The Study of Racialism

I could point out many interesting things with this article but if you are not well versed in West Indian society in general you would probably not understand them all. I will say this: despite the wife's personal identification, judging by the picture above no one would refer to her as "spanish" in Trinidad. Nor Indian. Nor dougla. And definitely not white.

A Trini might say she head bazodee and she schupidee while not so subtly pointing out her obvious self hatred at being black.

Violation of 2.6. You are warned.

Oh come on Frank! In Trinidadian society she is obviously considered black so for her to say she isn't sure whether she is black, spanish, indian or white would be looked upon as a foolish statement by any West Indian, even moreso by another Trinidadian (aside from her husband I suppose).

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade (no pun intended)

I agree, Anonymouse this lady would be considered black to many. But to me she looks kind of mixed like black and indian.

That she looks black to you may be important to you, but it is uninteresting to me and to this site (since I make the rules). Nevertheless, your making this claim about your own beliefs is not a rules violation.

Your claim about the beliefs of all West Indians (aside from her husband) is unsubstantiated. Furthermore it is contradicted by Harry Hoetink's studies of "racial" perception in the Caribbean, by the PR cenusus, and by many well-known studies of Haiti and Santo Domingo, all of which islands are in the West Indies. This claim will be a rules violation triggering your suspension unless you provide a source within 24 hours.

Finally, my above warning was not about either of those. It was about your violation of the rule against criticizing someone's choice of self-identity by writing, "her obvious self hatred at being black." Please indicate that you understand the difference between your unsolicited perception of someone's looks and your overt criticism of their ethnic choice. If you honestly cannot grasp the difference, I will suspend your posting privilege now.

It is not about whether she looks black to me or not. I specifically stated to most Trinidadians she would be considered black. Having one Indian great grandparent (or even grandparent) does not somehow make one's "race" ambiguous in the Caribbean because it is very common occurance. My ex-wife has an Indian maternal grandmother and grew up in an Indian household (she spent many years living with her grandmother plus her mother remarried an Indian man). To be honest with you culturally she is more indian than black. But that does not change that she is viewed as black.

People who are identified (as opposed to self identified) as mixed usually have 3 or more grandparents from different racial groups AND have that racial ambiguous look to their features. A biracial person is usually not called mixed. I'll use my best friend as an example. He is considered black even though his father is a white man from London. He has a child and the mother is half East Indian, half Japanese. And while culturally the child is "black" in the Caribbean, he is considered mixed.





And with all due respect, studies done on other islands in the Caribbean have no relevance in this discussion. Each island has their own history and idiosyncrasies with regard to race. I am West Indian and I know my people. And as a West Indian I have a better grasp of race, racial identities, racial politics and racial struggles than a non-west indian. And the fact that you bring up studies done in Haiti, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic and try to apply them to Trinidad shows your lack of understanding of racial identities in the English speaking Caribbean.




I stated what the average Trinidadian of any race would think (and might even say) to this woman because West Indian in general are quick to offer unsolicited advice. But for the sake of this discussion I understand the difference between unsolicited perception of someone's looks and overt criticism of their ethnic choice.

Apparently, you have never heard of Hoetink. You now have 22 hours. (Unless you defy me again by suggesting again that you are exempt from the rules, in which case I will suspend you on the spot.)

22 hours to do what? Query the population of Trinidad & Tobago? This is absurd. First you say my statements are contradicted by Harry Hoetink yet I fail to see where Mr. Hoetink addresses the population of Trinidad & Tobago. Please show me where my statements regarding race, racial identity in Trinidad & Tobago are contradicted by Mr. Hoetink. Take all the time you like.

Additionally you brought up studies done in The Dominican Republic, Haiti as well as the census of Puerto Rico and somehow attempted to apply those findings to Trinidad & Tobago. Hispaniola and Puerto Rico are located hundreds of miles away from T&T and those countries are culturally dissimilar to boot. Why should any studies done in those islands have any relevance in T&T? Apples and oranges.

Whether I have or have not heard of Hoetink is irrelevant. You stated that Hoetink contradicts me but have not shown how or where that contradiction lies. If this site truly prides itself on fact then you should do so. But by not doing so you are demonstrating to everyone that as site operator/owner the rules that you set forth do not apply to you. "Do as I say and not what I do". As site operator you have every right to do so but I think that would do irreparable harm and erode the purpose of this site

I will restate: You state that the views that I have presented on race in the Caribbean, specifically in Trinidad & Tobago are contradicted by Hoetink. Please identify where that contradiction lies. I cannot defend my position if you do not identify where the bone of contention lies.

