 |
 |
This
month's interview:
Roger
Belix of
Partners
for First Peoples
Development in Arima,
Trinidad and Tobago.
Interviewer:
Maximilian Forte. |
|
On
my return to Trinidad in December 2001 I learned that a new organization
had been formed centred on fostering and promoting Amerindian heritage
for a national audience. This organization is called Partners for First
Peoples Development and its head is Roger Belix, a business
owner based in Arima. I interpreted this development as a sign that wider
interest in Amerindian heritage was developing in Trinidad, with several
actors and institutions engaged in its promotion, a fact that may tend
to lend the endeavour as a whole greater legitimacy given the increased
range of interested parties. |
At a two-day workshop in Port of Spain
in February of 2002, organized by the United Nations World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) Roger Belix presented and distributed a formal
proposal titled “The Wallerfield Project”, elements of which I quote
here. The Wallerfield Project is a plan that is centred on an existing
state farm south of Arima, and Partners for First Peoples Development hopes
to combine that with current community development in and around San Rafael,
the site of the famous 1699 Amerindian mission uprising, as well as plans
for a wildlife reserve.  A
map of the project area is included here for reference purposes. According
to the wording of the plan, the project is, “driven by the commitment
to preserve, educate about and thereby increase public appreciation of
the natural and cultural heritage of our Amerindian past”. This plan
includes the development of six component parts: (1) an ecological reserve;
(2) agro-forestry and wildlife farming; (3) traditional farming including
Amerindian food preparation; (4) a visitor centre, that is, a cultural
and leisure complex; (5) the development of an “Amerindian Trail” linking
various archaeological and other sites of historical importance; and, (6)
a skills and training centre. The main thrust of the plan is the development
of eco-tourism, community development, and the production of indigenous
foods for the local market. To say the least, it is very ambitious.
On the other hand, it is not unlike the plans of the Santa Rosa Carib Community
for the development of the land which they have recently been granted from
the government (see the next item).
Partners for First Peoples Development
describes its aims, overall, as seeking, “to restore our First Peoples
to their rightful place in our history and culture and to create a favourable
environment within which modern-day descendants of these First People can
regain pride in their ancestry and take their place as full and equal members
of our society”. To date, the organization has included an historian,
an archaeologist, and businessmen and other enthusiasts.
A few necessary notes about the
interview process are in order here. First, unlike recent interviews
in this newsletter, this one was conducted face-to-face and not by e-mail.
However, not to put Mr. Belix at any disadvantage compared to other interviewees,
we spent an afternoon planning sections and topics for the interview. I
was not interested in capturing “on the spot” responses that Mr. Belix
might later wish to have reworded, especially as this interview would become
public. In addition, the interview was conducted within his establishment,
with all the unsurprising interruptions from phone calls and people entering
the office, and therefore there were several starts and stops. This inevitably
affected the train of discussion and it might seem a little disjointed
in parts. To make matters worse, I had a few mishaps with my equipment:
cheap batteries that kept running out quickly, forgetting to press the
record button, forgetting to turn the microphone on, etc., and thus some
parts were lost altogether and I have had to reconstruct these from notes
and from memory. In addition, we were both very rather tired. In fact,
you can visually gauge this fact by the lengthy comments at the beginning,
petering out into thinner and shorter comments towards the end. Actually,
as planned as it was, it was one of the more roughly conducted interviews
that I have done in a long time, though my usual inability to coordinate
equipment checks and discussion seems to persist. I must thank Roger Belix
with his patience and his generosity in accepting to be interviewed for
this publication.
I hope that, shortcomings aside,
readers interested in “the Trinidad scene” might find this a useful document.
I present Roger Belix's comments not because I necessarily agree with what
he has to say, but simply because he is one local actor, with a voice,
who has been prominent and active at different times, and has a perspective
which might be important to note for the record. This is especially true
for those with an interest in the ways in which indigenous identification
is being fostered and redefined in the Trinidadian case.
The interview took place on Saturday
16 November 2002, in Arima, Trinidad. Max Forte, the interviewer, is marked
as "MF" below, and Roger Belix is "RB."
