At the Pinnacle: the Queen, Rastafari, reparations

Garnett Roper, Guest Columnist

I write in response to Daniel Thwaites' column, 'The Pinnacle of Independence' (Sunday, March 3, 2014. Thwaites, who was writing in response to an article written by me and previously published by The Gleaner, titled 'Compromise on Pinnacle' (February 9, 2014), in which I asserted that the Pinnacle project was fundamentally about justice indicated that he does not have a settled position on the matter of reparation.

Thwaites, however, asserted inter alia: "How de Queen come inna dis? We've been independent for nearly 52 years, and we should be anxious to honour Rastafari as a Jamaican thing, right? Surely, it's up to us to establish our own heroes, monuments, and hallowed ground."

I offer the following comments on Thwaites' question about the role of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the matter of how Rastafari were treated in Jamaica. To begin with, the invasion of Pinnacle took place in 1954. Jamaica was still under colonial rule. More to the point, this was within the first full year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

Constitution suspended

In October 1953, the British government suspended the constitution of the then British Guiana, and by so doing, ended the political tenure of the newly elected People's Progressive Party (PPP) led by Cheddi Jagan. Britain's action was tantamount to a political coup d'état because the ruling elite in Guyana believed that their privileges were under threat by the Jagan government. The PPP that had won elections in April 1953 was typecast as a communist regime.

The point is that Sir Alexander Bustamante, eventual national hero and then chief minister of Jamaica, would have borne in mind what had taken place in Guyana in 1953, so that when the instruction came from the British monarchy to raid Pinnacle and put Rastafari to flight, he would have been eager to obey. Ironically, the destruction of Back o' Wall by then Minister of Development Edward Seaga in 1966 took place around the time of the Queen's first visit to Jamaica.

It is, therefore, evident that the actions taken by the Jamaican Government against Rastafari prior to Independence were in obedience to the British monarchy; and the actions after Independence were expressions of devotion to the monarchy and the Jamaican elite. Therefore, both the Jamaican and British governments were complicit in these monumental acts of injustice perpetrated against Rastafari at Pinnacle and elsewhere.

None of this is left to conjecture. These are all well-documented events, about which no one even blushes. All I am saying is that justice requires that both the Government of Jamaica and its partners in this matter, the British monarchy, should be held accountable. Pinnacle presents us with the best opportunity to give concreteness to the acknowledgement of historical wrongdoing.

Class-action reparations

I make a second comment about this thing called reparations. Thwaites suggests that for persons to be eligible to receive a recompense for wrongs done, they must establish their locus standi. He argues further that that requires tracing one's lineage to the original victims of the wrongs. (I know, and Daniel well knows that should there be public announcements of the prospects of receipt of payment for wrongs done to our foreparents, Jamaicans would have no difficulty establishing their DNA as heirs and successors, even if we have to manufacture the birth papers.) However, I also know that the learned attorney is aware that in other jurisdictions, though not so in Jamaica, they have developed class actions in their jurisprudence.

In those jurisdictions, a group can sue for cause. Once it can be established that damage has been done, whether because of environmental, social, psychological or physical misfeasance, a case can be made. Why are we in Jamaica and the Caribbean any different? My own sense about reparations is that the generalised approach does not take us very far. A case-by-case or incident-by-incident approach, in a class-action way, is more likely to succeed judicially.

What must not happen is that some false pride lead us to believe that we must perpetuate our inherited disadvantages as if they are some badge of honour. Without steps taken towards justice, these legacies are scars and not badges. There are surviving members of the family of Leonard Howell that were disenfranchised at Pinnacle by the actions of the Jamaican State in 1954. However, it was not the Howell family that was the target; it was to persecute in order to suppress and destroy the Rastafari movement. Those, their families, their heirs and successors and their movement that have been victimised should now receive just recompense.

The development of 120 acres of Pinnacle lands as a series of commemorative Rastafari villages to memorialise those struggles is a step in that direction. I believe this is the model that ought to be made to work as far as reparation is concerned.

Garnett Roper, JP, PhD, is president of the Jamaica Theological Seminary and chairman of the Jamaica Urban Transit Company. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garnettroper@hotmail.com.