Dear Sir,

Cordell Riley has called for a “committee with teeth” (RG, December 3, 2015) and commented “we have to find some way to address that”. “That” is the “deep division between two Bermudas”. But that is not likely to happen since the economic and psychological disparities were deliberately imposed.

Rolfe Commissiong argues that “the white community’s reluctance to discuss racial issues formed part of the problem”. It is naive to expect that they might. Why should they since they imposed the divide in the first place and continue to benefit from it?

Both Mr Riley and Mr Commissiong seem to ignore the total reality of the “change” discussed in the editorial of the same date. It states that “progress, tremendous progress has been made across the racial and social spectrum”. Part of the “total reality” is that the “tremendous progress” that has been made is the direct result of the actions of a united black population that saw themselves as a unified community with a common experience and a common struggle for economic and social justice. The attitude of the white community did not matter or was accepted as racist. In fact, that was reason for the need to struggle.

That is no longer true. The introduction of the Progressive Labour Party as a political party destroyed that sense of urgency for a unified community with a common experience and a common struggle for a society without the disparities that had been deliberately imposed. The introduction of the United Bermuda Party, with its need for at least a few black people, justified to those who joined the UBP the division which occurred within the black community. Worse than that, or perhaps the inevitable consequence of that divide, is that the economic and psychological disparities became acceptable; first to those blacks that joined the UBP and then also to the PLP itself.

“Progress” had been made when those who took on the role of leadership were concerned about the black community as a community. Their second-class role was now taken for granted and seen as acceptable. Leadership was not an issue; it went to those who had the courage to challenge the existing power structure. It was flexible, shifting and often anonymous.

With the introduction of party politics, all of that changed. The black community as a community no longer mattered. The only thing that mattered was “the party” and specific individuals within the party. Clearly, the leadership did not need to have the courage to challenge the existing power structure. The fringe benefits of leadership were all that mattered to be fought over.

The inferior role of the black community was seen as acceptable and taken for granted. The acceptance of the second-class role was seen when the PLP failed to seriously address or pass the Workforce Equity Bill. It governed for years but not once was there any reference to the recommendations of the Pitt Report. These were recommendations that very specifically and directly addressed the historical, economic and psychological structures that were imposed to create the existing disparities. The PLP ignored them.

One of the real tragedies is that too many young black men accept society’s message that they have no value. In the Seventies, when the message of the Sixties still resonated, they turned their anger and violence against the power structure. Today they turn it against themselves in an expression of self-loathing or self-hatred and a lack of self-worth, as they are told by the society, and even those supposed to represent them, that they are inferior and have no value.

EVA N. HODGSON