Anonymouse's posting privilege is hereby suspended until midnight, January 3, 2008 for violating paragraphs 1.22 and 3.2 of The Rules. Specifically, Anonymouse made an improbable claim and failed to provide a source when asked. The claim was that all West Indians would consider a person in the sample photo above to be "black." Rather than providing a source, Anonymouse treated the administrator's request as a challenge and defended his rules violation with five evasions as follows:

1. Anonymouse said he was talking only about Trinidadians, rather than all West Indians. In fact, his words were (post 33955): "for her to say she isn't sure whether she is black, spanish, indian or white would be looked upon as a foolish statement by any West Indian...."

2. Anomymouse repeatedly denied that the Caribbean islands of Spanish culture are part of the West Indies.

3. Anonymouse implied that by claiming West Indian heritage, he was exempt from having to provide sources for his assertion (post 33959): "I am West Indian and I know my people. And as a West Indian I have a better grasp of race, racial identities, racial politics and racial struggles than a non-west indian." This is not only arrogant and ignorant, but it insults the many scholars of every nation who have spent years studying "racial" perception in the West Indies and whose peer-reviewed published works are part of the curriculum at all three campuses of the University of the West Indies.

4. Anonymouse demanded that the administrator provide sources to disprove Anonymouse's original claim (post 33963): "you say my statements are contradicted by Harry Hoetink yet I fail to see where Mr. Hoetink addresses the population of Trinidad & Tobago. Please show me where my statements regarding race, racial identity in Trinidad & Tobago are contradicted by Mr. Hoetink." No. It does not work that way. Anonymouse made an implausible statement of fact. He was asked to provide sources as per the rules. The administrator made no statement of fact (other than the Caribbean islands of Spanish culture are part of the West Indies, which any map will confirm). Having made no factual claim, the administrator is under no obligation to provide sources.

5. Anonymouse implied that it is impossible to study the varying ways that people of the West Indies perceive "race." He wrote (post 33963): "22 hours to do what? Query the population of Trinidad & Tobago? This is absurd." If Anonymouse believes that the only way to defend his original implausible claim is to "query the population of Trinidad & Tobago," then he should not have made the claim. But in fact, many scholars of "racial" perception have conducted detailed studies in all of the West Indies, especially in Trinidad and Tobago. Among these are: Oliver Cromwell Cox, Caste, Class, and Race: A Study in Social Dynamics (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1948); Winthrop D. Jordan, "American Chiaroscuro: The Status and Definition of Mulattoes in the British Colonies," in Slavery in the New World: A Reader in Comparative History, ed. Laura Foner and Eugene D. Genovese (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969); F. James Davis, Who is Black?: One Nation's Definition (University Park PA: State University of Pennsylvania, 1991); Hilary Beckles, A History of Barbados: From Amerindian Settlement to Nation-State (Cambridge UK, 1990); Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution (New York, 1988); Arnold A. Sio, "Marginality and Free Coloured Identity in Caribbean Slave Society," in Caribbean Slave Society and Economy: A Student Reader, ed. Hilary Beckles and Verene Shepherd (New York, 1991); and of course, the most highly respected expert on the topic, Harry Hoetink, Caribbean Race Relations: A Study of Two Variants (London: Oxford University, 1971).

As mentioned above, in my administrator's role I have no obligation to "disprove" Anonymouse's implausible claim about the West Indies, nor even just about Trinidad. Nevertheless, in my pedagogical role I must point out the most glaring inaccuracy in Anonymouse's claim: Every expert on the subject, as well as every Jamaican, Barbadian, and Trinidadian of my acquaintance whom I have asked to examine the photo, agree that the person in question would be considered "coloured," not "black" in the Anglophone West Indies. Indeed, a three-label system is the hallmark of "racial" perception in every former British colony outside of North America. As a matter of fact, until recently, coloured and black Trinidadians even had different privileges under island law.


(For the peer-reviewed footnotes to the above, see Features of Today's Endogamous Color Line.)

