January 11, 2012Dear Sir,I am compelled to respond to the letter written by Allan D Marshall JP in which he presents aspects of Bermuda’s political history from a distorted perspective. He says that when the United Bermuda Party formed the Government in the late 60s it’s leaders were determined to ensure black participation and sponsored and promoted “black candidates in “safe” seats and this strategy “created” great leaders from the black community. I too, will reference the same era in our political history.We should all be mindful of the reason for the formation of the Progressive Labour Party. It was to redress the injustices to which the majority of Bermudians were subjected. The parliamentarians of the day claimed to be independent but it is common knowledge that these supposedly independent parliamentarians met to discuss political strategies at an exclusive members only club in the City (They were served by persons who they considered so inconsequential as to be almost ‘invisible. Thus many of their plans were openly discussed.) It is also known that in 1963 when the PLP formed and gained six seats in a 36-member House of Assembly that 24 of the remaining 30 “independent” members “morphed into the UBP in 1964 without giving the electorate any say. The mistreatment of the one white woman who dared to align herself with the PLP was a stark lesson that deterred others not ideology. As far as racial inclusion is concerned, Marshall uses the term “credible”. What the UBP wanted were “nice” blacks whose “inclusion” was expedient. They were not, in the main, considered credible and these well intentioned members deemed it necessary to form a black caucus. The PLP on the other hand disregarded a prominent black parliamentarian to ensure the poll success of the white member. Let us not forget the propaganda that labelled the PLP as communist. The UBP strategy was a facade, thus the PLP would not respond in kind.I cannot claim to speak on behalf of the black community, but based on my observations, there has not been as much “integration” as there has been “assimilation”. The participation of one group in what was previously the exclusive domain of another group has not been reciprocated. This pattern of conduct is noted in clubs, churches, entertainment venues and other associations. I do not know of any of these aforementioned groups restricting participation. Regrettably, Mr Marshall betrays his bias and innate sense of superiority when he states that the disingenuous UBP strategy of the 1960s “created” great leaders, the inference being that without that strategy the persons would not have amounted to much.DIOGENESCity of Hamilton