly little appetite for reopening old wounds.

Fig. 8-7: Grenada 1979-1983, Revolution: An Art Perspective Poster

108

Chapter Eight

The genesis of the art perspective on the revolution was a 1984 work by British artist Sue Coe, which I saw online in the Modern Art collection of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. Writing to me in 2010 about her work titled U.S. Military Successfully Bombs A Mental Hospital in Grenada, Coe stated “There were no media photos that I can remember seeing, all I read was that a mental hospital had been bombed by the US and innocent people had been murdered. And though that was a terrible event, and done in our name…. Ronald Reagan was a king-like figure at the time, so I placed a crown on one of the patients.”6 Coe was firm in her belief that citizen journalists and artists should make a record of life, and of the importance of Grenada’s artists being historians of both everyday happenings and dramatic events. This view of artists as historians was shared by US-based Grenadian artist Eric Johnn who came from the village of Mount Rose in Saint Patrick. In a 2010 email to me he wrote, “After the Grenada Revolution in 1979, my drawings depicted scenes of the Revo. And then the subsequent US invasion of Grenada saw different forms in my work. Fine artists in Grenada do very little on current events. I think (it is) your right (to do so) as a Grenadian artist.”7

6 7

Personal correspondence email 3 November 2010. Personal correspondence email 10 October – 1 November 2010.

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

109

Fig. 8- 8: Sue Coe, U.S. Military Successfully Bombs A Mental Hospital in Grenada, 1984 (Image from the Modern Art online collection of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art).

To introduce the GAC exhibition, I used Coe’s painting as central focus to create a collage of the revolution as seen by eleven artists from the Caribbean, US, Canada and Latin America. Many of these images have never been displayed in Grenada. Barbadian artist Edmund Leon Gill’s 1974 Gavese Grenada captured Gairy’s Grenada. Canadian guitarist David Lester, in Grenada for a Peter Tosh concert, illustrated his March 1979 experience at Pearls airport of “having m-m-m-multiple machine guns pointed at me….” Painting “The Dream Lives” series showing Bishop, her

110

Chapter Eight

cousin, surrounded by billboards helped Maxine Townsend-Broderick to deal with her loss. “I have to paint. It’s something that I just have to do,” she said. Trinidadian Pat Bishop, who had been to university with Maurice, shut herself in her house for a week and painted “The Grenada Trilogy,” a 25-foot three-panel mural titled Pain, capturing the revolution’s hope; its betrayal with “thirty pieces of silver”; and its destruction. After more than 25 years in storage, in 2009 Bishop (who died in 2011) donated the painting to the Oilfield Workers’ Trade Union headquarters in San Fernando, Trinidad. Pain has not yet been displayed in Grenada.

Fig. 8-9: Artists and their works on the poster

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-10: Poster collage of the Revolution using works of various artists

111

112

Chapter Eight

On September 28, “Revolution: An Art Perspective” showcased the works of 26 artists, half of whom were born towards the end of the revolution. They expressed their thoughts and feelings about the events of that era on canvas, paper, mirror and bamboo, through sound, photos and found objects, accompanied by statements in their own words. Invitations to opening night were sent to the press, to several government ministers and their permanent secretaries, the Governor-General, and the United States and Cuban embassies. Not one member of the press attended, and there was no government official or representative to greet Bernard E. Link, United States Charge d’Affaires at the time, the lone dignitary at the event. In the visitor’s book, he wrote: Thank you for the insights into the complexity of facts, emotions and interpretations that attach to the Revolutionary era and its aftermath. For me, the history and the (unreadable), the personal hopes and disappointments of the people who experienced the time came through.

Fig. 8-11: Renate Krohn, Erinnerung An Die Opfer, 2011 (In Memory of the Victims)

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

113

Flowers were used by some of the artists to convey the trauma. Renate Krohn installed a bamboo-acrylics totem, vividly painted with flowers and tropical birds, topped with battery-operated eternal flames set in a bed of nutmeg shells, titled “Erinnerung An Die Opfer” (In Memory of the Victims). Yvonne Roberts, resurrected the painful and disturbing memory of the people who jumped from the parapets of Fort Rupert in “Forget Me Nots.” Her statement read, “I watched them jump, falling like grains of sand from the fort that day. Young flowers crushed under their own weight.” Roberts donated her work to the GAC.

Fig. 8-12: Yvonne Roberts, Forget Me Nots, 2011

114

Chapter Eight

Jacob Ross’s statement in LaDuke’s report that “Artists now have to redefine their roles, since before the revolution they created pleasant landscapes for tourists, and had no sense of pride or individual identity . . .” did not come to pass. Indeed, artist Oliver Benoit noted in 2009 that the role of the Grenadian artist and art in the creation of Grenada’s identity has never been fully understood. Benoit’s “Defective Birth” spoke to the (defective) birth of the revolution in 1979 which gave (unknowing) Grenadians hope of a better future. Carriacou’s cultural icon, Canute Caliste is the only artist to have repeatedly painted his understanding of revolutionary history. His dramatic “Killing Murice Bishop on Forth Rupert in St Georgis (1987),” is in the GAC’s permanent collection, and shows bodies falling into the sea, reminiscent of the Amerindians who leapt to their deaths off Morne de Sauteurs. Levera artist Doliver Morain’s “Assassinated on Fort Rupert Oct 19 1983,” creates a false calm. As part of a generation that never knew Bishop, Alexandra Quinn, was fascinated by Pearls airport, which was reborn as a drag-racing strip and pasture. Her Forgotten Relics shows an abandoned Cuban plane retaken by nature, and used to tie a donkey. Gilbert Nero’s Revolutionary Door commemorates Bishop’s charismatic speeches on one side, while the other side shows an armed soldier holding unseen captives at gunpoint in the glare of a single naked light bulb.

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-13: Oliver Benoit, Defective Birth, 2011

115

116

Chapter Eight

Fig. 8-14: Canute Caliste, Killing Murice Bishop on Forth Rupert in St Georg’s, 1987, Grenada Arts Council

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-15: Doliver Morain, Assassinated on Fort Rupert Oct 19 1983, 2011

117

118

Chapter Eight

Fig. 8-16: Alexandra Quinn, Forgotten Relics, 2011

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-17: Gilbert Nero, Revolutionary Door, 2011

119

120

Chapter Eight

Fig. 8-18: Malaika Brooks-Smith-Lowe, Conversation Piece #1, 2011

Malaika Brooks-Smith-Lowe’s “Conversation Piece #1” presents note cards printed with monochromatic close-ups of the wall against which Bishop was shot, along with excerpts from interviews conducted with people during the Revolution, where they voiced their feelings about their safety, the youths, their concern. One said “…when they started just arresting people once you said something bad about them. We are not free, not really free.”8 Bishop’s speech, “In Nobody’s Backyard,” inspired Asher Mains to create a sound compilation installation of the same name.9

8

Artist statement produced for the GAC art exhibition; extract from artists personal interviews. 9 Maurice Bishop. ‘In Nobody’s Backyard’ Bruce Marcus and Michael Taber edited. Maurice Bishop Speaks The Grenada Revolution 1979-1983. London: Pathfinder Press, 1983. 26-31.

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-19: Lilo Nido, Revo Installation, 2011

121

122

Chapter Eight

Part of Lilo Nido’s “Revo Installation” is on the front cover of the book Grenada: Revolution and Invasion, edited by Patsy Lewis et al. Nido wrote “I wanted to make an art piece that documented those days of the time when the Revo started until the day of the invasion. The idea to print every date on this long piece of paper is a statement, and a documentation that every single day of this period of revolting against the establishment, should stand for the importance that a single day can have in the history of the Grenada Revolutionʊ13.03.79 until 25.10.83. On top of those thousands of printed dates I wanted to show the phenomenon how the masses can be motivated by some new different ideas of governing Grenada. Forward Ever, Backward Never!!! So, I chose boots, bare feet, hands of the people marching and parading chanting for the Revo.... I printed in red green and yellow, the enthusiasm, the marching, children, adults, boots, red, yellow green, children sandals parading over those printed dates... later dirty boots, blood spritzers, violence and more boots... It was a long march with a sad end.” Turid Erichsen depicted the revolution as “A Grimm Fairie Tale…” paint splatter on mirror. The text reads “Mirror mirror on the wall… We are the cruelest of them all?”

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-20: Turid Erichsen. A Grimm Fairie Tale, 2011

123

124

Chapter Eight

The majority of the artworks depicted the events of October 1983 as overshadowing the revolution’s ideals and its achievements in agriculture, tourism, education and social services—as my Untitled composite reinterpretation of two revolution murals created by Mexican artist Diego Rivera attempted to show. It was noted, too, by Shalini Puri, author of The Grenada Revolution in the Caribbean Present: Operation Urgent Memory, who wrote, “The art I have seen that reflects upon the Revolution and was created after its fall disproportionately represents October 19- 25, 1983. Even when it does not directly represent October, it is haunted by it—as the art at the Grenada Arts Council exhibit reveals. That artistic preoccupation with October is consistent with that of much of the literature about the Revolution published between 1983 and the present, and with the way people remember the Revolution today. Memory of the Grenada Revolution now often begins with its fall.”10 Retrieval of unresolved memories and emotions plays a beneficial role in catharsis. While the proposed July 1983 aesthetic appreciation, painting and sculpture projects did not materialize, it is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the therapeutic value of the visual arts was not part of the national rebuilding toolkit after 1983, as was done in 2005 after Hurricane Ivan to help all who survived to heal from the trauma. Deryl Hamilton, son of Gordon Hamilton, was the overall winner of a visual art therapy program initiated by the Ministry of Education for the nation’s schools. Invitations to the schools were sent via the protocol of the Ministry of Education; none responded. Follow-up phone calls revealed that the schools’ principals had not been notified about the art show or of its suitability for schoolchildren. Where the post-Ivan 2005 GAC show saw a record number of submissions touching on the various stages of grief, loss of identity and more, thirty years after the revolution the trauma is apparently still too raw to visualize. “Grenada 1979-1983, Revolution: An Art Perspective” closed on 5 November 2011. The visual arts remain an unexplored path to helping generations of Grenadians to reflect on and exorcise the memories of those dark days.

10

Personal correspondence email 10 August 2013.

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-21: Suelin Low Chew Tung, Untitled, 2011

125

126

Chapter Eight

Fig. 8-22: Bernadine Antoine, Untitled (My Backyard Until…)

The Grenada Revolution: An Art Perspective

Fig. 8-23: Roland Benjamin, Untitled

127

128

Chapter Eight

Fig. 8-24: Various artists, from left to right, top Stacey Byer, Silent Witness; Lizda Sookram, Untitled; Ricardo Francois, Known Before As (PSIA) from left to right bottom: Jennifer Alexis, October 19th 1983; Nickel Fortune, Untitled; Roslyn Dewsbury, Grenada Under Fire

CHAPTER NINE ANCESTORS, MEMORY, TRAUMA: THE GRENADIAN REVOLUTION ALIVE KIMALEE PHILLIP

In the Yoruba spiritual practice of Ifa, acknowledging one’s ancestors is a core and critical part of one’s daily practice. I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church therefore the notion of grounding oneself in spiritual practice was never by calling on the names of one’s departed grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, cousins. This was therefore new to me and though at the beginning it felt somewhat blasphemous, as I continued to say their names, more and more, it felt increasingly true and necessary for my holistic health and well-being. This ancestral reverence was beautifully becoming overwhelmingly powerful. I therefore call on the names of Maurice Bishop. Jacqueline Creft. Fitzroy Bain. Unison Whiteman. Norris Bain. Evelyn Bullen. Keith Hayling. Evelyn Maitland. Vincent Noel. I call on the names of the sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles and grandparents whose names we do not know, whose names we did not say and whose names we do not remember; but whose blood runs through the veins of the Grenadian people. Ifa’s worldview can be thought of as the spiritual representation of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Our belief in, and practice of, ancestor worship bridges the time gap that Einstein believed must exist between the past, present, and future. In Ifa, we understand that the invisible world of our deceased ancestors combines with the visible world of nature and human culture to form a single organic truth. Through ritual we bridge the relationship between the past and the present and in the process improve the future. The ritual process of ancestor worship can provide us with profound, quantifiable changes in our everyday lives. But the concept is often met with resistance1. Ancestors refers to those who have departed 1

Philip J. Neimark, The Way of the Orisa: Empowering Your Life Through the Ancient African Religion of Ifa (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 21.

130

Chapter Nine

this physical plane and who play a critical role in helping to shape and mould our memories in addition to integrating the contemporary physical with the spiritual. There are however, many who are still physically with us and who continue to co-create and build our collective memory(ies). Some of these storytellers and creators move in silence whereas others are more vocal. Some are in obvious pain whereas others move through the day-to-day with an air of indisputable confidence. Intergenerational trauma, that is the the holding and passing down of collective trauma from one generation to the next, can be addressed within the context of ancestral healing work. Intergenerational trauma shapes and defines our lives, impacting how we move through the world and how we shape relationships with ourselves and those around us. This trauma is further amplified during times of political uprisings and turmoil as it brings to the surface pain, loss and violence that may have been buried for quite some time. For some, trauma can be more direct and personal rather than being vicarious and intergenerational/historical. Intergenerational trauma can be carried in our genes and in our blood, forcing us to relive and remember the violence imposed upon our ancestors.2 In Native American traditional culture, “blood memory is described as our ancestral (genetic) connection to our language, songs, spirituality, and teachings. It is the good feeling that we experience when we are near these things.”3 Blood memory has been crucial to our physical and spiritual survival; to the survival of our cultures and stories. In Ifeyironwa Francisca Smith’s Foods of Africa (1998), she completed an anthropological and historical research study into the preparation of West African foods and cuisine. She found an almost identical preparation process, including the tools used to prepare Ghanaian fufu and Grenadian coucou. Storyteller and co-owner of A Different Booklist bookstore in Toronto, Itah Sadu joked that years ago, someone probably misheard “how’s the fufu?” and instead responded, “the coucou is good!” The ways in which we do things have been passed on through storytelling and practice but in instances of forced removal and separation, the relevancy of blood memory seems a plausible explanation. There is something particularly powerful and inspiring when communities impacted by forced removal, violence and erasure allow themselves to be 2

American Academy of Pedriatics, Adverse Childhood Experiences and the Lifelong Consequences of Trauma, Accessed here https://www.aap.org/enus/Documents/ttb_aces_consequences.pdf. 3 As borrowed from the (Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture and Lifeways n.d.). Accessed here http://www.sagchip.org/ziibiwing/aboutus/pdf/DibaTour.pdf.