MF: Before we start talking about
Partners for First Peoples' Development, I want to try and introduce you
to the readers. Let me start by asking what are your interests in this
whole endeavour concerning the Amerindian heritage of Trinidad. What motivates
you? What is your vision?
 RB:
OK. Presently my vision, is to re-create and refocus the appreciation of
the values of the indigenous peoples-- how they lived , where they lived--in
terms of the historical, archaeological, and the way of life in which they
would have existed in each environment, and to recreate that so that people
in today's world will have an appreciation of where they live. This instead
of an assumption that what we have here is a Mother Africa or a Mother
India and that we should make it like that. This could never be a Mother
Africa or a Mother India. Thousands of years cannot be eroded by 500 years
in terms of world time. Nowhere in the world does 500 years dominate over
thousands of years. That is, unless we wish to make it so. I want to refocus
people's concepts, people's attitudes. Right now a lot of people are losing
sense of where we came from, who we are, what are our family values, their
heritage. For example, some girls came in from Sangre Grande and they said:
"we want to promote our culture," and I said, "OK, let me hear what's our
culture." And this one girl said: "you know like East Indian dance," and
I said, "no, that is not my culture." And another said, "you know like
how Africans beat their drum," and I said, "no, that's not my culture,
that is African culture. The culture of this land is none of the above.
You are all looking at somebody who may have indigenous blood and talking
about his culture. That's not my culture." So we need to understand that
Sangre Grande, that name, where it got its name, and who existed there
for it to get it's name. Big Blood. And they are coming to sell me their
culture. the culture of that area well, of course, the name
isn't indigenous, but it came from the slaughter of the indigenous people
going out to saint Joseph. So when you say your culture and you say African
or Indian, that is not the culture of the environment in which you were
born. It's the environment in which you are born that is your culture.
So even though I inherit an imported heritage of somebody else, it is not
my culture. It was forced upon us.
MF: So how did they react to that?
RB:
Well no one focused them down that road. Actually they were meeting somebody
who was changing their whole concept....So they wanted to come back with
more people to hear what I have to say. In fact they came for fifteen minutes
and ended up staying for about an hour and a half! They wanted to see pictures
and they were all anxious to know what sort of lifestyle existed. A lot
of research has to be done, and I'm not going to be the one to say it was
so. So it gave me the urge to know more, like with that Hyarima statue
that we brought here, I wanted to know why people keep saying that Arima
is Carib, and in the history books it says they are Caribs. That is a misconception,
it is like saying, "Coolie." That's not a race. That's a person who labelled
someone in order to identify a separation. So we now need to go back and
correct that, as we go into the future.
MF: Well let me ask this: it's
something that strikes me...it's a question that keeps coming back to mind.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a few seconds, because I really
enjoy playing that role. To put it bluntly, why should any Trinidadian
care about Amerindian heritage? With all the modern social, economic, and
political problems--and aspirations--engaging Trinidadians on a daily basis,
then how is Amerindian heritage of any relevance? I mean even if one acknowledges
that there is an Amerindian heritage in Trinidad, someone could say: "So
what? What's the big deal? What good does that do?"
RB:
How do we promote an environment without first understanding the past,
understanding eco-tourism, understanding cultural beliefs. In today's world
when we are saying that we are going into the 21st century...or as the
Prime Minister [Patrick Manning] says that by 2020 we want to be a "First
World country"...that "developed nation status". But we have cultural conflicts,
we have disasters that we don't even want to understand because we come
from a different mindset. The East Indians who came here, accustomed to
living on the plains, where they don't know about building houses on stilts,
so that when the floods come you live right above that flood line, like
how they do within the swamplands of the Americas. OK? So they could learn
something from that. But we are so stupid, we build all of our houses flat
on the ground, because we don't want to understand how they existed in
this environment. We don't want to understand the time or the season that
we should be eating certain types of food, to create a certain type of
environment in your body to sustain you for the rest of the year. We have
been focused on fast foods. Is it healthy? So you can tell me we have gone
into the modern age, but we have moved ten times backward. It's affecting
our health. In today's world we want to understand the medicines that these
[indigenous] peoples used because when the Europeans came here disease
was not an issue. It became an issue when the Europeans came. And then
we come down to the politics. Today we have 18-18 [Belix is referring to
a year long deadlock in Parliament which added serious strains on the political
system, but which had in fact been resolved by the time of this interview,
with the electoral victory of the People's National Movement], we can't
go forward; we had 33-3, there was a disaster; we had religious chaos,
that nobody could understand; and nobody is going back to understand the
one spirituality from the North Pole to the South Pole, these people had
a spirituality, but they suffered no religious wars. It is only in Europe
where that existed, it didn't exist here.