Donning my administrator's hat once again, I now question whether Anonymouse has any connection to Trinidad or to the British West Indies. He is apparently ignorant of the island usages of "black" versus "coloured." He unfamiliar with the names of the scholars whose works form the basic history curriculum taught on the islands. He has apparently never set foot in any of the campuses of the University of the West Indies. This site does not ask that members provide any personal information (real name, address, profession, etc.). But Anonymouse has implied that his claim of having Trinidadian roots exempts him from the rules. I suggest that this claim is spurious and that this will affect his credibility in the future.

Fwsweet, I am seeking clarification. Are you saying that the lady in this photo was considered coloured by your aquaintainces? If that is correct, then what you are saying contradicts my experiences with people from the Caribbean. In my own experience coloured in not a widely used term except amongst the older generation such as a person like my great-grandma who is nearing hundred.

Trinidadian culture is varied, complex and heterogenous and it is common for people to be all categories as opposed to choosing one category, to which they may or may not belong.

Yes, there is a greater culture/society but there are also group identifications that permeate each socia/ethnic strata.
For example, there are a group having origins in Corsica (Cipriani, Mavrogordato, and sometimes Agostini) who are generally considered part of the so called French Creole group, which today is neither French nor Creole. Many time they fit the non-Anglo Saxon profile of ususlly 'mixed' but are basically European as opposed to the group known as Afro-Trinis or Indo-Trinis. Additionally, there are individuals with the surnames of the above groups but who are Afro or Indo Trini or dougla (Afro-Indo).

There is another group from an area called Paramin who keep alive the old parang tradition (origin in Venezuela) and they are usually not part of the Afro-Indo complex, though they do share African or Asian Indian ancestry. What I am saying is that an individual goes from one group to another (in most cases) without having to develop an "either/or" complex so social class is rather fluid (in most instances).

In recent years, the native American tradition (Carib/Arawak) has been renewed with more people taking part and acknowledging and sharing with some South American Carib/Arawak caciques, the commonality of roots (Carib/Arawak come from Northern South America indigena roots) one of their leaders by surname is Asian Indian whose father married an Carib/Arawak descendant and that is the tradiion he follows

Justa Werges, Queen of Caribs: T&T Santa Rosa Community:
http://www.centrelink.org/Queen.html


http://web.archive.org/web/200206290006 ... ndian.html
President of Santa Rosa Community is Ricardo Hernandez Bharath

Main site:
http://www.centrelink.org/Trinidad_Tobago.html

Some links do not work!

Many Trinis like myself can enjoy Divali (lighting puja and bussin' bamboo), then go to a parang fete (fiesta/part) guzzle down some ponche (ponche crema-popular Trini-Venezuela Christmas drink, an eggnog/rum? babash drink for the holidays, enjoy Christmas, fast for Eid, and throw colored powder for Holi, and enjoy pan music!

Another thing is that many who call themselves Afro-Trinis tend to have come from other islands (Grenada, St VIncent, St Lucia, Barbados) because in those days Trinidad was the place to go to find work and it had an oil industry. Since English did not become a main language until the early 1900 (though taken over by the British in 1797) the persistance of a 'French Creole' was more entrenched due to that group having political clout vis a vis the English and their funny ways!

Yes, that is what I am saying. I showed the picture around on Christmas Eve at a party at the house of my daughter-in-law's parents. Just counting people NOT born in the U.S., there were three Trinis (an engineer, a medical technician, and a languages professor at UWI--St. Augustine), two Badians (both physicians, one of whom teaches at BWI--Cave Hill), and two Jamaicans (a lawyer and a real estate investor) in attendance. All agreed that the woman in the photo looks "coloured" and definitely not "negro" or "black." Incidentally, all of the people whom I asked were over 60 years old. There were many others also present, but I did not ask their opinions because they were born in the U.S. or Canada, and I figured that they were already acculturated to U.S. perceptions.

I find this to be very interesting. Generally I have found coloured to be an unacceptable word these days. Incidently I found negro seems to have negative connotation but is still used by the older generations.

'Coloured' in the British sense usually refers to those of mixed ancestry who usually have a degree of African ancestry while the 'archaic' word (usage) negro tends to be used by the older generation to describe unmixed African ancestry.

Periodically, one will still hear the word negro being used to distinguish from Indian since both Indian and Negro will have black skin (epidermal objective reality) so the distinction of negro (vs Indian) may be necessary.
Asian Indian as opposed to Carib or Arawak Indian!