Ancestors, Memory, Trauma: The Grenadian Revolution Alive

131

guided by blood memory as tangible remnants of their identities and histories were either revised and or destroyed. Blood memory calls us to the crossroads where memories and lives lost and disconnected are confronted and reconciled. The tumultuousness of that encounter is partly dependent on how open we are to, and how grounded we are in, the ancestral and spiritual realities of our daily and past lives. How many of us are walking this earth with spirit energies attached to us; many of whom were not granted a safe passage through burials and other rituals from the physical to the spiritual world? The bodies of Maurice, Jacqueline, Evelyn, Fitzroy, Vincent, Unison, Norris, Keith, Evelyn and many others have yet to be identified and properly buried by their family and community members. What does that disruption in mourning and closure mean for the ways in which we currently interact with, remember and tell those stories of those who once lived and fought and the struggles they stood for? I have had my own experience of intergenerational trauma at the Congress of Black Writers and Artists in October 2013 in Montreal, Canada. My presentation which was serendipitously scheduled for October 19, was to address the initially agreed upon Canadian labour movement but considering the date of my presentation, I shifted the presentation to instead focus on the Grenada Revolution. Remaining true to how I try ground myself and convene public sharings, I began my presentation by calling on the names of those revolutionary ancestors. From the onset, the level of sobbing that was released from within was uncontrollable and without doubt, embarrassing. A Haitian elder, Pascale Annoual beautifully held space for me and allowed me to feel all of what was seemingly stored within, for years past my time on this physical earth. She stood and clapped, while my tears poured and at the end of the panel presentation, came up to comfort me. She shared, “you weren’t just speaking for you”. Who then was trying to speak or act through me? Blood, bone, body, and spirit memory were all part of why I was experiencing this visceral yet weirdly familiar reaction. My work is informed by an anti-colonial, Black feminist theoretical framework as well as Anibal Quijano’s coloniality of power. ‘Coloniality’, refers to long-standing patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, but that define culture, labor, inter-subjective relations, and knowledge production well beyond the strict limits of colonial administrations. Thus, ‘coloniality’ survives colonialism. It is maintained alive in books, in academic curricula; in the criteria for academic performance, in cultural patterns, in common sense, in the self-image of peoples, in

132

Chapter Nine

aspirations of self, and so many other aspects of our modern experience. In a way, as modern subjects we breath coloniality all the time and everyday.”4 The memories of the Grenadian Revolution and the many people who played key roles in its development, leadership and sustenance are in many ways part of an “unusable, un-restorable, and barely remembered past”5. Remembering i.e. memory and its representation and as illustrated by Edward Said, “touch significantly upon questions of identity, of nationalism, of power and authority. Far from being a neutral exercise in facts and basic truths, the study of history, which of course is the underpinning of memory, both in school and university, is to some considerable extent a nationalist effort premised on the need to construct a desirable loyalty to and insider’s understanding of one’s country, tradition, and faith”6. And so the selected CXC curriculum and the language, narratives and representation of the Revolution and subsequent invasion/ ‘intervention’ are made obvious. The shaping of memories is very much a part of how we see ourselves as it is a part of how we see ‘them.’7 One of the main functions of the ‘coloniality’ of power is to sever the oppressed from their memories, histories and the significance of particular sites such as burial sites, statues and other pillars of revolutionary possibility8. Therefore, the deliberate disappearance and burning, chopping or further mutilation of the bodies of those actively involved in revolutionary struggles is a concerted effort to sever those ties that the living may have with those who are killed and the survival of their memories and struggles came to represent. With this abrupt and violent departure, primarily feelings of despair, dread and a lack of hope would typically be the associated emotions when reflecting on the loss of one’s loved ones; as opposed to feelings of resilience, survival and possibility. Interrogating the political significance of memory is critical, particularly within sites of colonized warfare as the histories that are usually told, particularly in cases when the colonized puts up a promising fight is usually one that is revisionist and white-washed. It is imperative to 4

Maldonado-Torres, “On the Coloniality of being: Contributions to the development of a concept,” Cultural Studies, 21, 2/3 (2007): 243. 5 David Scott. “The Fragility of Memory: An Interview with Merle Collins,” Small Axe 31, Vol.14, No.1, (2010): 79. 6 Edward Said, “Invention, Memory, and Place,” Critical Inquiry, 26, 2 (Winter, 2000): 176. 7 Ibid. 8 Rolando Vázquez, “Modernity Coloniality and Visibility: The Politics of Time,” Sociological Research Online, 14, 4 (2009): 7. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/4/7.html

Ancestors, Memory, Trauma: The Grenadian Revolution Alive

133

examine what it means to remember and not remember a revolution and the emotional attachments placed on bodies involved, particularly when those bodies are killed and disposed of for: “colonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip and emptying the native’s brain of all form and content. By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.”9 Slavery and the official existence of a dominant colonial administration may have come to an end but as experienced through ‘coloniality’ the effects of colonial power continue to exist through the uncritical exercise of power by the nation-state and current “post-colonial” governments. The moment of independence was simultaneously a moment of re-colonisation, as “all the leaders who came to power [during the sixties] did so while announcing their commitment to a moderate ideological position and to a pro-capitalist program of development for their respective countries.”10 What have been some of the costs of achieving flag independence11? I would argue that with independence came increased levels of poverty as significant amounts of wealth and capital had been extracted under colonial rule. This further led to the widening of the economic gap between the rich and the poor, the implementation of structural adjustment programs where the neoliberal economic ideology or agenda has left many Caribbean islands in positions where they have to choose between the well-being of their people and their ability to pay off debt. Independence left in place the underlying racial order; the consolidation of capitalist models of development and exploitation. This can be seen in the current Caribbean tourism industry where the needs of the tourist trump those of the populace and demand sexual caricatures of the Caribbean person all to satisfy the white gaze. Flag independence also ensured the continued heteronormative and patriarchal policing of gender and sexuality by the state where many of our sodomy laws, as an example, remain on the books. Challenging flag independence is critical as in many contemporary Anglophone Caribbean countries, systems of power that were once white, colonial, and dominating are now viewed as the benefits, sacrifices, and fruits of independence, development, and modernity. The un-acknowledgement and lack of interrogation of the underlying concepts and realities of power and domination that once constituted the colonial project meant the easy transference of those very underlying themes in the post-colonial and post9

Franz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press, 1963), 120. Aaron Kamugisha, “The Coloniality of Citizenship in the Contemporary Anglophone Caribbean,” Race & Class 49, 2 (2007): 24. 11 Ibid. 10

134

Chapter Nine

independentt state. Failurre to link th he current neooliberal and capitalist agenda withh colonialism and how it co ontinues to inffluence sociall attitudes and ideologies around geender, gendereed practices, sexualities, sp pirituality and power w will only ensuure our contin nued dependennce on imperial states, financially aand socially, as a well as ensu ure the continnued marginaliization of the most vulnerable. Wheen we challen nge the legitim macy of the Revolution for not following the ruule of law an nd therefore eengaging in a general election proocess, are wee not engagin ng in an uncrritical and a--historical debate that ffails to interroogate power, violence v and tthe underlying g currents of these legaal and politicaal frameworkss that are basedd in and main ntained by ‘coloniality’’? “[can’t yyou see] theree are no sitess of memory about the Grrenada Revolutioon”12

Fig. 9-1 Graff ffiti with pro-revvolutionary slog gans

The photo in Fig. 9-1, Graffiti with pro-revolutioonary sloganss, has no author, and date associatted with it bu ut was most llikely taken during d or right after thhe Revolution. The next imaage is maintaiined to this daay:

12

Interview w with participantt. St. George’s, Grenada. Marcch 7, 2016.

Ancestors, Memory, Trauma: The Grenadian Revolution Alive

135

Fig. 9-2 Graffiti on dilapidated building near the Coca Cola Bottling Plant in Tempe, St. George (courtesy Reynaldo Bernard)

Fig. 9-2 helps to illustrate what has become part of the dominant narrative surrounding the Grenada Revolution. It de-historicizes the scope and complexity of the struggles that led up to and culminated in the Grenada Revolution and helps to create a false dichotomy between Grenada, “the victim” and the U.S., “the savior.” Figures 9-3 and 9-4 were extracted from a CIA-drafted pamphlet that was air-dropped across the island during the invasion of 1983. When the images were presented as part of my presentation at the Grenada Country conference, my accompanied editorial may have been read as the US overemphasizing incidents of sexual assault, therefore one of the interventions made by one of the participants was that there was indeed sexual assault taking place across the island and under the rule of the PRG. The use of the images above is in no way meant to minimize those horrific incidents of sexual harassment and violence but rather to challenge the reductionist and harmful approach of the US to paint the entire Revolution as barbaric and imposed. It’s also important to note that this framing was also done by a state who was dead set on invading, and that chose to continue colonial

136

Chapter Nine

sexist and raacist tropes off Grenadians as unruly, chaaotic and barb baric who attack their ddisempoweredd women “vicctims.”

Fig. 9-3 CIA A propaganda comic c book - part p one. Part oof the cover of the CIA’s propaganda ccomic book, Grenada: Rescued d from Rape annd Slavery, an example e of the CIA’s “huumanitarian” naarrative.

Ancestors, Memorry, Trauma: The Grenadian Reevolution Alivee

137

Fig. 9-4 CIA A propaganda comic c book – part p two. Part oof the CIA’s propaganda comic book, Grenada: Resccued from Rapee and Slavery, an example of the CIA’s “humanitariann” narrative.

In attem mpting to analyyze what is remembered, r how it is rem membered and what thhis means for collective so ocial memoriees particularly y in postrevolutionarry Grenada, I also thought of the presennce of monum ments and publicly dissplayed visuaals. One of th he main and probably onlly statues representativve of the Greenada Revolution is the buust of Mauricce Bishop which is ereected on Cem metery Hill - one o of the bigggest cemeteriies in the main capitaal. The bust iss now hardly y visible as itt is covered in shrubs. Then as I reead the intervview with Merrle Collins13, I was remind ded of the two interseecting arches that are erected near the Mauricee Bishop Internationaal Airport (seee Figure 9-5). What did m my initial forg getting of these two ssignificant arcches mean fo or the generall memories shared s by Grenadians when it came to the Revolu ution? Was thhis forgetting deliberate d on my part? Was this the intention of these t drab loooking arches- a demand for a subm missive forgettting of the 13 March 19779 revolution n and the political-histtorical traditioons from whicch it came andd for which it stood?”14

13

David Scoott, “The Fragiility of Memorry: An Intervieew with Merlee Collins,” Small Axe 31, Vol. 14, No.1, (2010): 79-163. 14 Ibid

138

Chapter Nine

Fig. 9-5 Monument to US soldiers at Point Salines, St. George (courtesy Reynaldo Bernard)

These two arches though tall and large have never really stood out to me, despite having passed them on many occasions as they are erected at the entrance to our only international airport. The main arch reads, “This plaque expresses the gratitude of the Grenadian people to the forces from the United States of America and the Caribbean, especially those who sacrificed their lives in liberating Grenada on 25 October 1983. It was dedicated by President Ronald Reagan on his visit to Grenada on 20 February 1986.”15 The second, smaller arch, is a plaque from the Veterans of Foreign Wars and was placed there much later, on 16 May 1995, and is again dedicated to “Operation Urgent Fury, October 25-November 21, 1983.” It reads: “To honor those members of the United States military who through commitment and sacrifice, returned freedom to Grenada.”16 David Scott, the person who interviewed Collins, argues that “here, then, is the elementary point of the monument: on the one side, the mocking cynicism of imperial power; on the other, the limp prostration of the 15 16

Ibid., 80 Ibid

Ancestors, Memory, Trauma: The Grenadian Revolution Alive

139

absolute defeat of spirit. It is empire’s sneering reward for a people’s audacity.”17 The erection of public monuments is deliberate and is meant to capture, remove, define and shape how and what is remembered and the memories associated with a particular person and/or moment in time. In his introduction to the interview with Collins, Scott says this about the two arches mentioned earlier that lay claim to the memories of the Grenada Revolution. Such public monuments, of course- physical inscriptions of remembrance- aim to give a certain weight and solidity, a certain concrete texture to the past they conserve in the present. Transforming the realm of nature into a locale of memory, the monument is a space imbued with moral and political significance, a social fact that bears the burden of ‘referentiality.’ But the monument is more than a mere “exteriozation” of memory, because monuments are never innocent of power. If they are about signification, naming the past, they are also themselves the signatures of power, telling us what to remember and how. Monuments serve not only an informative but also a declarative public function. They serve to authorize a certain way of remembering the past, and therefore to deliberately displace or preclude other ways of remembering- and in doing so they help to propagate the illusion of a common memory18. These two arches as well as the murals that can be found on different parts of the island, particularly those found near the Coca-Cola bottling building in Tempe, help illustrate how public monuments and visuals can help to (de)politicize time and what becomes told is an imposed memory that is not necessarily the story of what actually happened. It is evident that the creation of a shared national identity and collective memory is complex, inconsistent and riddled with our own personal biases and lived/desired experiences. The formation of a shared Grenadian identity cannot be distinguished from the events that led up to and culminated in the Grenada Revolution. The idea of a single and homogenous Grenadian identity also needs to be interrogated as with nationalist creation projects usually comes exclusion, isolation and the criminalization of those who fall outside of the heterosexist state19. For Stuart Hall, “[i]dentities are the names we give to the different ways we are positioned by, and position ourselves within the narrative of the past.

17

Ibid Ibid 19 M. Jacqui Alexander, “Not Just (Any) Body Can Be a Citizen: The Politics of Law, Sexuality and Postcoloniality in Trinidad and Tobago and the Bahamas,” Feminist Review: The New Politics of Sex and the State 48 (Autumn, 1994): 5-23. 18

140

Chapter Nine

Cultural identity is a matter of becoming as well as of being. It belongs to the future as much as to the past”20. The fall of the Grenada Revolution to some extent, shattered familial bonds, made tentative communal relationships and also placed on rocky ground, confidence in the Grenadian government and leadership. Postrevolution healing and reconciliation was made more difficult by the lack of spaces dedicated to addressing post-conflict trauma and pain and the disappeared bodies of those who were killed. One of the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established to assess the events of the Grenada Revolution from 1979-1991 was “that although many years have passed since some of the tragedies that occurred during the period under review, there are many individuals and families who continue to suffer physically, psychologically and emotionally because of the hurts and wounds inflicted upon them and their loved ones.”21 The Caribbean post-colony continues to re-inscribe forms of ‘coloniality’ in ways that continue to hurt not only the political and economic leverage of the country but also how we choose to (not) respond to key historical moments such as in the case of the Grenada Revolution. The antiRevolutionary forces and the U.S. invasion assisted in painting a revisionist recollection of the Grenada Revolution through: the erection of monuments; the covering up of and painting over of signs and revolutionary sites; the dissemination of CIA-created propaganda; the creation of public holidays such as Thanksgiving Day on October 25 to thank the Americans; yet the erasure of the events that took place on October 19, March 13, “Bloody Sunday” and “Bloody Monday” just to name a few. The creation and celebration of practices named above are all part of an irresponsible and at the time, concerted effort to erase and question the significance of the Grenada Revolution. “The invention of tradition is a method for using collective memory selectively by manipulating certain bits of the national past, suppressing others, elevating still others in an

20

Stuart Hall, “Cultural Identity and Diaspora,” in Colonial Discourse and PostColonial Theory: An Introduction, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 1993: 394. 21 Report on Certain Political Events Which Occurred in Grenada 1971-1991. Truth and Reconciliation Commission Grenada. The Grenada Revolution online. Vol. 1, pt. 4. Accessed Aug. 20, 2016, www.thegrenadarevolutiononline.com/trcreport4-1.html.