MF: I guess some people might
ask, I'm not too sure how to put this, they might say: "OK, Roger, what
do you want us to do? You want us to wear loin cloths, living in little
huts again..."
RB:
Nakedness was not a sin eh [laughing]. But we are going back to it! We
have gone back to nakedness you know. You're laughing!
MF: OK, I guess the way some people
"dress", you could say that, sure.
RB:
They are going back to understanding nakedness, not as a sin but as an
appreciation for the person, and not the clothes or the cloth. Wearing
a loin cloth does not mean that we are pushing you back to that--we are
changing your mindset, so as we are going into the future, if somebody
has to see somebody they are seeing them for the value, and not how they
dress or how they carry themselves. So you're looking at the person, you're
studying the person's values. And when a word was given it was honoured.
The Europeans had a lot of treaties, a lot of documents. Who broke them?
Not the natives. We have to go back when a shake of a hand was just as
good as signing a document that we consider legal today. Are we going to
go for that value, or are we going to go for the world where you sign a
lot of documents and it all means nothing. So that is the mindset that
I am trying to set here.
MF: Do you think--from what you
have been able to gauge personally, from your experiences living here in
Trinidad--is there what you could call a wide public interest in discussion
centred on Trinidad's Amerindian heritage?
RB:
I think it is centred more on the whole aspect of aboriginal peoples in
the Americas as well as in the islands.
MF: Do you think there is a wide
interest in the society as a whole?
RB:
Some people are so anxious, as they keep seeing Venezuela, the mainland,
because that is the easiest point that we can point at, and they are linking
the indigenous peoples with Trinidad, and how Trinidad was an important
meeting point. When the Canadian First Nations came down here, you saw
that public interest, but it just was not exposed enough. There was not
enough time for people to appreciate the event.
MF: Who do you think are the kinds
of people or institutions that have shown the greatest interest?
RB:
I would say that it was even, across the board. You saw it from the Chinese
people, even the Chinese ambassador and so on, when the native peoples
came from Canada, they were anxious to give presents to the Carib Community,
they were anxious to see something being fostered. Then you saw it from,
well I hate to use the word, "African" people, anxious to come and hear
about it. And you see it in some instances from day to day, especially
when I make comments to the media, you find people tend to want to know
more, refocusing their concept of Africa and India to "how can we now be
a part of this? How can we adopt this?" As I tell people, Chuck Norris
adopted the native spirituality, and if it was up to him he would have
taken a native name, and he said it publicly. So if you have somebody who
is, say, of "European blood", willing to accept where he lives and its
indigenous lifestyle and spirituality, then we all, regardless of where
our ancestors came from, must adopt that same thing because if I go to
Rome they say "do as the Romans do". If I go to your house then I will
respect how you live within your household. I cannot go with my old attitude,
because then what I would be doing is degrading your home.
MF: What I am really interested
in is if you have noticed that there are particular groups, meaning like
school groups, the media, government and so on...
RB:
Oh, you mean the institutions that exist? Oh yes!
MF: Which ones stand out as being
the most interested parties?
RB:
Well, we got a lot of interest when we went to the different Ministries,
especially [the Ministry of] Education. They said that they would like
us to present to them a package that we could now fit into the education
system. If you noticed, through Culture and Tourism, when we formed the
community group Gayap, through the Best Village programme, you would
realize that they used the name, they used some of our concepts. They never
had before a Smoke Ceremony on the launch of a Best Village programme.
