Moving Beyond Colonialism
Dr Balraj Kistow
Faculty & Programme Director, Lok Jack GSB
Since gaining independence the nations of the Caribbean region have sought to distance itself from the relics of colonialism. This is also true for other larger and more prominent nations in Asia and Africa that were at some point in their history subjected to the rule of the more militarily advanced nations of Europe. Wanting to erase the imprints of the colonial period is not strange nor undesirable given the brutal treatment of people, the chauvinistic imposition of European culture including religion, the wholesale pillage and plunder of wealth and resources, not to mention the scourges that were the genocide of native races, the African slave trade and indentureship.
Moreover, the move to erase the traces of colonialism is seen as a march towards achieving one’s independence or to reclaim a status of ownership from the colonial powers that had imposed their will. Examples of this can be seen globally and locally as with India reestablishing the original names of places like Mumbai and Kolkata, the removal of statues and monuments, and the renaming of sites such as the Nelson Mandela Park in Port of Spain which was formally King George V Park. While these might be symbolic, they carry an important message of reclamation of status, ownership, and correcting the wrongs of the past.
The announcement by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago that the three ships of Columbus be removed from the country’s Coat of Arms to be replaced by the steel pans, while unexpected is not strange. Columbus and everything associated with him has come under attack not only locally but globally as his arrival in what was described as the new world represented the start of the brutality that was colonialism. As such he has become a sought of “whipping boy” of the colonial era. These acts of renaming and replacing might be good rallying calls but at the end of the day, they are just symbolic signals of showing who is in charge that are merely on the surface. If we are to truly impost our independence we need to look beyond the symbolic gestures and take a more holistic, logical, and strategic approach to building self-sufficiency, security and resilience that would allow us as a nation to determine our path and chart our own destiny.
The Coat of Arms
According to Encyclopedia Britannica the idea of the Coat of Arms is derived from Medieval Europe. It is the principal part of a system of hereditary symbols and was used primarily to establish identity in battle. It later evolved to denote family descent, adoption, alliance, property ownership, and, eventually, profession. The term originated from the surcoat or cloth that was worn over the armour to shield it from the sun. It repeated the bearer’s arms as they appeared on his banner or pennon and on his shield, The Coat of Arms was particularly useful to the heralds whose job it was to tour the battlefield to identify and announce the dead. The Medieval European design for the coat of arms, follows a consistent design with its major elements being that of a shield accompanied by a warrior’s helmet, the mantling which protects his neck from the sun, the wreath which secures the mantling and crest to the helmet, and the crest itself. It is not strange therefore to see the striking similarities in design between the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom which is used in England and the Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago which followed the basic design features with local modification. The fact is the whole basis for a coat of arms is in itself not just colonial but medieval European.
Figure 1 – The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (left) and the Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago.
According to the Ministry of Foreign and CARICOM Affairs of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, the Coat of Arms was designed at the time of Independence in 1962 “by a committee of distinguished citizens established to select and design the country’s national emblems”. Noted among the committee members were artist Carlyle Chang and Carnival Designer George Bailey. The site goes on to explain the symbolism behind the constituent parts such as the use of the palm at the top which was central in the Great Seal of the British Colonial Tobago, the national birds as the supporters, the humming birds on the shield, and the three gold ships which it states “represent the Trinity – the discovery of the islands and the three ships of Columbus”. Of noted significance is the fact that the Ministry’s website clearly delineates that the “Helm is a gold helmet facing front which represents the Queen”.
The design and symbolism of the constituent parts bring forth some interesting observations and concerns, especially amidst the controversy with the golden ships. Firstly, the Prime Minister has noted that the removal of the three ships signals the removal of colonial vestiges that we have in our constitution. If that is the logic, how come the helm that is representative of British Royalty is not also challenged as a vestige of the colonial era? Is it that we have a bias toward British imperialism versus Spanish imperialism? If we are removing colonial vestiges then everything colonial should be on the chopping block.
Secondly, the design of the present Coat of Arms is a relic of Medieval Europe. If we are in the process of “decolonizing” the present Coat of Arms should we not be going all out and have a redesign in its entirety to take us away from Europe and closer to what represents us? We only need to look at examples of countries such our CARICOM neighbour Suriname, Argentina in Southern America and a number of African countries including Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique and Botswana. They are all ahead of the game with simple but effective indigenous designs.