Ancestors, Memory, Trauma: The Grenadian Revolution Alive

141

entirely functional way. This memory is not necessarily authentic, but rather useful.”22 The events of the Grenada Revolution are as alive as the direct and generational trauma that continues to live in our blood and on the streets of Grenada. Allowing for healing through storytelling, public education, ancestral remembrance and political will is critical. There is a responsibility to treat memory as a site of struggle as we forge forward towards personal, economic and political transformation. In the words of my friend’s father, [we need to] revive the spirit of March 13th, young people take control of your destiny. If you fail, your children will take you to task. If your children can’t bathe on Grand Anse,23 similar to how we’re asking questions to our elders about their shortcomings [in remembering and discussing the Grenada Revolution], we will have to explain why they can no longer bathe on the beach!24 As Grenadians attempt to make sense of the aftermath of the Grenada Revolution, it is critical that the necessary support services be in place to do this important healing work. My hope is that this work opens up an opportunity to assess and analyze the relationship between trauma, both direct and intergenerational and substance use as many Grenadians rely on alcohol and drugs as a way of socializing but also as a coping mechanism. Whether or not Grenadians’ use of substances is linked to the events of the Grenada Revolution are unclear but I would argue, is definitely worth looking into. In March of 2016, we at Groundation Grenada25, hosted an ancestral healing circle at Grand Anse beach, St. George’s to remember and honor the lives and memories of those who died during the Grenada Revolution. We were worried about the turnout as it was planned quite last minute but also in recognition of the dominance of Christianity across the island. We were pleasantly surprised when over 10 people showed up, with no more than a day’s notice and they showed up ready to engage with the requested 22

Edward Said. Invention, Memory, and Place. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Winter, 2000), 179. 23 The interviewee is referencing the 2016 public mobilizing to save public access to Grand Anse beach by preventing the government’s sale of Camerhogne Park. More information can be found here http://thenewtoday.gd/local-news/2016/ 05/12/workers-supports-save-camerhogne-park-campaign/#gsc.tab=0. 24 Interview with Mr. Romain, March 7, 2016 25 Groundation Grenada is a social action collective which focuses on the use of creative media to assess the needs of our communities, raise consciousness and act to create positive radical growth. More information can be found here at our website http://groundationgrenada.com/.

142

Chapter Nine

items that brought up memories of ancestors for them. It was a beautiful gathering and the response from participants informed us of the need for this work. The need to engage with what we already know – that the lives of our ancestors impact us in the present and that they continue to exist alongside us. It is my hope that this work of excavating and remembering be continued and deepened as the difficult, exciting and traumatic events that culminated in the Grenada Revolution and its aftermath are critical to the reconstruction of a decolonial Grenadian identity(ies). Reflecting on the words of Frantz Fanon, “each generation must, out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfill it, or betray it’26 it is our responsibility to fulfill our mission to the current and future generations, and above all to our ancestors. Long live our commitments to each other, to our lands and to our complicated beautiful stories and histories!

26

Franz Fanon, Wretched of the Earth, 210-211.

CHAPTER TEN PARADOXICAL MEMORIES: INQUIRY INTO THE REMEMBERING AND FORGETTING OF THE GRENADA REVOLUTION MALAIKA BROOKS-SMITH-LOWE

Chimamanda Adiche, in her now famous TEDtalk, observed that “Power is the ability to tell the story of another person but make it the definitive story of that person.”1 A dominant story, or what Adiche refers to as a single story, may not be untrue but its danger lies in that it can become the definitive story of a person, place or event, leaving barely any room for the layered and complex reality in which we actually live. Adiche insists, “How they are told, who tells them, when they are told, how many stories are told are really dependent on power.”2 There are a multitude of narratives on the Grenada Revolution 1979-1983 and the military action by the United States in October 1983 (Operation Urgent Fury). These narratives are created, re-enforced and contradict each other through sites of memory such as Fort George in the center of Grenada’s capital, the Caribbean Examination Council (CXC) curriculum, family and public events. In other words, perspectives on the Revolution are informed by what is most present, what gets represented, taught, and commemorated. For the purposes of this study, I use the term “intervasion” a portmanteau word combining invasion and intervention, two common ways of referring to Operation Urgent Fury, depending on the user’s perspective. By using “intervasion” I seek to reflect the complex and shifting associations made in relation to both the military action and its implications. My research is a qualitative investigation of contemporary 1

Chimamanda Adiche, “The Danger of a Single Story” (lecture, TEDGlobal July 2009). http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story. 2 Ibid.

144

Chapter Ten

perspectives on the Revolution among Grenadians, living within the country, who experienced this period, and those who were born in the years which followed. Here I refer to the former as the “revolution generation” and the latter, the “post-revolution generation.” I employ a qualitative mixed method approach to investigate my main research question: What are the patterns and contradictions that mark the ways in which this epoch is simultaneously remembered and forgotten? For this chapter I focus on the aspects of my research that relate to the collective memories of a sample of the post-revolution generation. I conducted interviews with eight tertiary students at TA Marryshow Community College (TAMCC) and St. George’s University (SGU), all born after 1983. Then I conducted longer oral history style interviews with a parent or guardian of each student. Finally, in a joint photo-elicitation with each parent and child pair, they were asked to look at photographs related to the Revolution. They wrote down what they identified in the photos and what associations they made with each image, then discussed their responses. In addition, I engaged in fieldwork, archival research, visited historic sites and monuments, and attended public events such as commemorations, performances and film screenings. I conducted research on the school curriculum, interviewed teachers, read online debates about the revolution and followed the kinds of information shared within my social media network that related to Grenadian history and the Revolution in general. Employing a self-reflective lens throughout the research process allows me to better understand my role and position in relation to the field of inquiry. As such, it is imperative that I illuminate connections between my inquiry into the fraught collective memory, of this bold experiment of the Caribbean Left, and my personal biography as a Grenadian community activist born in the post-revolution generation. I, coming with my own experiences of, exposure to and biases of the subject matter of my study, am ultimately the primary research tool in this qualitative analysis. I am also conducting research within a small nation of which I am a part. My parents were involved as active youth during the revolutionary period. Their memories of the ways in which “it was different during the Revo” had piqued my curiosity and activism from a young age. The simple notion that it was possible for people, in a nation as small as ours, to attempt to create change together was empowering for me. As I grew up, I began to notice the sense of disappointment that peppered their memories. Though I continue to be inspired by many aspects of the Grenada Revolution, the idealized revolution of my teenage imaginings has long succumbed to the complexity of what Shalini Puri describes as a

Paradoxical Memories

145

“fundamentally mixed legacies...the profound tension at its heart: a conflict between its democratizing and its authoritarian impulses.”3 Within a Western academic framework, the notion of memory as a collective process, rather than solely an individual one, began to take prominence in the work of Maurice Halbwachs, a French Sociologist during the early 1900's. His approach was unlike those of his contemporaries, such as Henri Bergson and Sigmund Freud, who examined memory with an emphasis on the individual dimension. Halbwachs’ research began to shift the discourse out of a biological framework. According to him, individual memory is dependent on the socio-cultural context of the person creating the memory. He contends that, “It is in society that people normally acquire their memories. It is also in society that they recall, recognize, and localize their memories.”4 What is significant here is the study of memory through our interactions within society, not through the cognitive act of memory making itself. According to Astri Erll, social frameworks of memory are “patterns, cognitive schemata that steer our perception and memory in particular directions”.5 Our social context and group affiliations inform the parameters we set for ourselves consciously and subconsciously; how we think of and understand the world. The way that we interpret our past, and by extension our present and future possibilities is informed by the social context in which we live. We are taught (both formally and informally), our multiple and dynamic social frameworks for making sense of the world through our interactions. Therefore, as Halbwachs states, “social frameworks are... precisely the instruments used by the collective memory to reconstruct an image of the past which is in accord, in each epoch, with the predominant thoughts of the society.”6 Images of the past are not simply clones stamped in every mind in accordance with the status quo. Halwachs contends, that “[t]he relative value attributed to each way of looking at things is really a function of the respective intensity of influences that each group has exerted,” upon the individual in question.7 3

Puri, Shalini. “Finding the Field: Notes on Caribbean Cultural Criticism, Area Studies, and the Forms of Engagement,” Small Axe Vol.17 No. 2 (2013): 71, accessed August, 4th 2013 4 Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1992) 38. 5 Astri Erll, “Locating Family in Cultural Memory Studies,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 42 no. 3 (2011): 305, accessed April 7th 2012. 6 Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, 40. 7 Maurice Halbwachs, “The Collective Memory,” in The Collective Memory Reader, ed. Jeffrey K. Olick (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 140.

146

Chapter Ten

There is of course an individual aspect to memory, since each person holds multiple group allegiances: family, religious and political affiliation, community ties etc. Therefore, as Erll notes, individual memory is, “... always [a] unique combination of social frameworks of memory that the individual draws on.”8 This socio-cultural understanding of memorymaking forms a part of the conceptual basis of my research. Despite the explosion of memory studies over the last few decades this is a newly emerging field of interest in relation to examining the significance of the Grenada Revolution. Shalini Puri is inarguably the scholar at the forefront of this wave. Her book, The Grenada Revolution in the Caribbean Present: Operation Urgent Memory explores the cultural memory of these events through an exploration of various sites of memory. Her work seeks to explore the legacies and lasting impact of the Revolution as a Caribbean project. In a 2010 lecture at El Instituto de Estudios del Caribe, Puri expressed that one of her major concerns with this research was “to both register the ways in which memories of the revolution is necessarily shot through with the knowledge of its catastrophic end” while also seeking “a way to remember the earlier events, the accomplishments and the fault lines within the revolution.”9 The state played a different role in, for instance, the Holocaust or Apartheid, than it did in the Grenada Revolution. In many ways, the Revolution is considered a joyous, egalitarian, and emancipatory project. It expanded some democratic processes, even as it curtailed other freedoms.10 This mixed legacy presents a unique conundrum, considering that these multiple legacies are not neatly divided up among different sectors of the population instead, they exist under one roof or within one individual. In a 2005 Bomb magazine interview by Stuart Hall, David Scott notes, “the 1970s was my generation’s short decade of hope and expectation and longing... you lived inside a surging momentum (well, maybe not surging) for radical social change. The 1980s brings this lurching to a close with the assassination of Walter Rodney in January 1980; the defeat of Michael Manley in October of the same year; and the implosion of the Grenada Revolution in 1983.”11 Scott’s reflection speaks to the mixed legacy that 8

Erll, 306. Shalini Puri, “Operation Urgent Memory: The Grenada Revolution in the Caribbean Present” (lecture, Santo Domingo, February 25, 2010), May 13, 2013. http://archive.org/details/OperationUrgentMemoryTheGrenadaReolutionAndTheC aribbeanPresent. 10 Puri, “Finding the Field,”71. 11 David Scott, “David Scott by Stuart Hall,” interview by Stuart Hall, BOMB, Winter 2005, http://bombmagazine.org/article/2711/david-scott. 9

Paradoxical Memories

147

many of the participants in this study echoed. Scott speaks of hope in the 1970’s and then frustration in the 1980’s; The Grenada Revolution being one of the events making this migration. Noga Shemer writes of “an overarching historical narrative that describes Grenada as an island of conflict.”12 This phrase is derived from the title of the well-known historical account by George Brizan, Grenada – Island of Conflict: From Amerindians to People’s Revolution, 14981979. Brizan analyzes Grenada’s history using major conflicts as a framework, from Arawaks and Caribs (pre-1942) to Gairy and the New Jewel Movement. Shemer illuminated a critical aspect of Brizan’s work, which is the way in which he traces connections between ongoing oppression and resistance, “rather than viewing them as a series of isolated acts of violence.”13 In other words he is attempting to expose a continuity, a movement or series of connected movements as opposed to disparate moments. Shemer argues that this narrative thread, which “relates the conflicts to one another in a larger or meaningful context,”14 is obscured in the sites of memory which she studied, such as the national museum and the school curriculum. Besides demonstrating that our perspectives on the past, as individuals and collectives, are in constant relationship to our present. This paper also calls into question positivist notions of historical knowledge as empirical fact and illuminates connections between power, inequality and silences in historical production. During interviews with participants from the post-revolution generation I posed the following question: “When you hear the Grenada Revolution what’s the first thing that comes to mind?” Gina, a 20-year-old who studies refrigeration and air conditioning at TAMCC answered with one word, “Killing.” The other seven participants responded in the following ways: Paul: “Umm that will probably be Maurice Bishop ‘cause he was like the face of the revolution so to speak. So the minute you hear the revolution in Grenada you think about the feud between Maurice Bishop and Gairy and how the rise to power came and disagreements and stuff like that.” Andrew: “The Grenada revolution? Maurice Bishop, people dying” Yvonne: “Maurice Bishop. Umm the Fort, killing of the students.” Samuel: “Maurice Bishop. And well I always think if its gonna happen again. Because not everybody will like the person that’s elected, so I’ll always think that if it will happen again.” 12

Noga Shemer, “Public Ideologies and Personal Meaning-Making in Postcolonial Grenada” (PhD Diss., University of California, San Diego, 2012), 168. 13 Shemer, 169. 14 Ibid.

