Letters & Opinion

Let’s Fix This Broken Independence Symbol – Once And For All!

Image of Earl Bousquet
By Earl Bousquet

I’M not all that excited about joining the talk, discussion, debate and argument about the differences between male and female, man and woman, he and she, persons and people, gender balance and gender neutrality. Nor am I that moved by all the similar talk and action about sexes and sex, LGBTI and all the other associated abbreviations. Not that they don’t matter. They do. But the associated happenings and results are moving much too fast for me to keep up with.

It’s like all the talk about whether Independence is Independence if it wasn’t fought for – the argument that people and nations that didn’t battle and shed blood for their freedom are less free or less appreciative than those that did.

I think every people everywhere deserve to be sovereign and there should be no colonies where people’s lives and destinies are decided and controlled by others elsewhere. I will respect the status quo everywhere until the people affected change it however they decide – and when they do, I will respect their decision until it is changed by them and every time they change it.

When it comes to Saint Lucia, I have since 1979 refused to accept certain things about our Independence, especially the date on which it was proclaimed. Other things that concern me about it, too, include the process leading to and by which we were “granted” independence, the positions adopted for and against, the happening on the day itself and the treatment of the date thereafter.

Every year since 1979, I have written my positions on any or all of the above. This year, however, I have a new humbug.

I don’t know exactly how and, therefore, I have been advised to be careful about the phrasing used to describe my concern and my recommendation on how to address this problem, which is not at all new. In fact, it’s as old as we have been independent – all of 39 going to 40 years.

It’s one of those things that stare us in the eyes but we don’t see, that speak loudly into our ears, but we don’t hear, that we know so well but just don’t give a second thought to.

It’s about one of our national symbols.

No, not the flag or whether the black should have been over the white; not our national pledge that was changed only after it was revealed that it had been plagiarized from Jamaica’s; and certainly not the fact that some people will still say our national dish is “Pyrex” and others will confidently tell you it’s chicken backs.

None of the above…

My bone this year is about our National Anthem.

No, not about why it wasn’t written by a born Saint Lucian; not about why it is sung like a hymn, not about why it wasn’t and isn’t accompanied by an official Kweyol version.

None of the above, either…

Instead, simply, it’s about the fact that while it starts with reference to “Sons and daughters of Saint Lucia”, it goes on later to ask God to “Guard her sons from woe and harm.”

“Her sons”? So what about her daughters? Don’t they deserve blessings and guardianship, too?

Like I said at the start, I don’t want to go into all that talk and thought and argument about whether our island is a “he” or a “she”, a “him” or a “her” – or what’s the difference between a nation that’s named after a man or a woman. Is Saint Lucia our “Motherland” or our “Fatherland”?

I raised the issue with a friend who warned me, upfront, that my earlier indication that I would be writing an article calling for making our national anthem gender neutral could or would carry with it some unintended complications, as gender neutrality might not be what I am actually thinking of.

I learned, thankfully early enough, that this particular phrase is more about the physical neutrality between a man and a woman, an issue with trans-gender connotations, while what I am thinking of calling for is instead gender balance – as in ensuring that both men and women are equally considered in the human equation.

So then, proceeding with my understanding of the need to be careful to be more balanced than neutral in my coinage, my question is: How do we gender balance our national anthem?

I don’t really know exactly how, but I do know that we are not the first or only country with a national anthem that is not balanced in its references to men and women or its sons and daughters.

Canada has had that problem for as long as it has been independent and it is now about to address the issue. But, God forbid, I do not want us to go the Canada way in addressing it.

The Canadians accept that their anthem is unbalanced, but it has taken longer than any Canadian has lived to agree on how to address it because the politicians in the Canadian parliament have been unwilling and therefore unable to agree on how to do it and who should do it. The parties fought over it, the houses of parliament wrestled over it – and now they have agreed to disagree, so they agree to let Canadians have a big fight over it through a referendum.