Whose idea was that, and why did they use the word Gayap? Now they
didn't tell us directly that they were using it, they said make a presentation,
but then they went off like it was community development through Best Village.
But we knew that it was our concept. The Ministry of Agriculture: today,
the YAPA programme, we can boast that Minister Rahael met with us, we have
the dates--
MF: What programme is that?
RB:
That is the Youth Education Agricultural Programme, or something to that
effect. We said we wanted to train them in how the indigenous people would
have focused on agriculture, and appreciating it as a value. Now agriculture
at that time was not a value in terms of sale, it was a value for sustainable
life. They took the programme, so Agriculture showed interest. Right now
Education cannot kick off, but we saw that in the Prime Minister's Budget,
they are now going to do craft training. The churches are doing a lot of
research about Arima, the name Arima which they now realize doesn't mean
"water" but is the name of a tree or vine--
MF: Well anyway, let's not get
into that, there's a lot of confusion around that.
RB:
Yeah but when we went to Guyana they said that the Arima tree is a big
vine.
MF: The "Arima tree"?
RB:
Yes, Arima, in Guyana they showed us the plant. So we cannot say that it
exits in Guyana but the name does not exist here. In fact, there are those
vines here. And then "poona" means water, so we cannot say that Arima means
"plenty water". You can relate "poona" to water, if you listen to how the
frogs, those toads, go off near water, they make a sound like "poona",
so the indigenous peoples would have related water to the sound of the
frog. Tunapuna [a town in north central Trinidad] means "way to the water".
MF: In which language does "Arima"
mean vine then?
RB:
You mean in what language? I believe it is the Arawak language.
MF: In terms of promoting the
knowledge or visibility of Amerindian heritage, what do you think are the
biggest obstacles to doing that?
RB:
Biggest obstacles to date? Changing the perception that--I want to make
sure I don't step too much into the racial thing of people trying to propagate
their nationality--their nationality is superior, like when the Europeans
came. Today, when this group is in government, all they are concerned about
is their ethnic group. But throwing in little arrows and spears, you are
seeing people saying, "look we truly don't own anything here you know."
They [non-Amerindians?] are trying to now say "let's align with them [Amerindians?],"
so what I do is say that in Africa they did live naked like the aborigines,
they did live in jungles, they did the cassava, so just because of the
ethnic thing you should not separate, you should adopt what you had there,
but now into this environment. Just like we had the Buffalo Soldiers who
adopted the Native American lifestyle, it's the same concept here.
MF: So are you talking seriously
then about people adopting that kind of lifestyle as part of their everyday
life?
RB:
Or an appreciation for it. The politics of the day needs to focus back
on the native concept of governance. I don't care what they say, it's not
working today. Party politics, racial politics, they have to drop it and
come up with a collective group, which you could call the power of chiefs,
whereby everyone who is selected is a chief, and out of the chiefs you
have a council of chiefs who will have a Grand Chief. When decisions are
made, he carries out the policies. He must then give power to the chiefs
within each of their constituencies, or within their region, to carry out
their policy. In party politics you have to carry out the policies of the
party. The chief doesn't report back to the people....So we have to adopt
that and understand how they carried out their policy, that will now eliminate
race. The Grand Chief, our Prime Minister, the Carib Chief of our country,
needs to now empower his other chiefs to develop each constituency.
MF: Well the strange thing about
what you are saying is that it assumes that people would have to be socialised
into some kind of "Amerindian culture". Now where is that Amerindian culture
to be found in Trinidad?
RB:
We all have to become Amerindian. In our mindsets.
MF: OK, so how do you do that?
RB:
Well, it will take a hundred years as I say, but, gradually our focus must
be on appreciation of environment. If we depreciate the environment we
have nothing to focus on. If we appreciate the environment and start from
that, and each person within their area takes responsibility...and selects
someone to carry out their policy and reports back to the Grand Chief,
it will grow from there, because he, each councillor, is developing and
preserving his constituency. Everybody must be sitting down, regardless
of race or political affiliations. I think that political affiliation needs
to be dissolved. We cannot depend on a party. We must be a tribal people.