148

Chapter Ten Shelly: “The killing of Maurice Bishop. People jumping off the Fort, and so forth. That’s what I can remember.” Jason: “Maurice Bishop. Death and thing. War. Killing and thing. The Fort too, people jumping off the Fort.” Daniella: “I think about a change from the past to the present as the revolution. Also war and yea, general disruption of everyday life.” 15

My question invited off-the-cuff responses, which begin to illustrate some of the common beliefs that exist among this generation. To varying degrees, the participants characterized the revolution by a sense of conflict and upheaval. Almost all of the participants said that killing is one of the first things that comes to mind when they think of the Grenada revolution. Participants also mentioned “chaos” and “war.” There was a general sense that the revolution meant a negative disruption of everyday life and allusion to anxiety around whether a revolution would happen again. What stands out is that none of the students interviewed mentioned the political agendas and broader motivations of the four-year revolutionary period in their initial responses. For these youth, the players and their roles in the drama of the revolution are not clear or distinct. Paul personified two sides of the conflict that started the revolution: Maurice Bishop and Eric Gairy. Then he summed up the rest of his memory vaguely as, “the rise to power” and “disagreements” but doesn't unpack what disagreements he referred to. Other students, like Andrew and Jason, speak of people dying without speculating about who was killing whom and for what reason. Connected to Shemer's concept of an “Island of Conflict” historical narrative within the Grenadian public imaginary, these initial responses begin to reflect a ‘single story’ of a conflict revolution among the post-revolution generation, devoid of socio-politically context. It is embodied in memories which position the revolutionary period as a time of chaos with no direction or vision. This narrative shows itself in the pattern of young participants feeling more confident discussing the ending of the revolution than the years of its movement. When I asked Gina what else comes to mind when she thinks of the Revolution this is how the conversation continued: Gina: Like guns and people like fighting over politics. Author: Ok. And how long do you think the Revolution was? Gina: [Pauses] Author: A few months, a few years? 15

Gina, Paul, Andrew, Yvonne, Samuel, Shelly, Jason, Daniella (Students of T.A. Marryshow Community College and St. George’s University) interview with the author, 15- 28 September 2012.

Paradoxical Memories

149

Gina: A few years, I believe. shooting everybody and thing. And that whole umm, I think kill Bishop in the process.16

Gina lacked confidence in her ability to talk about the revolutionary period. She was uncomfortable even speculating about what those years might have been like. However, when asked about the ending she offered up much more information. She didn’t, however, give us a sense of who beside Bishop is a part of this “fighting over politics” nor what exactly they were fighting about. It is noteworthy that later Gina brings up the role of students in removing Bishop from house arrest. Yvonne brought the students in her initial response, “The Fort umm, killing of students,” so I asked Yvonne which students and she responded, “You know the protestors, some students they were killed, they got shotted up and thing cause they were in support. That’s what I hear mommy say.”17 She couldn’t pin point what exactly they were in support of, whereas in Gina’s response she notes that students supported Bishop but doesn’t give any reason why. Author: Can you think of anything you ever heard that they did during that time? What was Grenada like during those years? Gina: [long pause] I can’t remember Author: It’s not a right or wrong answer, even if you just heard piece, piece information. Gina: Something about Bishop used to [pause], I can’t really remember you know, it dey, but I just can’t remember it. Author: That’s alright. So when you think about the ending, do you have any idea about how everything ended in the Revolution? Gina: Yeah, so to do with Bishop, I think when they put him under house arrest. And I think was some children and thing, probably teenagers and secondary school children. I think they take them out of the house arrest place and bring them up in, how you call that Fort again, Fort George, I think? Author: Ok Gina: And then, well, the police and them I guess come and well they start killing everybody, because it had something to do with being outside or something like that and if they see you, they go shoot you on sight or something so. Apparently they see everybody, and they start that they were in support of Bishop. 18

Though “students” were referenced by a few post-revolution participants, none of them seemed particularly struck by the fact of these students’ 16

Ibid. Ibid. 18 Ibid. 17

150

Chapter Ten

active (and undoubtedly costly participation) in the political process. Instead students’ activism and role in freeing Bishop from house arrest, if referenced, was only a pathway towards the demise of some of those students on the Fort, they become collateral damage in this revolution that is characterized in their memories through conflict. The Fort, changed to Rupert (Bishop’s father during the revolution) and subsequently returned to its colonial name, George, after the US “intervasion,” is one of the images that recurs most frequently throughout student interviews, including Gina’s response above. This location of the murder of Bishop and his comrades as well as the death of Grenadian soldiers, civilians and students on 19th October 1983 is centrally located, looming over the nation’s capital. It is representative of ‘the moment’ which post-revolution participants' memories are most preoccupied with. The Fort is a central dreary site of memory for these young people. Later in the interviews I asked, “Are there any things around in the Grenadian landscape that you see that make you think about the Revolution?” Paul responded, “Like the Fort, where they were shot, every time I see the Fort and I think about it.”19 For the majority of students The Fort is a highly visible anchor for their memories of the revolution’s ultimate demise. There is no equally assertive site of memory that speaks to the hope and collective action that the revolution ignited, “the movement.” Not surprisingly, six out of the eight participants said Maurice Bishop comes to mind when they first think of the Revolution. Those same six were the ones who were able to identify Bishop during their photo-elicitation interviews (see Fig. 10-1). Bishop is arguably the most identifiable/identified figure from the revolutionary period and, I would say, Grenadian history on a whole. However, in the above responses, there is no reference to anything, apart from his very public death, that makes him such an icon. By contrast, despite their overall view of the Revolution, all parent participants made mention of Bishop's charismatic, personable leadership style and changes he brought to the country. These types of memories were not common in the post-revolution generation’s archive. I asked Shelly about what changes she thought the Revolution was striving for, she responded, “Umm I think Maurice Bishop was a socialist so he was trying to bring in socialism. Umm that's about it.” When asked what socialism meant to her she said, “Probably everybody involved. Umm, I have no idea.” The only other student participant to bring up socialism/communism was Paul who said “I don't really know what they built or they changed but I know Maurice Bishop wanted to start, like he 19

Ibid.

Paradoxical Memories

151

would have basically have communism so we would have free education and stuff like that, something like Cuba for example.” Neither Shelly nor Paul characterized socialism/communism as some sort of overarching evil or named it explicitly as a factor in the conflicts. They associated socialism/communism with those characteristics of the Revolution which are often the most fondly remembered in parent interviews: community involvement and education reform. Though Shelly and Paul were quick to give disclaimers about their knowledge, both participants offered something that rarely emerged in the versions of the past, which students shared with me, a sense (even if unsure) of the political agenda of that period. Unlike Bishop, whose face appears within the cultural landscape on bumper stickers, unofficial murals and on social media etc., Bernard Coard has remained faceless in the collective memory of the post-revolution participants. Coard was not often mentioned by them, so the photograph, in which he is close to Bishop, provided an important opportunity to find out what role he played in their sense of the period. Only one participant, Yvonne, hesitantly guessed that it was him in the image. Yvonne wasn't confident at first, phrasing her response in the form of a question “That's Coard?” I verified and asked her what connections she made with the image. She said, “Well you could see that, just look at how they smiling, I guess that was the times when things was good between them. That was before the whole thing.” The moment depicted is at once described as light and friendly, “the times when things was good,” and is immediately defined through juxtaposition with another moment in time, presumably the time when things were not good. I asked her to clarify her statement “before the whole thing.” Yvonne responded: Before the Revolution and before the whole coup and before the change of power and stuff like that. So you could see then that they had a collaborative effort between the two, you know, to be as one... But then somewhere along the lines, as I said I wasn't around then, but based on my experience of what I know, of what I learned, of what I've heard discussed about that, you could see that it is the dividing factor what caused the whole thing, what cause the killing and house arrest and everything. I guess conflict of opinion, difference opinion between the two you know. I wouldn't imagine that after everything that went on they that would be smiling with each other like that.20

Yvonne’s response reveals that in light of her knowledge of a power struggle and of the way that the Revolution ended, this photograph could 20

Yvonne, Pat (daughter and mother) interview with author, 3 February 2013.

152

Chapter Ten

not have been taken during the revolutionary period at all. The idea that there was a cohesive government body, which went about leading the country together, is not a part of the memory that she knows. Her mother, Pat, a 58-year-old housekeeper who lives in a rural community, jumped in and said, “That’s after the Revolution began, after they take over and everything was going smoothly with them, he’s the Prime Minister and he’s the Deputy Prime Minister. During that time they was very close.”21

Fig. 10-1 Maurice Bishop and Bernard Coard (GNM)

During my interviews with the young participants, we spoke about their educational backgrounds. I asked whether they had learned about Grenada, and/or the Caribbean, during secondary school. Almost all responded that they hadn’t. Often the reason was, “I didn’t do history,” referring to selecting Caribbean History as one of their CXC (Caribbean Examination Council) subjects, though almost all of the participants did take an average of two years of history. Many of the history teachers I interviewed stated that they actually didn’t teach a significant amount of Grenadian history because students don't need to know it to successfully 21

Ibid.

Paradoxical Memories

153

complete their CXC examinations. I got the sense from teachers that there is tremendous pressure to cover a lot of material already so anything that was not requires by the syllabus wasn’t a priority. The Grenada Revolution itself is not in the CXC Caribbean history syllabus, which is built around ten major themes. In a 2002 revision, the end date for a number of the themes was extended from 1962 to 1985. Perhaps then, the Grenada Revolution could have been included, under theme 9 - “Movements Towards Independence and Regional Integration up to 1985”; theme 7 - “Social and Economic Conditions in the 20th Century” or even in the place where we ultimately find its shadow, theme 8, “The United States in the Caribbean, 1776-1985.” Under theme 8 students were required to know, “An outline of United States intervention into the following territories: Cuba and Puerto Rico (1898); Panama (1904); Haiti and the Dominican Republic (1915) and Grenada (1983).”22 This is the closest reference to the Grenada Revolution. Trouillot argues that, “One engages in the practice of silencing. Mentions and silences are thus active, dialectical counterparts of which history is the synthesis.”23 Some teachers who said that they taught their students about the revolution said it was primarily done around certain dates on the calendar, namely October 19th, the anniversary of the massacre on the Fort and the day of the intervasion, October 25th, which has since been memorialized as Thanksgiving Day, a national holiday. While these are important dates and provide important teachable moments for the classroom, it struck me that March 13th, the date that the revolution began was not mentioned as a date used to teach about the events. This absence mirrors the non-existent space the Revolution occupies in the CXC syllabus, while the US intervasion is included. Said contends that, “collective memory is not an inert and passive thing, but a field of activity in which past events are selected, reconstructed, maintained, modified, and endowed with political meaning.”24 Thus, while the years of the revolution are obscured for these sites of memory the narrative of US salvation is being reinforced as history, as cultural memory. Cultural memory being that form of collective memory which is institutionalized, i.e. cultivated and formalized.25 22

Caribbean Examination Council, CSEC Caribbean History Syllabus (Barbados: 2002), 12. 23 Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (Boston: Beacon, 1995), 48. 24 Edward Said “Invention, Memory, and Place,” Critical Inquiry Vol. 26 No. 2 (Winter 2000): 185. 25 Jan Assman. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique 65 (1995): 131, accessed September 14, 2012.

154

Chapter Ten

The CXC Caribbean History syllabus requires that students primarily focus on critiques of the Grenada Revolution and its last few days in order to contextualize the US military action. According to the CXC online reports of past exams (2004 - 2012), a question about this topic only appeared once, in the year 2012. The question stated, “Discuss the factors that caused the USA to invade Grenada and remove the Revolutionary Military Council. Discuss at least six factors.”26 The RMC (Revolutionary Military Council) was in control from October 19th 1983 until the US intervasion effectively removed them less than two weeks later. Conversely, The People’s Revolutionary Government, which ran the country for four years is not mentioned at all in the question. Again, we see a pattern similar to the student responses, the years that made up the bulk of the revolutionary period are occluded under the chaos of 1983. Below is an excerpt of the CXC History report’s review of the answers to this particular question in 2012: Candidates seemed to understand the questions, but a lack of knowledge prevented some of them from giving appropriate responses. It is clear that some of them had gaps in their knowledge. Candidates who knew the information handled the questions well. They showed adequate knowledge of the Revolution and the US concern for their citizens. Most were familiar with Eric Gairy’s rule in the 1970’s, but they failed to discuss the reasons for the US intervention…Many candidates gave four explanations of the US intervention policies in the Caribbean while ignoring the reasons for the intervention in Grenada in 1983…The excellent responses presented details of Bishop’s overthrow by the Revolutionary Military Council….27

This is a summary of responses from across the Caribbean. What stands out is the emphasis on the type of knowledge that is being institutionalized around the Revolution. In this case, I say “around” versus “about” quite intentionally. This review states plainly that “excellent responses presented details of Bishop’s overthrow...” so this is not about the narratives of ‘the movement’ it is again about the final, and in a sense, defining moments of that period. This question falls under the topic “US in the Caribbean.” The Grenada Revolution itself is not named in the question nor is it in the CXC regional history curriculum at all. The framing of the question and the subsequent report on responses leads me to 26

Caribbean Examination Council, CSEC Caribbean History Paper (Barbados: 2012). 27 Caribbean Examination Council, CSEC Caribbean History Regional Report (Barbados: 2012).

Paradoxical Memories

155

the conclusion that CXC didn't place this topic under ‘US in the Caribbean’ as an invitation to think critically about role of the US in Caribbean politics. It is not an invitation to discuss movements like the Revolution as calls for autonomy. Instead, it seems to reinforce Ronald Reagan’s sentiment from his October 27th 1983 address, “We got there just in time.”28 According to Trouillot, “the presences and absences embodied in sources (artifacts and bodies that turn an event into fact) or archives (facts collected, thematized, and processed as documents and monuments) are neither neutral or natural.”29 These visibilities and invisibility in the collective memory of Grenadians are created. The single story of a revolution of unclear conflict is created and reinforced by patterns of remembering and forgetting, which facilitate the crossing of select memories over generational borders. Merle Collins reflects that “growing up in Grenada and throughout the Caribbean now there is a generation which was not even born during the conflict but which is influenced by the silences and the intensity of emotion regarding the subject of the conflict.”30 How does this image of a revolution of conflict and confusion, which resulted in Grenada being both simultaneously “punished” and “saved from itself,” inform what post-revolution Grenada envisions as its own field of possibilities? My research findings show some interesting gaps and therefore opportunities and also raises some questions, the answers for which carry potentially significant implications. We see that in the production of collective memory, there are social frameworks at play driving what gets remembered and what gets forgotten. In the context of the Grenada Revolution, we see that the Revolution’s demise and the associated upheavals and controversies get remembered, while it’s rational and sociopolitical context, achievements and significance (national, regional, global) are featured less prominently. It would be interesting for this analysis to be deepened to look at the specific role of the geo-political distribution of power in this phenomenon. Also, what are the potential modes of action the mechanisms through which that power operates to affect memory. Future investigation is recommended in relation to the connections between different forms of erasure, for example, the erasure of positive

28 Ronald Reagan, “Address to the Nation on Events in Lebanon and Grenada.” (speech, Washington DC, 27 Oct. 1983), Accessed November 1 2012. 29 Trouillot, 48. 30 Merle Collins, “Grenada - Ten Years Later and More: Memory and Collective Responsibility,” Caribbean Quarterly 41, 2 (1995): 76.