It is hard to say without comparative studies, but I suspect that it is a combination of generation and national culture.

A re-enactor friend of ours (also in her 60s) portrays Elizabeth Keckly (seamstress to Mary Lincoln and other Washington VIPs of the time). I recall a living history presentation, as Mary Lee and I were coming off stage after our set, the MC announced, "And now I would like to introduce Elizabeth Keckly, Black seamstress to the First Lady!" Our friend pierced the poor man with a dagger-like glare and intoned loud enough to be heard by all, "Sir! I will have you know that I am not black. I am a woman of colour!" Of course, Mary Lee and I chuckled, thinking that she was simply acting in character for the 1860s. But later on, out of character, she used a similar phrase. So I conclude that it has something to do with your generation.

On the other hand, among my personal USAmerican friends, I find that many use the U.S. terminology (Black, African-American) even though they are my age or older. And, according to the guests at the party last week, who were visiting from the islands, "coloured" is still used in the islands. The scholarly literature (which I cited above) is unanimous about this. And so, I suspect that other countries' terminology may differ from the U.S.

I think this may be generational. I asked my mother about the term coloured and she said is an old term used to refer to people as black. I have a friend from Northern Ireland and she said her grandmother instructed her to call black people coloured because calling someone black would be deemed offensive. Therefore I am unsure if coloured means someone of mixed ancestry or refers to all people of colour.

Hoetink's study is decades old and attitudes have shifted since. There are very clear differences in racial identity between the Hispanic and nonHispanic Caribbean, and even between various nonHispanic societies, so the comparisons arent valid.

Now whether or not most West Indians would consider her to be "black", I dont know, but I suspect that many would. In fact I suspect that a Trini/Guyanese might view her differently than some one from a more predominantly African island, given that African/Indian mixtures are not infrequent and so some might accord her that consideration if she insists that she is mixed.


For clarification. This person is not considered "red", to use a colloquial way of describing what Hoetink refers to as "colored". Maybe she might pass as a dougla depending on the views of the person doing the describing.

To be fair is that a scientific poll? Most assuredly there are likely to be generational differences as attitudes have shifted over time. Its a pity that there were no Caribbean born people under 60, and especially under 35 as their responses might have shocked you.


By the way I dont see the relevance of their occupations as these certainly do not validate or invalidate what West Indians think, and might even disclose a class bias.

Your poll wasnt scientific however any more than was anonymouse who offered his opinion based on his experience.

"Coloured" can be used in either context. Some older people think that the word "black" is vulgar and an insulting way to describe some one, especially one who they respect so they use the term "coloured". "Coloured" can also be used to describe some one of mixed EUROPEAN and African origins (note; fwsweets not Indian and African and most might perceive that woman to be if indeed they do consider her to be "mixed") but it is not frequently used these days.

In every day conversation to describe some one of mixed African and European ancestry the terms "brown", or "mixed" or more colloquially "red" (the latter not always positively accepted) are used.

I dont know anyone of my age range (35-55) who uses the term "coloured", though I know older people who came of age in the colonial pre Black Power Caribbean who do.

It is reasonable to suggest that people who came of age in an era when the subtle distinctions of color mattered much socially and even economically and occupationally would be more sensitive to subtle gradations than some one coming of age in an era when it matters little. So the age of the person being asked is a very important factor in determining attitudes to color. Certainly Jamaica and Barbados were notorious for being color obsessed societies (and I mean Color not race). Looking at the leadership these days I suspect that people care much less about these things in 2007.

BTW your reference to your friend's grand mother who thought that the term coloured was better than black reminds me of an aunt of mine who would be considered "brown/red/coloured/mixed" who told me that I am not "black" because black is a vulgar word. That I should refer to self as "coloured" or even "negro" (though that has lower class connotations to her). She would clearly not consider me to be "mixed" in the same sense that she would consider herself to be given that I am significantly darker and much more SSAfrican in phenotype than she is.

I think maybe this is why "coloured" is less often used because it can be confusing as to what is meant. Whereas within a West Indian setting every one knows what "brown" or "red" means. Now I am seen as "black" or "dougla", but never referred to as "red" because while it is conceded that there might be European ancestry its not seen as significant. Ironically I am more European in ancestry than East Indian, though this is not how most people see it.