No, I don’t support that we should go that way. If we agree that our national anthem is imbalanced, then let us get it balanced in the easiest possible way — by letting those who can balance it just do their job. If it requires a decree by the Governor General or a majority vote in the Parliament, then let that be done. We didn’t have a referendum to adopt it broken as it is, so we don’t need a referendum to fix it.

We don’t even need to ask a question about it: it is imbalanced and should therefore be balanced. If we don’t fix it now, we will simply be passing the buck to a future generation. The anthem and its imbalance belongs to all of us – those born before and after 1979 – so let us, all of us, just fix it.

Let’s just do it — and consider it as Case Closed!

1 Comment

  1. The San or Saan people are members of various Khoisan-speaking indigenous hunter-gatherer people representing the first nation of Southern Africa, whose territories span Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and South Africa (Wikipedia,2018) They were forced (many enslaved because they were placid folks) to retreat to drier/desert areas as Bantu tribes moved in with greater numbers (hmmmm passport citizenship sales come to mind????)

    The Yanomami (northern border of Brazil with Venezuela- as in deep Amazon rain forest) are egalitarian in that married couples house and land ownership passes through matriarchal heritage and all others live in SHARED communal buildings (as in equal distribution of food and other daily living essentials). Their culture has been terrorized by mostly depraved Portuguese Gold speculators.

    Finally, we examined a European Group the Scottish Crofters. You can do your own Google search to learn more. Nevertheless, the backbone of this shared/sublet agricultural land tenancy – is dependent on WOMEN! Kinda reminds us of the LOADING OF GREEN GOLD on Geest ships (VFort and Castries ports during the heyday of Sultan Compton’s sultanate 🙂 Only, in this locale Banana landlords and their sublet tenants made pounds /shillings /pence to every FARTHING these women ship loaders made. Definitely NOT egalitarian-to this day!

    Why all this introductory canon about egalitarianism? Quite simply our Beautiful flag needs a SMART little redesign to make it Egalitarian in spirit and Historically correct. All due respect and honor for Mr. St. Omer’s rendition but if you are going to represent the peoples of the land (in ascendant waves of arrival-white followed by black), then you are missing a red triangle (ARAWAKS AND CARIBS) atop the white and black one!
    The flag as is denying the first people nation (Arawaks) established in St. Lucia and the Caribbean. It conspires with those historians that assert Columbus Discovered the Caribbean/Americas (with millions of indigenous already living there for eons!). It also becomes part of the the great cover up of the wholesale genocide/terrorism/ conducted on these indigenous populations in support of that Discovery.
    Yes, our flag (unlike KENYA’s with its Maasai shield/spears front and center on their flag, paying homage to their indigenous people) ignores /devalues the TRUE first wave, in favor of the latter two. As is, our flag represents a great injustice and cover up of gross inhumane atrocities towards our first St. Lucians. We are no better than Hitler’s Nazis in this regard!

    The fairest solution is to make the flag a common denominator for the 3 great waves of St. Lucians and all subsequent waves of its human milieu. We do this by asking a simple question. What about St. Lucia (without people or animals) makes it a coveted paradise for all? Simply, magnificent sun, sea/ocean and great volcanic land. Since we have the magnificent sunshine and sea/ocean already perfectly represented, we need only to convert the historically INCORRECT white /black waves of migration with the more EGALITARIAN representation of our treasured Volcanic Land……yeah..hip hip…hooray!

    The standard representation of land in scholarly texts (kindergarten thru college) is GREEN. Moreover, GREEN is the universal code color for SAVING OUR EARTH. indeed, our very existence on this planet. Many nations have redesigned their flags over time, why not us, righteously? Let us redesign our flag to reflect the pursuit of socio economic equality for all, saving our environment-if not our lives, distancing ourselves from the lies of Columbus’ Discovery and motivating all our cultural heritage strands to be fair and respectful towards each other. The redesign needs no mathematical calibrations beyond the paintbrush relief of a primary school student-simply painting over the white/black triangles in a green hue that is compatible with the official hues of the blue and gold.
    Nuff said!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.