156

Chapter Ten

aspects of the Grenada Revolution and of the connection between different forms of national political struggle in Grenada, referenced earlier. Further, the identification of this phenomenon is important because it provides impetus for pushback. Yarimar Bonilla states that, “by reshaping visions of the past one can reshape the possibilities of the future, and make an alternative future imaginable.”31 One implication of this is that, given that memories affect what can be, by setting imaginative limits, it is important to tell other sides of a story where that can be potentially empowering. Referring to Adichie’s “single story,” dominant narratives not only define a people to outsiders, but also to themselves. Single stories not only determine how the world sees a people, but also how people see themselves. Certainly, there are lessons to be learned from how the Revolution unravelled. However, there is also potential power in remembering the agency, national sovereignty, innovation and principles which the revolution represented; potential power in the ways that the people of a small island state were able to disrupt the economics of global hegemony in America’s “back yard.” There are some ways that this re-remembering, so to speak, is happening. In 2015, the Grenada Revolution Memorial Foundation was established. One of their core mandates is to raise awareness around some of the Revolution’s achievements. They, in collaboration with Groundation Grenada, have since had two annual lectures commemorating March 13th featuring Caribbean Prime Ministers addressing various aspects of the Revolution, including its benefits. On the more creative side, the Grenada Arts Council in 2011 hosted “Revolution: An Arts Perspective,” which featured works expressing a range of perspectives. One significant opportunity for impact which exists is with the Caribbean Examination Council. It doesn’t serve us to not have the most significant revolution in the English-speaking Caribbean as a mandatory part of the Caribbean History syllabus. It also does not serve us that where the syllabus shows some interest, it is on the revolution’s shortcomings and the US invasion. “Forward ever, backward never” was one of the revolution’s most iconic phrases. Perhaps if the leaders of the revolution saw where we were today, they would see the benefit of going backward, traveling back through time and expanding our collective memory, so that we can move forward, learning from the vast range of lessons that era offers.

31 Yarimar Bonilla, “The Past Made by Walking: Labor Activism and Historical Production in Postcolonial Guadeloupe,” Cultural Anthropology 26, 3 (2011): 316.

CHAPTER ELEVEN UNEARTHING MAURICE: REVIVING LOCAL HISTORY IN THE GRENADIAN HISTORY CURRICULUM MARIE BENJAMIN AND KADON DOUGLAS

The study of History is an act of looking inward in order to understand one’s position in their wider surroundings1. Hence, the emergence and institution of Caribbean History as a part of the secondary school curriculum in the latter half of the 1900s illustrated that the study of history needs to take the route of allowing students to consider themselves, their community, and their nation in relation to the wider world. Norman Manley in 1939 stated “In all countries the teaching of history is an opportunity to build up a basic nationalism and patriotism in the mind of the child”2. Although secondary school students in the Caribbean region share mostly a homogenous historical past, there are instances where local historical events vary and this variation is paramount to helping young history students understand not only their islands but their selves. As previous students and teachers of Caribbean history, it is often hard to forget one's first discovery of/encounter with the events that transpired during the Grenada Revolution. For some, it occurs when teachers, who are themselves curious, decide to go beyond the borders outlined by the curriculum to discuss the origins, progression and demise of the revolution. Other students have more personal connections as they may have come in contact with relatives who participated, were incarcerated or were in other ways directly impacted by this recent historical event. What always remained evident was the inability of the Caribbean History curriculum to comprehensively provide a site for an extensive discussion 1

Howard Johnson, “Decolonizing the History Curriculum in the Anglophone Caribbean,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 1 (2002): 40. 2 Johnson, 35.

158

Chapter Eleven

on the events that proceeded, and occurred during and after the Grenada Revolution. Through embracing the idea that studying History is a process of discovery for students, this exploration launches a conceptual inquiry into how students can be immersed in small tenets of local history through the use of curriculum supplements. This inquiry is grounded on the belief that local supplements can allow students to increase their ability to become effective historians, to explore alternative narratives about the historical past and to further develop their cultural identities, all in an effort to become agents of change and active citizens. More importantly, deconstructing the current Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) Caribbean History syllabus, specifically its rationale, exposes sites where particular historical narratives are forgotten or omitted and areas where local historical explorations can strengthen the objectives outlined in the curriculum. Following, is an analysis of the arguments that support the constructive power of local history in the teaching of history as a subject. Lastly, the Grenada Revolution 1979-1983 will be positioned as the appropriate and necessary example of a local historical event that is in many ways absent from the curriculum. Although there is the understanding that the curriculum cannot address every facet of an historical event, the intentions here are to examine the framing that is used by the curriculum to address both its rationale for the study of history and the Grenada Revolution. It seems inadequate to discuss the Caribbean history syllabus without a brief synopsis of its historical narrative. In post-emancipation Caribbean society systems of education were built to continue and in some cases strengthen the structures that were established during colonization. In this sense, colonization persisted with the institution of foreign curricula and examinations in the British West Indian islands.3 To illustrate, Johnson states that the effect of education in the British Caribbean during the late 1800s was to create a common cultural identity, an identity that was based on British information and beliefs.4 More significantly, the history that was studied in schools referenced European wars, English literature and ensured that students studied Latin. Eric Williams, the former Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, in speaking about his time in secondary school, reiterated that he was able to discuss the plantation economy in relation to Italy but had no ability to speak to his country’s own historical experiences through slavery.5 3

Ibid, 28. Ibid, 29. 5 Ibid, 30. 4

Unearthing Maurice

159

At the turn of the century, the political ideals of self-determination and nationalism encouraged West Indians to question the negligence of local history. Consequently, the twentieth century was marked with civil society and political movements to decolonize the history curriculum. Johnson succinctly describes that this process of decolonization was three-fold as it involved a “change in the curriculum from British to Caribbean history, the shift of focus of the curriculum from the colonizers to Caribbean peoples and lastly the ‘West-Indianization’ of the examination structure”.6 What also proved significant during this time of change from British to Caribbean history are the perspectives and expectations that West Indian history was intended and meant to have. Proponents for a more localized curriculum saw history as an integral part not only to the development of national and cultural identities, but also to the development of independent nations. West Indian history therefore emerged as a subject in tertiary and secondary schools in the Anglophone Caribbean in the mid-1950s after regional discontent with the largely Eurocentric history curriculum. People who were aware of their own historical narratives were more equipped to become engaged citizens and promote national development. In this sense, the teaching of history and more specifically West Indian history forwarded a deeply political and social agenda. Some of these initial motivations and rationale for promoting Caribbean history are present in the current Caribbean History syllabus. It is important to note that the process of decolonizing the curriculum was a part of a larger movement in which former colonies assessed the effects of colonialism on social, economic and political institutions. Through implementing a postcolonial analysis to education, educators in the region had the ability to identify areas in the Caribbean History curriculum that were not truly representative of the stories of the people who experienced colonization. As a result, the main focus of change in the curriculum was to alter the source of knowledge and to reshape the discourses utilized in the subject. In so doing, decolonizing the history curriculum aimed to ensure that the creation of knowledge around the history of the Caribbean region was narrated by Caribbean nationals and were Caribbean stories. Some of these intentions are therefore evident in the now evolved CSEC Caribbean History syllabus. The current CSEC Caribbean History syllabus with its latest revision in 2009 is the principal document that governs the learning and assessment of Caribbean history in the region. In representing a discipline, its purpose is to explore the events and peoples from Bahamas to Trinidad, also 6

Ibid, 27,40.

160

Chapter Eleven

including the Guianas and Belize. Through its rationale and core thematic areas, the syllabus hopes to provide history students with not only the knowledge of regional events, but also the skills to explore historical events with objective enquiry. The Caribbean Examinations Council states in the syllabus: In the course of their work, historians raise questions, formulate hypotheses, gather evidence from a variety of data sources, collate and interpret information, make judgments, draw conclusions and report their findings. The student activities implied by the aims and objectives of the syllabus are directly related to the procedures used by historians in the study of their discipline.7 Moreover, the syllabus encourages students to become more than students who study history, but instead should consider themselves as historians who engage in an active process of questioning, analyzing, formulating and drawing conclusions. It also references the UNESCO Pillars of Learning that asks educational institutions and organizations to adhere to the four principles of learning to know, to do, to be and to live together with the expectation that these principles “will enable them [students] to succeed in their academic careers and the world of work, and that will foster the exploration and development of their Caribbean identities”.8 To amalgamate the rationale and the content, the CSEC Caribbean History syllabus is organized in chronological order and examines the events that shaped the Caribbean- re-discovery by the Europeans, colonization and slavery, the post-emancipation developments and lastly the political, economic and social efforts that instituted independence and current social, economic and political developments in the islands. As a result, the ten core topics and nine themes cover a timeperiod of the 1400s to 1985.9 In understanding that the core topics and themes highlighted in the Caribbean History syllabus it can be seen that the topics are not exclusive to other significant events that occurred in the region. In this way, it can be useful for both history teachers and students to explore how the core topics and themes fit into their local contexts. The rationale of the syllabus and the organization of its core topics/themes, although well construed consists of areas of disparity and voids of information that may not be filled during the instruction of the subject. It is uncertain whether these voids are 7

Caribbean Examinations Council. CSEC Caribbean History Syllabus Effective for examinations from May/June 2011 (syllabus, 2010, Kingston, Jamaica), 1. 8 Jacques Delors, et al, Learning: The Treasure Within. Paris: UNESCO. 2004. EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO (1996): 20-1. Caribbean Examinations Council, CSEC Caribbean History Syllabus, 1. 9 Ibid, 8-9.

Unearthing Maurice

161

intentional areas where the syllabus allows for further inquiry into particular areas, or were purposely framed to discount particular narratives. Nevertheless, it remains imperative to be critical of what this discussion will term the untouched areas of the Caribbean History curriculum, in order to discuss how these voids can be filled. The particular core topic and its coinciding themes that are of interest to this discussion particularly in relation to voids of information present in the syllabus is “The United States’ influence in the Caribbean”, “The United States in the Caribbean, 1776 - 1985 and Caribbean Political Development up to 1985”. More specifically, “reasons for United States’ intervention in the following territories: Cuba and Puerto Rico (1898); Panama (1904); Haiti (1915) and the Dominican Republic (1916) and Grenada (1983) and “the economic, political and cultural effects of United States’ imperialism in the English speaking Caribbean up to 1985.”10 As students of Caribbean History while in secondary school, the placement of the Grenada Revolution within the syllabus within the context of the United States’ influence in the Caribbean often proved problematic. In the first instance, it was difficult to understand the relationship between the US “intervention” without being provided with sufficient information about the causes, progression and outcome of the Grenada Revolution. For a history student studying specifically in Grenada, it was obvious by the yearly discussions that surrounded the topic during the months of October and March, which marks Grenada’s Thanksgiving holiday, the anniversaries of the US intervention and the commencement of the revolution, that this history was, and in many ways still remains, an unhealed abrasion that causes severe pain for people in the island. Further study of the Grenada Revolution and its contextual relevance after secondary school illustrated that the revolution connected to several of the other thematic areas including the effects of the presence of the US in the region and to the concepts of imperialism, self-determination and political instability- all of which are identified in the syllabus. The greater significance lies in considering what it means for this information to be absent from the Caribbean History syllabus especially when it relates to a plethora of imperative objectives of the subject. The Grenada Revolution although extremely controversial to say the least, is an undoubtedly significant aspect of not only Grenada’s history but also the region’s past. In the Diaspora, the significance of the Revolution is undisputed. Shalini Puri, in her exploration of the Grenada Revolution in relation to the present states that its significance lies in the 10

Ibid, 4, 10.

162

Chapter Eleven

fact that holds so many firsts. “It was the first socialist-oriented revolution in the Anglophone Caribbean; the assassination of Maurice Bishop was the first assassination of a head of state in the Anglophone Caribbean; it was the first time the United States invaded the Anglophone Caribbean.”11 Also significant and rarely mentioned is the relationship between other regional social movements, such as the Black Power Movement and the ideals held by the leaders of the revolutionary government. According to Kate Quinn, in her writings on the influence of the Black Power Movement on the Caribbean, “these Black Power currents flowed directly into the formative organizations of the NJM (New Jewel Movement), including MACE (Movement for Advancement of Community Effort) and its successor, MAP (Movement for Assemblies of the People), which merged with JEWEL (Joint Endeavour for Welfare Education and Liberation) to form the NJM in March 1973”.12 The significance of the revolution further extends into the many programs that were established under the leadership of the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG). The revolutionary government proposed and was successful in instituting community organizations notably in arenas for women and youth, for example, National Women’s Organization (NWO) and National Youth Organization (NYO); programs to improve adult education and literacy particularly the adult literacy campaigns to address adult illiteracy, for example, the Centre for Popular Education (CPE) and teacher training developments in the popular, National In-service Teacher Training Program (NISTEP). In addition to these social developments, the revolutionary government also encouraged the establishment of local industries, promoted worker rights through trade unionism and community development.13 Alternatively, it is as imperative to highlight the discrepancies during the Grenada Revolution as it is important to identify its advancements. In this sense, the Grenada Revolution proved controversial for some of the incongruities that also occurred. Throughout the leadership of the revolutionary government, there were accusations of repression of 11

Shalini Puri, The Grenada Revolution in the Caribbean Present: Operation Urgent Memory. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), 5. 12 Kate Quinn, “Conventional politics or revolution: Black Power and the Radical Challenge to the Westminster Model in the Caribbean.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 53, 1 (2015): 88. 13 Jorge Heine (Ed.), A Revolution Aborted: The Lessons of Grenada. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990), 16; Anne Hickling-Hudson, “Education in the Grenada Revolution 1979-83,” A Journal of Comparative and International Education 19, 2 (1989): 100-101.