When you live in that area, you are one tribe, you are not affiliated to
any party, because whatever affects you...you cannot have something that
is good for one half of the community, and bad for the other half, it must
be equal. We are all part of this tribal family here. We are in this village,
this Amerindian village. So if this chief doesn't get with our policy we
elect a new chief.
MF: But since "Amerindian" itself
has an ethnic connotation, how do you expect people who are socialised
into certain ethnic identities in this country to suddenly drop that?
RB:
It would not be suddenly dropped.
MF: OK, even gradually then.
RB:
We'll have to do it in modules, we'll have to change the concepts gradually.
To try and change overnight, it would not be accepted. You take it in strides,
you do it first with the environment, then you do it with the educational
system, then you do it with the social sector, with the family values,
then you will see people appreciating that. It took 500 years to destroy
it; it will take 500 years to recreate it. It cannot be an overnight thing.
MF: When the Prime Minister--and
of course, he's not the only one to have said this, that's the key thing
to remember, he's not alone in saying this--when he says it is a national
goal for Trinidad to become a developed, "First World" country by 2020.
He said that. Previous governments have said that. Would you say that's
the aspiration of a majority of people in this country?
RB:
To see this place developed?
MF: Yes, to basically see Trinidad
become a small United States.
RB:
Our mindset is not ready for that, not even in twenty years. Some of us
are confused of who we are. Some people say: "I'm a Trinidadian!". Next
minute, "I'm a West Indian!" Next minute: "I'm a Caribbean person."--
MF: Regardless of what they may
call themselves--
RB:
No, no. How can we move forward and we are not even focused on who we are?
So in twenty years we will still be fighting: "Am I a Trinidadian? No,
I'm an African! No I'm an Indian! No, I am a West Indian."
MF: I see your point, but in terms
of their chosen lifestyle, regardless of what they call themselves--
RB:
How could you? When you reach a certain status here, like now, you will
be kidnapped! [RB refers to the increase in kidnappings of businessmen
across Trinidad] You see that lifestyle you are living? It does not fit
within our environment. You will be attacked from all sides. Therefore,
you cannot live comfortably, so you are not in a First World country, because
in a First World country you can walk free, you can walk without fear.
But if I have to drive in a bullet proof car, then I'm saying: what's First
World in that? That's not First World, that is backwardness. We have to
live in battle zones with armoured tanks, that's not a First World country.
MF: For the most part, what do
you think Trinidadians are aiming at? In terms of lifestyle.
RB:
They can go anywhere and do anything that they wish to. They can become
a doctor, they can do anything within the system. That is a First World
country. But with the Amerindian people there was no poor and there was
no rich. The chief went through the system. They all ate and slept in the
village. Sure there was envy, you cannot help that. But everyone got a
meal at the end of the day. That is First World. When I have to fight a
battle I have to buy them to come and fight the battle. But if you say
we are going to fight a battle, people are looking at the issues that you
are going to fight the battle with. That is a First World country. Right
now the Americans are fighting an issue, and they are looking for support.
I don't consider that to be First World. It's not an equal movement.
MF: What is that you are talking
about now? I'm sorry, you've lost me.
RB:
Like they are trying to get the consensus of all the peoples to attack
a particular country [Iraq, I presume]. It's not equal, it's only because
they are in power that they could push that. But if you take a census,
it's going to be split down the middle. That's not a First World country.
A First World country is that everybody understands the issue and we unite--nobody
is going to fight this battle. Some people don't know why they are going
to fight this battle....One mindset is that First World is, "I am rich
and I can afford to buy whatever I want". That is one mindset. Another
is, no starvation, I can study to make myself something within a system,
without pressure of funding, and so on.
MF: Let me ask you--
RB:
That's what my thought pattern is on First World. I don't know what the
Prime Minister's thought on First World is. To me the Amerindian way of
life was First World. Independence was then; we are not independent
now. We still have people who walk into Parliament with wigs on their heads
and a mace....We are depending on someone to tell us how to run our country.