Figure 2 – Left to Right Coat of Arms of Argentina, Botswana and Suriname
Thirdly, the desire to free ourselves from the vestiges and memories of colonialism is rooted in the fact that it was an unpleasant experience for most who had that experience. A major characteristic of that experience is the high-handed manner of imposed decision-making that significantly affected people’s lives. This comes from the ideology that the people of the colonies were of lesser value and intelligence and so the colonial power saw it fit to do as they pleased. It was an autocratic approach to decision-making not merely to assert control and power, but the colonial ruler had little regard for the opinions, thoughts, and feelings of the locals. Ironically, how the proposed change to the Coat of Arms is being done with little regard for the views of others or any consultation seems to be consistent with the colonial playbook of decision-making. Here it is a major element of national symbolism and pride, which is supposed to represent our freedom and independence as a nation, is to be altered in an authoritarian manner. One would only expect that in a free, independent state, the citizens, who are the primary stakeholders, would have a say in what happens to a national symbol. There are cost-effective ways to solicit public opinions using asynchronous online platforms, synchronous virtual events and having limited strategic physical outreach. Bearing in mind the idea is purported to have originated from a larger agenda for constitutional reform, it should have been presented within the context of a larger national agenda of reform and not as a singular, isolated announcement at a political gathering, which only added fodder for division.
Moving beyond colonialism is more than modifying emblems of ships, helms, and symbols. It is the development of a mindset and a value system that we are secure in ourselves for we are able to control our destiny. In a modern world no country is independent in every sense. However, we need to develop a sense of self-reliance so that we can determine where and how we move forward. We can only be free from the colonial shackles when we become economically independent, can create a society that is safe and secure for citizens and there is civility and respect in how we treat with opposing views and differences. Moreover, we need to have greater belief in ourselves and our abilities but that would only happen when we can create an enabling environment and culture conducive to progress. For instance, we would not be taken seriously if public institutions continue to be unreliable, operate in an unpredictable fashion, and are based on personal relationships rather than clear, transparent and predictable procedures. Independence is about a nation’s ability to manage its affairs and lead its citizens to a better, safer and more secure future. That requires foresight, strategic thinking and prudent economic policies. That is the focus that is required in a time of economic uncertainty with weaning energy production and little sign of diversification.
We also need to bear in mind that a simple change to the Coat of Arms would be a costly exercise, especially at a time of economic hardship where we are borrowing heavily to give a sense of economic stability. Every place both locally and internationally where the Coat of Arms appears would require a replacement with the new version. The cost of making this change has not been made public which should have been done as part of the announcement of the change. Good governance practice dictates that the operational and logistical cost of enacting the change would be given with the announcement. However, disclosure of financial information does not seem to be inherent to your culture. That would take a tremendous effort and incur significant costs. From an economic perspective is this the best use of borrowed resources at this time?
The issue of the Coat of Arms has brought attention to some significant concerns as it relates to the management of national affairs as well as relevance for how we engage with issues at an organizational level. For one thing, we need to be mindful of and give due respect to our stakeholders, be it the citizens or our customers. You will not get their support for long if you continually ignore or treat them with scant respect and dignity. You cannot be acting in a manner reminiscent of colonialism in your attempt to erase the vestiges of colonialism. Secondly, we need to adopt a broader strategic perspective and not get sidetracked by symbolic gestures that do not take us further. A partial adjustment to a symbol does not make us more independent or economically self-reliant in the same way that changing your logo or branding does little to alter your value proposition to your customers. Thirdly, we need to get priorities straight such that the focus should be on using national resources to deliver value to our stakeholders rather than gaining political mileage. The question is not whether national symbols should be localized, but rather, is this the right time to do so, given our current economic situation and the fact that we haven’t allowed sufficient time to hear diverse opinions and consider the full range of concerns being expressed in the public forum?
Being strategic means we are clear in our purpose for action and give the idea ample thought and deliberation so that the desired ends are duly achieved. Moreover, we need to be clear on a broader national vision as a people so that we don’t get sidetracked with isolated events that should ideally be part of a greater purpose. While it would make for growing political equity, it does not score well on a scale of national maturity.
References
Associated Press. 2024. “Trinidad Is Redrawing Its Coat of Arms to Remove Columbus’ Three Famous Ships.” CNN. CNN. August 20, 2024. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/20/americas/trinidad-coat-of-arms-columbus-intl-latam/index.html.
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia. “Coat of Arms.” Encyclopedia Britannica, August 27, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/coat-of-arms.
“Coat of Arms.” n.d. Ministry of Foreign and CARICOM Affairs. https://foreign.gov.tt/about/trinidad-tobago/coat-arms/.