Unearthing Maurice

163

opposition to the revolution, limitations on freedom of the press, internal fissures within the revolutionary government, inflation of economic progress to mask the reality of economic growth and lastly, the militarization of the population.14 In many ways, all of these developments were by no means directly tied to the involvement of the United States in the Caribbean during the period of the Grenada Revolution. Instead, the emergence of the factors that contributed to the overthrow of the Gairy government was related to the political aspirations of nationalism and self-determination and different understandings of grassroots democracy.15 However, it is disparaging to admit that these aspects of the revolution are often not the aspects that are discussed when remembering what occurred between 1979 and 1983. In some ways, there is little remembering of any of the events that transpired during this time, the positive and/or the controversial. The void in the Caribbean History syllabus in many relatable ways is synonymous to the void left by the revolution in Grenada. It also represents the active attempts at the erasure of the event. So much so, that accessing any kind of available information about the revolution is also particularly difficult. Leaving notable aspects of the Grenada Revolution out of the history syllabus and hence the instruction of the syllabus has in many ways perpetuated the silence about this part of the island’s history. As a result, the only means of breaking this silence is through finding accessible ways and avenues to discuss the numerous objective and subjective perspectives of the event. In this way, an approach to local history that gives voice to not only what occurred but how Grenadians have since then dealt with what occurred is paramount. Unearthing Maurice is the metaphor which represents not only Maurice the man, but the ideals that the revolution stood for and its significance as an historical and political event in the region. Maurice Bishop is known as the foremost personality of the Grenada Revolution because he was seen as the face of the revolution. The former Prime Minister emerged as leader of the revolutionary government after years of grassroots organizing against nineteen-year rule held by Sir Eric Matthew Gairy, the first Prime Minister of Grenada. The leaders of the revolutionary party and a majority of Grenadian were focused on the larger perspective of creating a free and democratic Grenada. An island free of dependence, imperialism, neocolonialism and built from the sweat and on the backs of a people who were proud, knowledgeable and patriotic about their country. These are the 14

George Brizan, Grenada Island of Conflict (London: MacMillan Education Ltd, 1998), 426. 15 Heine, A Revolution Aborted, 12-13.

164

Chapter Eleven

same ideals that this discussion locates its call for the use of local history to reignite a memory of a time when learning and knowing about your country was as important as studying Mathematics and Science. In working towards revealing the ways in which aspects of local history can complement the present Caribbean History syllabus our endeavours are threefold. First, we inquire about the need to justify the reasons for local history. Second, we explore the ways in which local history can develop young Grenadians and address the act of silencing past, traumatic historical events. Lastly, we propose the provision of local historical supplements, which can be suitable aids to bringing local history into the classroom. An alternative means of approaching the justification for the study local history is to inquire about the reasons for its absence- why shouldn’t we want students to learn more about their local history? Johnson speaks to the importance of local history by stating that “it has long been understood that the construction of historical narratives, based on local experiences, is an important aspect of nation building.”16 Moreover, “local history was seen as important in the movements towards independence in 1949 and with movements towards regional integration with federation.”17 As a result, local history is important in developing people for political change and advancements. In Joseph’s discussion of the attitudes towards History held by secondary school students in Trinidad, he states that history not only serves a political purpose by helping students to become responsible and engaged citizens, but also allows students to build perspective. Moreover, “the subject provides an opportunity for students to understand and appreciate the inevitability of change and the need to develop historical empathy as opposed to present-mindedness.”18 Some would argue that the present Caribbean History syllabus allows for these inquiries by teaching students about the shared historical past of the region through such topics of slavery and post-emancipation Caribbean society. However, even the Caribbean History syllabus and the reports from previous examinations has identified that this is insufficient. For instance, the third aim outlined in the syllabus expresses that Caribbean History should “sensitize students to the concerns peculiar to their own territory and the circumstances which shaped them.”19 Similarly, the responses to the latest examination question on the United States’ intervention in 16

Johnson, “Decolonizing the History,” 27 Ibid, 41. 18 Stephen Joseph, “What Are Upper Secondary School Students Saying About History,” Caribbean Curriculum, 8 (2015): 2. 19 Caribbean Examination Council, CSEC Caribbean History Syllabus, 1. 17

Unearthing Maurice

165

Grenada in the Caribbean History General Paper of 2012 exposed that the students’ lack of knowledge prevented them from providing appropriate responses. “Candidates seemed to understand the questions, but a lack of knowledge prevented some of them from giving appropriate responses. It is clear that some of them had gaps in their knowledge.”20 In Johnson’s discussion of the movement to establish a Caribbean History syllabus, J.E Clare McFarlane in 1949 JUT annual conference meeting stated “one of the chief reasons for teaching history is to enable us to build self-respect and admiration for the deeds, actions, and conduct of our fellow countrymen who are gone ahead of us”.21 In the context of the topic of the Grenada Revolution and its absence in the Caribbean History syllabus, it is essential to ask, are Grenadians afraid or perhaps ashamed of exploring this and other aspects of their past? What are they afraid of revealing in allowing students to explore the Grenada Revolution specifically? Are Grenadians ashamed or possibly confused about what occurred during the revolution and as a result of these feelings, are unwilling to discuss it with young Grenadians? Many reflections on the events of the revolution also speak to acts of erasure and forgetting that for some were necessary parts of moving forward after the demise of the revolution. According to Merle Collins, forgetting or the active repression of memories of the revolution were used as a means of survival, especially after Maurice was assassinated and the intervention occurred.22 Grenadians used selective remembering and or forgetting so that their lives could go on. According to Climo and Cattell “forgetting can be a profoundly political act, a rewriting of history to make it support existing or new power relationships.”23 However, in this act of attempting to move on from that history, the older generations of Grenadians have also robbed younger Grenadians of the opportunity of knowing themselves as well as knowing their community. On the other hand, it is indeed possible to consider that remembering what occurred and embracing that there are several truths and perspectives to the events that transpired during 19791983, can be a means of encountering healing. Moreover, for young Grenadians, being exposed to local history can allow students to connect pieces of them and their culture to what is studied on a page, therefore, 20

Ibid,8. Johnson, “Decolonizing the History,” 24. 22 David Scott, “The Fragility of Memory: An Interview with Merle Collins,” Small Axe, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2010): 81. https://muse.jhu.edu/ 23 Jacob Climo and Maria Cattell, Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives (California: Rowman Altamira, 2002). 25. 21

166

Chapter Eleven

bringing history to life. Ultimately, the act of remembering can also allow students to consider alternative narratives as the presence of more information about historical events can lead students to consider which histories and whose stories are prioritized. This call for local history undoubtedly fits into the four Pillars of Learning specifically learning to be which aims to provide students with self-analytical and social skills to enable individuals to develop to their fullest potential as well as becoming complete persons.24 This pillar directly connects the role of education in establishing an individual’s identity. The connection that is made here between local history as a point of collective memory and culture and identity is simple- once you know where you come from, you can redirect where you are going. In other words, Grenadians cannot form who they are as a people, if they do not know their roots. Invoking local history, is the key to those roots and hence their identity. The proposed outlet for the infusion of local history to the current CSEC Caribbean History syllabus is a local history curriculum supplement. The local history curriculum supplement will act as a component to be utilized by history teachers mainly throughout secondary schools- forms one to five, to expand upon some of the core concepts that are located in the present CSEC Caribbean History syllabus. In conceptualizing the supplement, the first and most important question that will be considered is- how best do students learn? In answering this question, this inquiry focused on discussions that promoted participatory instructional techniques and the use of narratives and storytelling in the classroom. “…people learn best by actively participating, questioning and collaborating in an authentic and contextually rich setting.”25 Storytelling in itself is a participatory technique and the use of narratives in the classroom assist in learning in numerous ways. Branaghan states that narratives are advantageous in teaching as they hold attention, are compelling and allow students to identify the important areas that require their focus. The local history supplement will be two fold. First, it will include interactive information and will highlight through artistic representations of a factual text or past events (see appendix). This artistic representation of factual information will act as a case as exemplified in case based instruction that is often used in the fields of business and law or in the use of journal entries and personal accounts of 24

Jacques Delors et al, Learning: The Treasure Within, 21. Russell Branaghan, “What is so Special about Stories? The Cognitive Basis of Contextuality Rich Learning,” in Storytelling as an Instructional MethodResearch Perspectives, ed. Dee Andrews et al. (The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2010), 12. 25

Unearthing Maurice

167

past events. According to Branaghan, cases are “examples of authentic situations in real world contexts that illustrate important lessons”.26 The aim here is to ensure that the supplement is interactive and differs aesthetically from what may be often seen in conventional history textbooks. The narrative and storytelling approach are specifically chosen as the focus of the local supplement will be to allow students to develop a relationship with and an understanding of the information without the direct pressures of remembering the information in order to replicate it precisely in an evaluation and assessment. Furthermore, in the case of the Grenada Revolution, where finding primary source material such as books and newspapers that existed during the period can be difficult to access, the supplement will provide an opportunity where the information from the existing primary resources can be recreated for the classroom environment. In the sample of the supplement that is seen in the appendix of this paper, an excerpt from one of Maurice Bishop’s most reputable speeches, “In Nobody’s Backyard” which was delivered on April 13th, 1979 and broadcasted over Radio Free Grenada will be utilized. Second, the supplement will provide an area where students can engage with the factual content through either finding other narratives and stories that further describe the historical event. In the case of the sample, some learning activities can include discussing with a family and/or a community member their memories of hearing Maurice’s speech and then sharing these stories with the class. Also, students can be encouraged to compare their interaction with hearing the speech for the first time, with listening to a current speech given by current leaders. What is significant in this second aim of the supplement is to allow the student to situate themselves within the content and or historical event. Branaghan confirms this by stating that narratives make content personal as learners search for themselves within the story or search for similarities between themselves and the characters within a story. Moreover, the activities within the supplement are developed with the intention of encouraging studentcentered learning. Student-centered learning allows the student to lead discussion and inquiry and the teacher to provide a collaborative and participatory learning environment. Introducing the notion that narratives bring alternative views of the past into the classroom can also allow students to build upon their critical thinking skills that are necessary in studying history. Consequently, the skills that can be developed through the implementation of local history supplements can be utilized across the 26

Branaghan, “What is so Special About Stories?”, 12-13.

168

Chapter Eleven

curriculum. Initially the local supplement can be recommended for use in the Caribbean History classroom but the hope is that it can also be transferable to other subjects, such as Social Studies and English Language and Literature. This initial idea will be further developed by collaboration from teachers, students and other experts in the areas of local history and curriculum development. The hope is that after further research and development, these local history supplements can be used in all levels of both primary and secondary schools. According to often said that those who cannot remember their past will inevitable relive it. Consequently, this local supplement is one piece that can commence a longer concerted effort to ensure that the past for Grenadians, is not forgotten. Throughout this exploration of the CSEC Caribbean History syllabus, it has been stated that there lacks the inclusion of local history that can add more contextual relevance to the study of the subject. Although there are references to historical events that are shared throughout the region: colonialism, slavery and independence, students learn little about how local people have contributed to the development of Grenada and the region. The Grenada Revolution is therefore positioned within this paper to exemplify the voids that exist within the present curriculum. Our responsibility as Grenadians and educational practitioners is to fill the gap that is missing in our curriculum. Hence, this proposition endeavours to supplement the present curriculum with injections of local history in a form of a curriculum supplement. Without this action, we run the risk of exposing ourselves to a feeling of what George Brizan refers to as “rootlessness”, where, as a people, we know so little of ourselves and our past that we lack a cultural and national identity.27 This “rootlessness” that Brizan speaks of is therefore primarily perpetuated by the silence surrounding our past, as we fear waking the metaphorical dead. What we must avoid doing in the unearthing of the past is to sanitize it for the sake of not offending the spirits of those long gone and the consciences of those who still alive. It is in our best interest to understand, learn from, and build on our past through education and memory. Whether we want to own it or not, it is our birthright, and that of future generations.

27

Brizan, Grenada Island of Conflict, 457.

Unearthing Maurice

169

Appendix Fig. 11-1 was created by Heroes of the World. Heroes of the World, is a project created by two Canadian artists, Mark Williams and Joe Bonsu assisted by business manager, Shawn Cuffie. It involves the creation of superheroes from around the world, placing each superhero in a different country and emphasizing the importance of unity through diversity in their artwork. “This work appeals to everyone and it instills a strong sense of pride for your heritage, but also touches strongly on the idea that diversity enriches our experiences and ultimately unites us,” explained the creators of the project.

170

Chapter Eleven

CHAPTER TWELVE MEMORIES OF GRENADA: THE ARTS, THE ORDINARY, AND RECONCILIATION1 SHALINI PURI

An aspiring writer and revolutionary is said to have asked Latin America’s most famous writer Gabriel García Márquez: “What is the revolutionary duty of a writer?” Replied García Márquez: “The revolutionary duty of a writer is to write well.” Art, even political art, is not politics. Literature does not legislate, poetry does not make policy, painting may persuade, but it does not resort to force. Art merely invites us to imagine and create a more perfect world. Art is also a particularly rich medium for exploring answers to the question: “How can we build a political future without relying on agreement about what happened?” One dominant mode of remembering the Revolution has been tragedy: understandably so, given the intensity of the revolutionary years and the scale and shock of its loss, its coming apart from within. Tragedy is also conceptually useful in that it, as Hegel puts it: Tragedy is not the conflict of right versus wrong; it is the conflict of right versus right. It is the conflict of two opposing but compelling logics, each made absolute. In this sense, it offers a framework that recognizes flaws, but does not merely

1

Acknowledgments: This essay draws on several previously published sources: my book The Grenada Revolution and the Caribbean Present: Operation Urgent Memory; my website www.urgentmemory.com; a blog I wrote for the Cuban journal Temas (http://temas.cult.cu/cuba-y-granada-amigos-para-siempre/); and my response to a review of my book on Grenada by Don Robotham. I am grateful to John Angus Martin and Nicole Phillip-Dowe, who were the organizing force behind the first public scholarly conference held on Grenadian soil on the subject of the Grenada Revolution. I had the honor of presenting a version of this paper there.