MF: Let's move on. There's a question
that you and I have talked about a dozen times easily. In fact, it's something
that has recurred in previous issues of this newsletter, people have debated
about this online, and in various e-mail discussion lists--it's a question
about labels. That is, the way people invoke or announce their particular
identity. Here in Trinidad, we are routinely faced with a choice between
Carib, Arawak, Amerindian, indigenous, aboriginal, and First Nations...
RB:
Yes, or First Peoples....
MF: OK. That is a whole menu of
choices. Amongst those, perhaps including some that I haven't mentioned,
do you have any particular preference? And why?
RB:
At the beginning I started with the concept of "Amerindian". People could
relate to it more easily. It was something that had been embellished within
the concept of West Indian. As I mature more, I realise that I was propagating
something that was forced upon a people, to say, "this is what you are".
Doing my own research, and from my own personal belief, I don't propagate
anything that was forced upon a people--meaning Indian, Amerindian, whatever,
even First Peoples. We are all First Peoples of the world. If you say First
Peoples of a region, then we can identify that as the native people. That
is where I will focus more, on the native peoples of this land. It's easier
if we are talking about First Peoples that people will understand we are
talking about here; but if I go to Africa, I am talking about Africans.
MF: Do you ever get questions
from Trinidadians when you say "First Peoples", asking you "what do you
mean by that?"
RB:
No.
MF: Oh so they understand readily?
RB:
As soon as they look at me, and I realise that they judge me physically,
they understand what I am talking about. If they do not see me, talking
on the phone or whatever, then they question.
MF: You've never even been asked
that question by children, for example?
RB:
No. Actually, when I went to the Brazil High School, I went to Malabar,
I went to Valencia, Sangre Grande, they were anxious to find out more.
MF: But what do they ask about
"First Peoples"?
RB:
What they want to know is the different tribes. We say there were no Caribs
or Arawaks. Arawak was basically the language, and Carib came out of the
word "cannibalism," which we should not accept. If before the Europeans
came, Carib did not exist, like Garifuna, Taino, or like Hyarima was a
Nepuyo chief, then why should we propagate something that somebody else
labelled you with, against what was factual? We cannot say we are educating,
and teach you fiction or lies against facts. This group was not a Carib
group, was not cannibalistic, but yet you are saying they are Caribs. Then
we are spreading propaganda and lies and fooling ourselves and fooling
people. It's like saying that Cashew tree is not a Cashew tree, it's a
Plum Rose tree. Students want to go do their own research, and see if what
I say is a lie. This is what is pushing me more and more. The interest
of people is there. If I wasn't seeing that interest, probably I might
have pulled back. But I see it everyday. People tell me, "I have to come
and see you, talk to you, look here's my call card...". Why didn't they
keep the first language alive? If it was alive we would have known more,
and we wouldn't have to go back and do research. You know, if they found
a dinosaur here, a skeleton, it would have been a national treasure. We
would have wanted to know how it looked, how it sounded, what it ate, we
would even have started making "dinosaur sandwiches." You know why? The
reason why is we want to keep it alive, we want to use it as a marketing
tool. So why don't we use the native people's burial sites as an attraction
to make people feel proud, even if you don't touch it? You could come and
get the vibes, but don't take down anything. But we care more about a dinosaur,
isn't that an insult?
MF: Let's discuss Partners for
First Peoples Development...
RB:
The whole concept of Partners is to propagate and promote the way of life,
the environment, the preservation of the archaeological and historical
sites, to let people appreciate how that could impact on their life, be
it business--because we can see business being generated, the furniture,
the art, the food, restaurants, we don't need to buy Chinese food, you
can buy Amerindian food. Have you seen an Amerindian restaurant yet? Have
we seen art form inspired by Amerindian art on sale? We could propagate
the wear, to appreciate how they existed, it doesn't have to be a loin
cloth, it could be a jersey, a bed sheet, a basket, whatever. The medicines
can be put into productive use.
MF: Who is Partners? Who are the
constituent groups or people that are the "partners"?
RB:
You want the breakdown? It is far and wide. Presently I am the head of
Partners. My Vice-President is Pat Elie. We have a secretary, we have trustees,
we have a treasurer, we have consultants, and we have community groups.
