January 24, 2006<$z$>

I AM<$> writing in response to Mr. Alvin Williams' Commentary "White man is still afraid of the dark" (Mid-Ocean News, January 10). Never mind the puzzling diatribe about Castro (I'm still trying to figure out how that topic got in there), I was struck by the unsoundness of his arguments. Not only were his assertions questionable (was there really NO white support for the civil rights movement in Bermuda?) and oftentimes confusing, but some of them were flat out untrue.

Let me speak to a few of these issues. First of all, I will defend the writer Margaret's use of the term "brown-skinned" simply because I surmise, from everything said in the Commentary, that Mr. Williams would have barked even louder had she used the term "black".

Mr. Williams, don't jump to conclusions about her word choice. For all you know she might have intentionally chosen the term "brown-skinned" to more accurately describe the skin pigment of her husband or to encompass a mixed race and / or ethnic background (to our chagrin, we lack terms for nuanced intermixing.)

Furthermore, Margaret's avoidance of the word "black" might actually have been a display of consideration and sensitivity towards possible controversy over the word "black," as some people still believe that the term is intentionally and inexorably linked with negative prejudices (as you lament later in the Commentary.)

You, Mr. Williams, have confirmed my very own personal fears and justified my hesitation in deciding what word would be least offensive in referencing the black population — you have become one of many who are eager to read false racism into the words of "people who look like" (to borrow the taboo phrase from a trusty MP) descendants of past oppressors.

I, speaking as a young white woman, do not have a "phobia of colour" as you boldly and unjustifiably claimed I do, but rather a phobia of being falsely misinterpreted as racist. I am not afraid of the dark but I tread lightly and warily because there's a heavy foot waiting eagerly to kick me if I stumble.

The second issue that I wish to address is that I am concerned Mr. Williams has been misguided in the history of the word "black" as it relates to the world and to race. Mr. Williams seemed to be under the impression that the term "black" was intentionally devised as a moniker for darker-skinned people as a way to perpetuate subliminal comparisons with all things negative.

I will present to you the truth: The Oxford English Dictionary contains evidence of the use of black with reference to African peoples as early as 1400, and certainly the word has been in wide use in racial and ethnic contexts ever since.

However, it was not until the late 1960s that black (or Black) gained its present status as a self-chosen ethnonym with strong connotations of racial pride, replacing the then-current Negro among Blacks and non-Blacks alike with remarkable speed.

Equally significant is the degree to which Negro became discredited in the process, reflecting the profound changes taking place in the Black community during the tumultuous years of the civil rights and Black Power movements.

The recent success of African-American offers an interesting contrast in this regard. Though by no means a modern coinage, African-American achieved sudden prominence at the end of the 1980s when several Black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, championed it as an alternative ethnonym for Americans of African descent.

The appeal of this term is obvious, alluding as it does not to skin colour but to an ethnicity constructed of geography, history, and culture, and it won rapid acceptance in the media alongside similar forms such as Asian-American, Hispanic-American, and Italian-American.

But unlike what happened a generation earlier, African-American has shown little sign of displacing or discrediting black, which remains both popular and positive.

Again it seems you have mistakenly imagined racism where it does not conclusively exist. From what I gather, it just happens to be that humanity is naturally afraid of the dark (diminished sight leaves us vulnerable, death implies darkness as you die and the darkness of being buried underground) and we naturally embrace the security of light (improved vision, God, sunshine makes us cheerful), which maps onto the words black (negation of light) and white (absence of dark).

While it may be true that the black-negative connection might perpetuate subliminal negative prejudices, asserting that there is a racial reason why this is and how it came to be is completely unwarranted.

Mr. Williams, maybe try to be a little more open-minded and trusting of the world around you. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist and that the repercussions of Bermuda's colonialism aren't still evident and problematic.

I do beg you to avoid falling into the easy trap of presuming people guilty before they've committed any crime. If you search for something hard enough you'll begin to see it in places where it's not. And maybe one day you'll be surprised to discover just how much you actually have in common with your fellow "white" Bermudians — even the ones who are afraid of your neighbour's black cat.

BERMUDIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENT

Southampton

Are we all stupid?January 24, 2006

HEARTFELT congratulations for your editorial page last weekend. Your Opinion, headed "Behold 'The Man'," was one of your best; readable and demonstrating surgical perspicuity.Thank God for the Press.

Mr. Gareth Finighan's summary of the now obsessive compulsive drive to Independence for an unwilling and wise Bermuda was a timely, dispassionate chronicle of this sad political chapter.

I write now to ask you — for the sake of truth rather than 'truthiness' to turn your attention to the ongoing and curious Premier's pet project: Ombudsman.

Except for the subject of Independence, no other subject has resulted in so many carefully choreographed press releases from this PLP Government.

First the highest gloss, multicoloured pamphlets delivered to every single household and post box in multiple copies. It explained to us in that curious language, which only the top functionaries seem to be able to produce what the history and definition of an Ombudsman is.

Presumably if we can read this pamphlet, we are either too stupid to open a dictionary, encyclopaedia or check the Internet. Or is the point of the pamphlet to ensure their approved definition is the one which seeps into our Burgers' Brains?

Then numerous photo-ops with His Excellency, William A. and yes, the "Dear Lady" appointed.

And now the arrival in Bermuda (one assumes at the taxpayers' expense) of two live, imported Caribbean Ombudsmen — one from Antigua to 'educate' us at Bermuda College meetings and via television press releases on the democratic benefits of his office.

Are we all stupid? Can you, Mr. Finighan, or anyone else please tell me what, if anything at all is democratic and just about the Antiguan Government?

Now not to be misunderstood, let me say I have nothing at all against the institution of an Ombudsman — however, it's the choice, and installation of this particular 'Dear Lady' and now the appearance of her mentor from Antigua, which should give rise to some probing consideration of exactly whose interests she will be serving.

We know that the PLP Ministers are to be exempt from the Ombudsman's call, so on the salary she is receiving ($120,000? per annum), we are entitled to ask whether she has been installed for the Premier's benefit or ours? My personal and quite bitter experience would strongly suggest the former.

CITIZEN