172

Chapter Twelve

condemn. It also recognizes that our actions have consequences that we cannot anticipate or control; yet nor can we escape them. But I wonder if tragedy has received too much emphasis. For tragedy also forgets the genuine joyfulness and profound creativity of the revolutionary years––not unmixed with authoritarianism and militarization and error – yet unparalleled in many ways in what they were able to accomplish and the way it energized an entire generation. Tragedy’s attention, moreover, is too focused on heroes. Its focus is the dead heroes; not the living chorus: ordinary people who live on and wonder and try to make sense of the past and puts things back together in the present. And so over the years that I have been thinking about the Grenada Revolution, I have been inspired by those who have found in sorrow not stasis or disillusionment alone, but a transformative power. If one sets aside the obvious revolutionary heroes for a moment, one might think of Nadia Bishop as a tragic figure. In some ways, she is like the Greek tragic heroine Antigone, who sought only to properly bury her brother Polyneices who had been denied proper burial on grounds that he had been a traitor. The Greek tragedy is often understood as a conflict between two valid logics: the law of family and the law of state. There is much to be gained by thinking about tragedy outside the male leadership of the Revolution. But it is also worth thinking outside the frame of tragedy altogether. For what did the historical Nadia Bishop actually do in 2008? What did she do that Antigone did not, perhaps could not? In her radio address to the nation and in her visit to Richmond Hill Prison, Nadia Bishop offered her unconditional forgiveness for the killing of her father, and asked for forgiveness on his behalf, too. And in that moment, she stepped out of a tragic script. By doing so she made a different set of things possible. In everyday life. In the present. Perhaps in the future. For a long time, there was very little literature set in Grenada after 1983, very little memory not bent under the weight of tragedy. But we have recently seen a flurry of new narratives, which take the memory of the Revolution in different directions and different genres––from memoir to novel to plays and films to new memorials. There is a reason that governments declassify documents after 25-30 years: it represents one generation. And although the passage of time might make memory less dangerous for the government, it also might make new approaches possible for the same or later generations. I am thinking now of work such as: David Franklyn’s novel Mission Betrayed, Urias Peters’ play Redemption Time, Teddy Victor’s posthumously published Deception on Conception, recent films and films in the making,

Memories of Grenada: The Arts, the Ordinary, and Reconciliation

173

Kamau McBarnette’s book My Mother and I, Ewart Layne’s We Move Tonight; new scholarly work by Patsy Lewis, Wendy Grenade, David Scott; Grenada Art Council’s exhibit on the Revolution in 2011, and the 34-volume magnum opus The Grenada Chronicles compiled by Ann Wilder and published by the Grenada National Museum. There are many more works on the Grenada Revolution in the making. When I think of this range of work, written with very wide-ranging political affiliations, what they share is an exploration of the revolution not in black or white terms, but with an attention to the complex ways in which it transformed daily life. In fact, even their tellings of March 13, 1979, the day the Revolution seized power, are instructive. Two of the most poignant moments in Urias Peters’ play Redemption Time (2013) occur when Steve, who trains as a member of the underground National Liberation Army, cannot read its initiation oath. And when that glorious day March 13 comes, for which he had been preparing so intensively, due to a complicated set of circumstances, his comrades don’t come for him, and he sleeps through the event. Hardly a rousing, climactic event. And yet so entirely plausible and moving. Similarly, in David Franklyn’s novel Mission Betrayed, the much-mythologized white flags of March 13, which people flew in support of the Revolution, members of the household of a character called Leroi fly a makeshift flag, hastily made out of his grandmother’s drawers––drawers she was able to afford as a result of the wage-raise that Eric Gairy secured for the workers. Moreover, they fly the flag to divert attention from Leroi’s father brutality towards NJM activists. Leroi joins the militia in part to establish his credentials and plead on behalf of his father. One could scarcely describe a more layered or complicated relationship to that flag! Both stories are told with deep affection and sensitivity to different points of view; neither romanticizes the Revolution nor heroizes its characters. They offer not spectacular accounts or replays of spectacular violence––but explorations of the way the revolution crossed everyday life: fatigue, sleeplessness, sexual desire, fascination with the Revolution, discomfort with new ideas, frustration that the pace of change was too fast (or too slow), memory of a neighboring child who was killed, his face blown off while he was trying to clean a gun, a disconnect between the desire to protect a friend from prison or revolutionary punishment and the desire to serve the Revolution. What you see in these new texts is people with cross-cutting affiliations and mixed motivations for their actions. It is precisely the engagement not with idealized absolutes but with the mixed bag of the everyday that makes them so compelling.

174

Chapter Twelve

There has, of course, always been such work. The famous Grenadian writer Merle Collins, in both her poetry and her novels, rarely offers a single revelatory moment when characters find their way to political positions. We see instead a series of negotiations and conversations and exchanges: a process. In her novel Angel, some time after father and daughter fight over Gairy and the Revolution, Angel’s father takes down the portrait of Gairy that so infuriates his revolutionary daughter––but he does that not necessarily out of political conviction, but out of love for his daughter. When Collins searches for what went wrong––and what went right––what strikes me most is the nuance and honesty and gentleness of her exploration. It is a loving critique. I think also of the St. Lucian poet Kendel Hippolyte and his poem “Revo Lyric,” a loving critique of the Grenada Revolution. Implicitly critiquing the Party leadership, he writes: dem go talk about de People an’ de Struggle an’ how in dis dry season t’ings too dread, too serious for love as though love not a serious t’ing (86) The poem redirects the revolutionary project from militarism and abstract correctness towards love, the very object of the Revolution: dis instrument we tryin’ to make—society economics—wood and string den politics—de major key but de real, real t’ing de reason an’ de melody de song we want to sing is love is love come doudou, sing wid me . . . . (86–87) The poem reminds us that there is no shortcut to “the people,” no decree that can enlist them. And loving relationships cannot wait. Beyond the march and the rally, which enlist “The People,” Hippolyte defends the

Memories of Grenada: The Arts, the Ordinary, and Reconciliation

175

lyric poem, with its intimate, affectionate, and singular invitation: “Come, doudou, sing with me.” Art, like politics, is not effective as an abstraction of formula; it lives and loves in each single iteration; it is this singularity that gives it life, freshness, and the gift of renewal.

Fig. 12-1: Boy and Cubana Plane, Pearls, St. Andrew, 2015. Photo: S. Puri.

In March 2015, when I was in Grenada, I had gone to Pearls, as I often do, to look at the abandoned planes that have been there since the fall of the Revolution. A young schoolboy passing by became interested in them and circled them and peered in. We started to talk: Me: Why do you think these planes are here? Boy: They crash? Maybe they run out of fuel and lose control. They land, they bump up, and crash. Me: And you think it happened how long ago? Boy: Twenty years? …. Me: So what do you think, what are you wondering, when you’re standing there looking at those planes? Boy: What happened to the passengers or the pilot? Me: So you were wondering what happened to the passengers or the pilot?

176

Chapter Twelve Boy: Yes, miss. Me: Okay. So, actually, from what I understand, the planes have been here since 1983. You know of anything that happened here in 1983? Boy: No, ma’am. Me: After the Grenada Revolution, the U.S. came in. This used to be the old airport at that time. They were still building the new airport. (See — that’s the old runway where the planes used to land.) So luckily nobody crashed, but… these planes were left here after the Revolution…. One of them was going to be used, I think, to spray crops. But I don’t think they ever used it, because by that time the Grenada Revolution fell. Have you heard about the Grenada Revolution? Boy: No, miss. Me: Oh, hmm. Boy: I might hear as I grow up. Me: Good point. …. Do you have any questions you would like to ask? Boy: If you can say what happened to the people on the planes?

Older generations are fond of lamenting the ignorance and inaction of the young––yet it is the older generation that bears responsibility for school curricula and the way that young people distribute their time. I was of course struck that this young boy who walked by these planes everyday knew nothing of how they came to be there, and knew nothing of the Grenada Revolution. But I was also struck at his singular and persistent care about the fate of the people he thought had been in the plane. In other words, he had the capacity for empathizing with people he didn’t know who were caught in a situation he didn’t understand. There is much to learn from and emulate about his curiosity and care––uninformed but also unconditional, undiscriminating and therefore inclusive, pre-political and yet surely integral to any progressive politics worth its name. Re-reading Eduardo Galeano’s book Children of the Days recently after he passed away, I came upon a passage where he commemorates the murder of Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin on January 15, 1919, her body tossed into a canal, her shoe dropping off in the streets. He also remembers the hand that picked up her shoe from the mud.2 Such is the kind of memory-work that is needed. It is such people who move the memory of the Grenada Revolution beyond a story of saints and devils, martyrs and traitors. Just as important as the state’s renaming of Grenada’s airport is the single hand that lovingly and anonymously scrawled graffiti on the wall: “March 13 is our history.” 2

“Enero 15. El zapato.” Los Hijos de los Días.

Memories of Grenada: The Arts, the Ordinary, and Reconciliation

177

Fig. 12-2: Children playing basketball at Fort George, St. George’s, 2007. Photo: S. Puri

In 2007, I was at Fort George, and saw these schoolchildren playing basketball within feet of the wall where Maurice Bishop and his comrades were executed. The bullet holes are still visible in the basketball pole, as is the graffiti. They seemed unaware of that wall’s history or indifferent to it. And the question took hold of me: what was going to be their relationship to the Grenada Revolution and what would shape that relationship? The issue is not only one of amnesia; the solution not just that Grenada Revolution should be represented in school curricula. The question is on what terms will they be taught to relate to it? Will they learn only a cautionary tale? A tale about a larger-than-life leader? A leader made larger than life by death? Or will they learn about the many people who poured their creative energies into the Revolution and the living legacy of their work? Will they learn about the ways in which the people of Grenada and neighboring Caribbean countries collectively transformed their understanding of citizenship and their political futures?

178

Chapter Twelve

I wonder: what would a public memorial to the Grenada Revolution look like that was not organized around loss and mourning? And what would a memory look like that was not organized around leaders and tragic heroes? What would a memorial look like that was devoted to the living––in all their diverse relationships to the Grenada Revolution? Death, martyrdom, sacrifice need not be the primary measures of revolutionary commitment. Perhaps it is time to explore the legacy of the living. And to learn from the arts that critique unaccompanied by love accomplishes very little. That multiple affiliations––revolutionary commitment, commitment to family or lover, or schoolteacher, or student––even when they are at odds with one another, are not failures of revolutionary discipline. They are acts of humanity and care.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aberdeen, Michael. Grenada Under the PRG. Port of Spain, Trinidad: People’s Popular Movement, 1983. Alexander, M. Jacqui. “Not Just (Any) Body Can Be a Citizen: The Politics of Law, Sexuality and Postcoloniality in Trinidad and Tobago and the Bahamas,” Feminist Review, No. 48, The New Politics of Sex and the State. (Autumn, 1994): 5-23. Bainbridge, Simon. British Poetry and the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: Visions of Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Bishop, Maurice. “Women Step Forward,” in Maurice Bishop Speaks: The Grenada Revolution, 1979–1983, edited by Michael Taber and Bruce Marcus. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1983. —. “In Nobody’s Backyard,” in Maurice Bishop Speaks: The Grenada Revolution, 1979–1983, edited by Michael Taber and Bruce Marcus. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1983. Branaghan, Russell. “What is so Special about Stories? The Cognitive Basis of Contextuality Rich Learning,” in Storytelling as an Instructional Method-Research Perspectives, edited by Dee Andrews, Thomas Hull and Karen De Meester. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2010. Brizan, George. Grenada: Island of Conflict. London: Macmillan Education, 1998. Caribbean Examinations Council. 2010. CSEC Caribbean History Syllabus Effective for examinations from May/June 2011, Kingston, Jamaica. Caribbean Examinations Council. 2012. Report on Candidates’ Work in the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate, St. Michael’s, Barbados. Climo, Jacob and Maria Cattell. Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives, California: Rowman Altamira, 2002. Collins, Merle. Because the Dawn Breaks!: Poems Dedicated to the Grenadian People. London: Karia Press, 1985. Collins, Merle. Angel. Washington D.C.: Seal Press, 1987. Cox, Edward. “Fedon Rebellion 1795–1796: Causes and Consequences,” Journal of Negro History 67 (1982): 7–19.

180

Selected Bibliography

Creft, Jacqueline. “The Building of Mass Education in Free Grenada,” in Grenada is Not Alone: Speeches by the PRG at First International Conference in Solidarity with Grenada, 49–60. St George’s: Fédon Publishers, 1982. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, Los Angeles: CA Sage Publications, 2013. Davis, Miranda. Third World, Second Sex: Women’s Struggles and National Liberation, London: Zed Books, 1983. De Tocqueville, Alexis. The Old Regime and the French Revolution, New York: First Anchor, 1955. Devas, Raymund. Conception Island, or the Troubled Story of the Catholic Church in Grenada. London: Sands and Co., 1932. —. A History of the Island of Grenada 1498–1796. St George’s, Grenada: Carenage Press, 1974. Emmanuel, Patrick, Farley Brathwaite and Eudine Barriteau. Political Change and Public Opinion in Grenada, 1979–1984. Cave Hill, Barbados: ISER, 1988. Emmanuel, Patrick. “The Grenada General Elections, 1976,” Bulletin of Eastern Caribbean Affairs 2, 1 (1977): 1-3. Fanon, Frantz. Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1968. Franklyn, David. Mission Betrayed. St. Peter: Caribbean Chapters, 2012. Garraway, D.G. A Short Account of the Insurrection of 1795–1796. St George’s, Grenada: Chas. Wells and Son, 1877. Gittens, Knight. The Grenada Handbook and Directory, 1946. Bridgetown: Advocate Company, 1946. Grenada Documents: An Overview and Selection, Department of State and the Department of Defense. Washington D.C., 1984. Halbwachs, Maurice. “The Collective Memory,” in The Collective Memory Reader, ed. Jeffrey K. Olick. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Hart, H.L.A. Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Hart, Richard. The Grenada Revolution: Setting the Record Straight, Caribbean Labour Solidarity and the Socialist Society, 2005. Hay, John. A Narrative of the Insurrection of Grenada. London: J. Ridgeway, 1823. Heine, Jorge (ed.) A Revolution Aborted: The Lessons of Grenada. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990. Hickling-Hudson, Anne. “Education in the Grenada Revolution 1979-83,” A Journal of Comparative and International Education 19 (1989): 95114.

Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

181

Hodge, Merle and Chris Searle. “Is Freedom We Making”: The New Democracy in Grenada. Grenada: Government Information Service, 1981. Jacobs, Richard W. The Grenada Revolution at Work. Pleasantville: The University of the West Indies, St Augustine, 1979. Jacobs, Richard and Ian Jacobs. Grenada: Route to Revolution, Havana: Casa de las Americas, 1980. Johnson, Howard. “Decolonizing the History Curriculum in the Anglophone Caribbean,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 30 (2002): 27-60. Joseph, Rita. “The Significance of the Grenada Revolution to Women in Grenada,” Bulletin of Eastern Caribbean Affairs 7, 1 (1981): 16–19. Joseph, Stephen. “What Are Upper Secondary School Students Saying About History,” Caribbean Curriculum 8 (2015): 1-25. La Duke, Betty. “Women Art and Culture in the New Grenada,” Latin American Perspectives: Destabilization and Intervention in the Caribbean 11, 3 (1984): 37-52. Layne, Joseph E. We Move Tonight: The Making of the Grenada Revolution, GRMF, 2014. Lenin, Vladimir. Lenin Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970. Lewis, Gordon. Grenada: The Jewel Despoiled, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987. Mahmud, Tayyab. “Jurisprudence of Successful Treason: Coup d’état and Common Law,” Cornell International Law Journal, 27 (1994): 103. Martin, John Angus. A-Z of Grenada Heritage. Oxford: MacMillan Caribbean, 2007. Martin, Tony. ed. In Nobody’s Backyard: The Grenada Revolution in its Own Words, the Revolution at Home, Vol. 1. Dover: The Majority Press, 1983. —, ed. In Nobody’s Backyard: Facing the World, Vol. 2. Dover: The Majority Press, 1985. M’Mahon, Francis. A Narrative of the Insurrection in the Island of Grenada in the Year 1795 by Francis M’Mahon, One of the three who Escaped the Massacre on the 8th of April, Grenada: printed by John Spahn, 1823. McBarnette, Kamau. My Mother and I: The Epic Story of Grenada. Island Girl Publishers, 2014. McIntosh, Simeon. Kelsen in the Grenada Courts: Essays on Revolutionary Legality. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers, 2008.

