The Pinnacle of Independence

Daniel Thwaites

My son in university has taken to wry smiles and exasperated looks while I curse at the television, fulminate against rising taxes everywhere, and adjust my ever-expanding list of 'People Destroying Western Civilisation'. Based on his obvious sympathies with some notorious offenders on my list, I expect it's just a matter of time before he gets around to telling me, Warmylike: "Go to hell!" Still, owing to his carefulness, I'm guessing that by the time that occurs, he will know where his next month's rent will be coming from. Part of behaving independently is taking responsibility for oneself.

These thoughts came to mind as I was reading the Rev Garnett Roper's excellent In Focus article of February 9 about the Pinnacle impasse. This is the one where private developers wish to parcel and sell land that Rastafarians believe is hallowed. Anyway, as I was bobbing along on the wave of his reasoning, clapping hands and singing Hallelujah, I came across the following:

"It must not be forgotten that this is fundamentally a project about justice. And, therefore, it is a locus for reparations to be paid by the British monarchy ... . The atrocities perpetrated against Rastafari were carried out by the colonial government and those who succeeded them as the Government of Jamaica. They must pay for these monumental acts of injustice carried out at The Pinnacle ... . This project should be presented to the British government as a first among many reparations projects."

'Stop right there!'

I had to pull brakes and the angelic singing I was hearing (see above) stopped. How de Queen come inna dis? We've been independent for nearly 52 years, and we should be anxious to honour Rastafari as a Jamaican thing, right? Surely, it's up to us to establish our own heroes, monuments, and hallowed ground.

Let me hasten to say that I have got enjoyment and instruction from Roper's writing for decades, including this article. So this is not about (what seem to me) rather sensible proposals about that property, but about something different, and perhaps even more delicate than sharing the land at Pinnacle: Who should foot the bill for our heritage?

Perhaps a topic like this touches the broader issue of reparations, but that is a separate and interesting question in its own right, about which I don't have a settled opinion. I've promised myself to read up on it. On the face of it, though, given plaintiffs with locus standi, a traceable defendant, a recognisable cause of action, a court of competent jurisdiction, and a mechanism of enforcement, I see no reason why the British ought not to pay my great-great-great-grandmother copious amounts of money for the horrible things they did to her and her family.

That said, and however much Britain may owe my foreparent, it's less likely that they owe me, either from the moral or the legal point of view. Don't misunderstand me, though: If they're paying, I'm in agreement, for every mickle mek a muckle.

Queen going broke

Interestingly, there were (to me) shocking headlines in Britain just last month that Queen Elizabeth's Royal 'Family Fund' is near bankruptcy. I would have thought she still possessed a few islands, from the sale of which she might make a few pounds. The Queen's problems aside, what can't be doubted is that the British government, though not quite as addicted to debt as our own, isn't swimming in loot either.

But regarding a site which we claim is of spiritual importance to us, it's the idea and locution that 'they must pay', rather than 'we must pay', that interests me. How could it be the British government's responsibility to safeguard our heritage?

For individuals, as for nations, priorities are laid bare whenever one has to reach for the wallet. Where we choose to expend resources says something about what we value, for where we store our treasures, there will our hearts be also. So if Pinnacle is important to us, or to enough of us, the correct course of action is to invest in it. Actually, I am surprised that some wealthy Rastafarians haven't come together to buy the lands.

But let's imagine that doesn't happen. I would support tax dollars being diverted to preserve our cultural heritage, despite being aware that culture is most alive when it is spontaneously supported by the society that birthed it.

Our African ancestry

We have to acknowledge that in these past 50 years, our attitudes have shifted considerably, and in some cases - in this case - they have improved. Consider the following exchange in Parliament as both sides debated the cost of a trip to Addis Ababa:

"The African blood runs deep in my veins ... ," [Portia] said.

"The African blood runs deep in me, as well," Holness responded.

"No, no, no," shouted government MPs, which angered Holness.

On the face of it, it would appear that both leaders are quite anxious to identify themselves as Africans of some sort, and understand the social and political desirability of that connection. Nor is that an isolated exchange. Canvass the country's leadership and I guarantee they will each tell you, no matter how pigmentally challenged they might be to the casual observer, or however Asiatic in appearance, that they, too, derive directly from Mama Africa and have a great-great-great-granny who suffered horribly from the British.

I point to this to say: We've bid the British bye-bye and they are long gone. If we are to make a go of having a civilisation, it's up to us, not them. We can't expect them to help us with it, and we shouldn't expect them to pay for it. They're having difficulty enough paying for what's left of theirs. In any event, how could we possibly want the British to pay for those parts of our cultural heritage formed precisely in opposition to them? What Independence is there in that?

Daniel Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.