NO white person seems to feel the need (or carry the burden) of having to continually reiterate "I am not a victim". Nor is there any great need to declare that one has "survived". It is self-evident that black men have survived or we would not be having these discussions. The question is how have they survived? Some have survived very badly.

The dictionary meaning of "victim" is "a person who is injured or killed by another, or as a result of an event or circumstances".

Black people, and certainly black men, your columnist Alvin Williams says (, August 18), have been prevented "from enjoying the full benefit of economic development" by "institutional racial segregation" so that "psychological aspects of the twin legacies still exist today".

If Mr. Williams feels that he has suffered no injury by these circumstances, this is certainly not true for many of the rest of us.

Some of us had parents and teachers who pointed out that we had to work a great deal harder than anyone else because racism would do all that it could to destroy us and undermine us. Even if some of us have been sufficiently determined and worked hard enough to have achieved PhDs or to own a dozen houses or significant financial investments, or whatever else, we, too, have been injured and "stunted in our economic development" and therefore are "victims" because we would have achieved so much more without racism and the brutal circumstances which existed for us.

Clearly the black community decided that only blacks could, or would, be expected to throw a rope to drowning black men, so they elected a black Government (and it is a black government regardless of any rhetoric).

The audience at a recent public meeting seemed to believe that Mr. Dwayne Caines had it right when he outlined the causes of some recent manifestations of violence in our community. Perhaps there are many causes.

So perhaps the time has come not merely to describe the manifestations of these psychological and social injuries (e.g., gangs) but to consider the causes and eliminate the circumstances that give rise to them. And only Bermudians can do this.

But Bermudians place so much less value on other Bermudians than they do on "outside experts" ? and "outside experts" have to be brought in both to get our attention and for their entertainment value (and they are entertaining, often because they have been able to refine their skills because they actually hired in their own countries and have therefore have had the time and experience to develop their skills in whatever areas they specialise in).

But Bermudians should be used in conjunction with these imported experts so that at least the Government will seem to place value on its own. And instead of teams being brought in to study us, no doubt at great expense, Bermudians should be sent to them, the outside experts, to see how successful they are in their own environments and what techniques they actually use in their own countries.

Churchill's second coming

TODAY'S front-page banner headline in "Pettingill ready to return from political wilderness" (above the fold, no less!) ? sounds like the second coming of Winston Churchill, doesn't it?

And if you doubt that . . . check out the picture of Mark Pettingill framed up against three former Premiers. Looks like on the far left Jack Tucker followed by E.T. Richards and third, but not least, Mr. Pettingill blocking out what looks like either David Gibbons or Jack Sharpe (very prophetic).

Then we come to the gripping rhetoric. Mr. Pettingill regrets not being able to change the past (God bless him for trying though) but then goes on to say that his direction is forward and that he believes the direction of this country is forward too! This is obviously not a man to mess with, Mr. Editor, and I think we should step back, pause and reflect upon those words . . . go for it, b'y!