182

Selected Bibliography

Neimark, Phillip John. The Way of the Orisa: Empowering Your Life Through the Ancient Religion of Ifa, New York: Harper One, 1993. Noguera, Pedro. “Adult Literacy and Participatory Democracy in Revolutionary Grenada,” Caribbean Quarterly 14, 2 (1995): 38-56. Patterson Maurice. So Far So Mad. St. George’s, 1994. Payne, Anthony, Paul Sutton and Tony Thorndike, Grenada: Revolution and Invasion, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984. Phillip, Nicole L. Women in Grenadian History, 1783-1983. Kingston, Jamaica, University of the West Indies Press, 2010. Porter, Rosemary Anne. “Women and the State: Women’s Movements in Grenada and their Role in the Grenada Revolution 1979–1983.” PhD thesis, Temple University, 1986. Pryor, Frederic L. Revolutionary Grenada: A Study in Political Economy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1986. Puri, Shalini. “Finding the Field: Notes on Caribbean Cultural Criticism, Area Studies, and the Forms of Engagement,” Small Axe 17, 2 (2013): 58-73. —. The Grenada Revolution in the Caribbean Present: Operation Urgent Memory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Quinn, Kate. “Conventional Politics or Revolution: Black Power and the Radical Challenge to the Westminster model in the Caribbean,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 53, 1 (2015): 71-94. Rawls, John. Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Raz, Joseph. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Report of the Duffus Commission of Inquiry into the Breakdown of Law and Order, and Police Brutality in Grenada, Kingston, Jamaica: Duffus Commission, 1975. Rowbotham, Sheila. Hidden From History: Rediscovering Women in History from the 17th Century to the Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1974. —. Women in Movement: Feminism and Social Action. London: Routledge, 1992. Scoon, Paul. Survival for Service: My Experiences as Governor General of Grenada. Oxford: Macmillan Caribbean, 2003. Searle, Chris. Carriacou and Petite Martinique in the Mainstream of the Revolution. St George’s: Fédon Publishers, 1982. —. Grenada: The Struggle against Destabilisation. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative, 1983. Said, Edward. “Invention, Memory, and Place,” Critical Inquiry, 26, 2 (Winter, 2000): 176.

Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

183

Shemer, Noga. “Public Ideologies and Personal Meaning-Making in Postcolonial Grenada.” PhD Diss., University of California, San Diego, 2012. Shepherd, Verene. Women in Caribbean History: The British Colonised Territories. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers, 1999. Singer, Peter. Democracy and Disobedience. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Scott, David. “The Fragility of Memory: An Interview with Merle Collins,” Small Axe 14, 1 (2010):79-163. Stewart, Taimoon. The Black Power Revolution of 1970: A Retrospective. Barbados: Institute of Social and Economic Research, UWI, 1995. Sunshine, Catherine, and Philip Wheaton. Death of a Revolution: An Analysis of the Grenada Tragedy and the United States Invasion. Washington D.C.: EPICA, 1984. Catherine Sunshine, ed. Grenada: The Peaceful Revolution. Washington DC: EPICA Task Force, 1982. Thorndike, Tony. Grenada: Politics, Economics and Society. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 1985. Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History Boston: Beacon, 1995. Turnball, Gordon. A Narrative of the Revolt and Insurrection in the Island of Grenada. London: Verner and Hood, 1796. Wilder, Ann E. The Grenada Chronicles: NJM Takeover of Government, 1979, St. George’s, Grenada: The Grenada National Museum Press, 2016. Williams, Gary W. U.S.-Grenada Relations: Revolution and Intervention in the Backyard. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

CONTRIBUTORS

Marie Benjamin is an educator who resides in Toronto. Through a combination of her experiences as a teacher, she developed a perception of education as a field that extends beyond the classroom. Today, she continues to work with innovative community and educational programs for youth within the Caribbean region. Malaika Brooks-Smith-Lowe is co-founder of Groundation Grenada, a social action collective. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Studio Art from Smith College, and a Master’s of Arts with Distinction in Cultural Studies from The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine. Her research focused on cultural memory and the Grenada Revolution & U.S. “intervasion”. Merle Collins is Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Maryland. She is a writer of fiction, poetry, creative nonfiction, and critical essays. She is the author of The Governor’s Story, Authorized Biography of Dame Hilda Bynoe, 2013. In 2011, Peepal Tree Press re-issued her 1997 novel, Angel, and a short story collection, The Ladies are Upstairs. She is producer of the documentary, Saracca and Nation, which explores African influences on Grenadian culture. She is founder of the Hyattsville-based Carivision Community Theatre. Claude Douglas is a Lecturer and Chair of the Department of Social Sciences at the T.A. Marryshow Community College. Mr. Douglas has written a number of books including When the Village was an Extended Family in Grenada and Homosexuality in the Caribbean. Mr. Douglas serves on a number of boards, including that of the Child Protection Agency. Kadon Douglas is Communications professional and documentary producer/writer living in Toronto. Her key interests lie in education reform, mainly the decolonization of the Caribbean History curriculum and cultural policy development. She has devoted her life’s work to supporting and advancing new, often marginalized voices in film, television and the digital media industry.

Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983

185

Claudette Joseph is an attorney and co-director of the firm Amicus Attorneys. She was admitted to the Bar in 1996 and served as Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court from 1997-2000. She has served as a director for a number of companies and NGOs, including the Grenada Electricity Services Ltd. and the Grenada Community Development Agency. She is presently Chief Instructor of the Grenada Karate Federation. Lawrence Joseph is an attorney. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from The University of the West Indies (1970). He became a Barrister at Law in London (1977) and obtained Master of Laws and Doctor of Philosophy Degrees from the University of London (2006 and 2012). He has served as a Magistrate, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Attorney-General and Deputy to the Governor-General. Joseph Ewart Layne is the holder of two law degrees from London University, and a graduate of Hugh Wooding Law School, Trinidad. From a young age he was an activist in the NJM and became a prominent member. During the years of the Revolution Layne was an executive member of the NJM and a senior officer of the PRA. Following the invasion Layne was captured and imprisoned for 26 years in relation with the tragic events of October 19th 1983. He is the author of We Move Tonight: The Making of the Grenada Revolution (2014). Suelin Low Chew Tung is a mixed media artist and writer. She visually distils elements of the many layers of Grenadian history and discusses her artist’s study in conference and journal papers. Her largest body of work explores the traditional carnival masquerade as fragmented religion and socio-cultural traditions of disparate peoples transplanted from their ancestral homelands to an island environment. John Angus Martin is an archivist, researcher and historian of Grenada’s past, currently pursuing a PhD at Leiden University in Heritage Management. He holds Master’s degrees in History, and Agricultural and Applied Economics from Clemson University. He is the author of A-Z of Grenada Heritage (2007) and Island Caribs and French Settlers in Grenada, 1498-1763 (2013). He also co-authored The Temne Nation of Carriacou: Sierra Leone’s Lost Family in the Caribbean (2016).

186

Contributors

Kimalee Phillip is a graduate of Carleton University where she attained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Human Rights and Law, and a Master’s Degree in Legal Studies. She currently serves as a co-director of Groundation Grenada, the Equity Officer with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and a Support Worker with the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre. Nicole Phillip-Dowe is Head of The University of the West Indies, Open Campus, Grenada. She is author of the book Women in Grenadian History 1783-1983 (2010), which attained The UWI Press Best-Selling Scholarly Monograph. She is contributor to Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro-Latin American-Biography, edited by Franklin W. Knight, Henry Louis Gates Jr., New York: Oxford University Press (2016). Shalini Puri is an Associate Professor at The University of Pittsburgh. Her work centers on postcolonial theory and cultural studies of the global south, with an emphasis on the Caribbean. She has published four books including her award-winning book The Caribbean Postcolonial: Social Equality, Post-Nationalism and Cultural Hybridity (2004). Her most recent book is The Grenada Revolution in the Caribbean Present: Operation Urgent Memory (2014).

INDEX

Agriculture, 82 Agro-industries, 82 Bain, Fitzroy, 129, 131 Bain, Norris, 129, 131 Bishop, Maurice ancestral reverence to, 129 attack by counterrevolutionaries, 35 attributes of, 41 bodies of, 131 cultural landscape, 150 death of, 147-148 differences Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, 15 elections, 37 father-son relationship, 35 house arrest, 16 ideological split, 40 leadership of PRG, 66 murder trial, 22 painting of, 109, 114, 116 parliamentary democracy, 69 photo elicitation, 149 place of execution, 176 prime Minister 18, 21 speech socioeconomic transformation, 30-31 student views, 147 Bishop, Nadia, 172 Brizan, George, 147, 168 Bullen, Evelyn 129, 131 Bynoe, Hilda, 47 Caribbean Conference of Churches, 68, 75 Caribbean Examination Council (CXC), 132, 143, 152-156 Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC), 58, 158160, 166, 168

Castro, Fidel father son relationship, 35 support for Grenada Revolution, 12 Central Committee, 15, 40, 53, 60 Centre for Popular Education (CPE), 31, 50, 89, 92, 162 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 70, 135, 136, 137, 140 Coard, Bernard clique led by, 29-30 ideology of, 11 ideology difference of, 15, 40 leadership of RMC, 21 partners but different, 41-42 resignation from Central Committee, 42, 44 role of women in army, 58 student’s views of, 148-152 Coard, Phyllis, 48, 51, 53 Cold War, 46 Collins, Merle, 63, 137, 165, 174 Community School Day Programme (CSDP), 50, 80 Coup/Coup d’etat, 5, 19, 24, 25, 28 Creft, Jacqueline, 50, 53, 129, 131 El Salvador, 33, 46 Engels, Frederick, 60 Fedon, Julien causes of rebellion, 7-8 external influences of rebellion, 10 fought against colonialism, 90 internal conflicts, 4, 12-13 leader of revolt, 2-3 national hero, 2 Franklyn, David, 172, 173

188 Gairy, Eric abuses of democracy, 18 attributes of, 47-48 constitutionally elected government of, 18 leadership of GULP, 12 mass revolt 1951, 9 overthrow of, 27, 163 protest against, 12 struggles of 1970, 11 student’s views of, 148 wage raise, 173 Grenada United Labour Party, 47, 68, 88 Grenada Women’s League, 47 Grenade Wendy, 173 Grenada United Labour Party, 47, 68, 88 Grenada Women’s League, 47 Grenade Wendy, 173 Hayling, Keith, 129, 131 Home Industries Association, 47 Home Makers Association, 47 Hughes, Victor, 10, 14 Invasion, 7, 12, 16, 36 James, CLR, 43 Joint Endeavours for Welfare Education Liberation (JEWEL), 162 Joseph, Rita, 48 Kelsen’s theory of normativism, 20 of revolutionary legality, 21, 2225 La Grenade, Louis, 8 Lavalee, Jean Pierre 3, 10, 13 Layne, Ewart, 173 Lewis Patsy, 173 Lioness Club, 47 L’Ouverture, Toussaint, 90 Maitland, Evelyn, 129, 131 Manley, Michael 38, 46, 146 Marketing and national Importing Board, 82 Marxist Leninist/Leninism, 67, 70 Maternity Leave Law, 51, 63

Index Maurice Bishop International Airport, 137 Mc Barnette Kamau, 173 Movement for Advancement of Community Effort (MACE), 162 Movement for the Assemblies of People (MAP), 162 Muslims, 76 National In-service Teacher Education Programme (NISTEP), 50, 89, 92, 162 National Insurance Scheme, 82 National Liberation Army (NLA) 4, 12, 58 National Transportation Services (NTS), 51 National Women’s Organisation (NWO) activities of, 49-50 community organisation, 162 cooperatives, establishment of, 49 criticism of, 56-58 membership, 48 milk distribution programme, 49 non-traditional jobs, 51 organisation structure of PRG, 39 women in armed forces, 55 National Youth Organisation (NYO), 39, 78, 79, 162 New Jewel Movement (NJM) central committee of, 42 external influences of, 11 formation of, 12 opposition to Gairy regime, 8, 48 party structure, 39 staging of coup, 4-5, 47 tensions within, 16 view on Westminster system, 9 Nicaragua, 34, 46 Noel, Vincent, 129, 131 Nogues, Charles, 4, 10, 13, 14 Operation Urgent Fury, 138, 143

Perspectives on the Grenada Revolution, 1979-1983 People’s Revolutionary Army, 16, 39, 75 People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) arresting of counterrevolutionaries, 6 criticisms of, 58-60 elections, 37 education opportunities, 30 equal work for equal pay, 52 establishment of, 22 initiatives for women, 51-52 internationalist policy, 32-33 relationship with church, 69-74 relationship with Rastafarian sect, 75 relationship with Muslim sect, 76 Trade Union Recognition Law, 52 women in government, 53-54 war games, 35 Women’s Desk as a tool of, 49 Peters, Urias, 172 Pioneer Movement, 79 Pitt, Claudette, 48 Phillip, Joachim, 3, 13 Political Bureau, 59

189

Puri, Shalini, 124, 144, 146, 161 Quinn, Kate, 162 Radio Free Grenada, 83 Rastafarian, 6, 75-76 Reagan, Ronald, 33, 35, 138, 155 Revolutionary Military Council (RMC), 21, 26, 154 Rodney, Walter, 146 Scoon, Paul, 21, 27, 73 Scott, David, 173 Seventh Day Adventist Church, 7374 Soroptomists, 47 South Africa, 33 Stroude, Tessa, 48, 49, 60-61 Television Free Grenada, 83 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 140 Ventour, Etienne, 3 Victor, Teddy, 173 Whiteman, Unison 9, 11, 12, 31 Wilder, Ann, 173 Williams, Dessima, 53 Williams, Eric, 158 Women’s Desk, 48, 49, 62 Young Women’s Christian Association, 47