The numbers are growing every day. We also need to find ways to allow more
people who are interested in the organisation to join. But until we can
identify a solid base, in terms of a physical structure, where we can operate
and have everybody come in, and make their inputs, then only then could
we really have a membership registered on a larger scale. If this physical
structure were put in place tomorrow, I can guarantee 5,000 registered
members, if not 20,000, that is working participants in this organisation.
MF: I have heard of Partners for
First Peoples Development and then I also heard of Gayap. Is there a difference
between the two?
RB:
Yes. Gayap is a community-based group that we formed to develop the Arena-San
Rafael-Brazil-Cumuto-Talaparo-Tamana areas, around the national forest,
which is the Arena nature park. That group will be responsible for developing
and managing a project using an Amerindian concept to develop products
that will come out of the forest.
MF: Who is the head of Gayap?
RB:
Sandra Goveia. It's a community group with an executive of about seven,
and then they have a youth arm, and the wider community.
MF: When did it start?
RB:
Gayap? Gayap started two, it could be three, years ago. But officially
it was registered two years ago as a CBO, or a community-based organisation.
MF: And Partners? About the same
time?
RB:
Partners is an NGO with a national perspective, even regional. There is
interest from the outside, the Guyanas, where they had me speak on behalf
of COIP [Caribbean Organization of Indigenous Peoples, now based in Guyana,
though largely dormant], and I had to say: "I am coming to sell something
to COIP. I am not COIP." They said, "well your vision is consonant with
that of COIP, so what we will do is put you as the Secretariat to carry
out the policies of COIP." But COIP needs to take that decision.
MF: Where does Partners get its
funding from?
RB:
Partners funding comes out of the people's energy. We have no funding.
MF: None whatsoever?
RB:
Zero. All the projects we have worked on happened with zero funding. The
concept sells itself. Hyarima [the monument] was work done with zero funding.
MF: How is that, when it has all
those corporate sponsors?
RB:
After, they sponsored the idea.
MF: Ok, good [laughing], because
it's not that it had "no sponsorship."
RB:
Eventually yes. What I am trying to show you is an idea, with no funding,
that got funding from corporate people to see it physically put in place.
In order for me to sell something further, I must have a physical something.
I have identified a physical base, and soon as people can relate to that
as the right thing, it would work. We need computers, raw materials, land
space to grow this or that, personnel.
MF: And where do you hope to get
that support?
RB:
Locally, and externally.
MF: Local sources: like which
ones?
RB:
Hopefully people who are interested in the project, and want to be a part
of it. Right now we have Gayap as a good example. People who don't have
indigenous blood, even wearing the clothes, and trying to talk the talk
of indigenous culture. And so I know that I am hitting the nail on the
head, and with no funding.
MF: To date, where Partners for
First Peoples Development is concerned, who have been your greatest sources
of support.
RB:
Well, definitely not government, I'm sorry to say. Basically, some business
people. They are supporting us 100%. I must appreciate those corporate
people. There are also certain people within the society who didn't want
to label themselves as part of certain groupings, and because we called
our group Partners for First Peoples, they can now associate themselves
as Partners or as First Peoples.
MF: Do they also have a corporate
self-interest? Aren't they getting involved because they can see a potential
for a return?
RB:
To be honest, I am not sure. Some of them operate on lands that they think
are indigenous. They realise like the Natives of North America are reclaiming
certain sites, under their national rights, and if these people are on
historical sites, and they are not aligned with a particular tribal grouping,
they can--I don't want to use the word "lose"--but they may not have control
in the future earnings of that property. If that person doesn't protect
it, when it has historical and archaeological interest, then we are forced
to move in and protect it. Even though the bones and artifacts have been
moved, the site, knowing it's there, give us the right to protect it. But
I can't answer for these people what are their aims, their whole objective.
MF: What have you achieved thus
far and what do you hope to achieve? Just a simple point by point list.
RB:
Well we are two years behind, really, in accomplishing our two year plan.
That was to make sure that the Partners headquarters was in place, and
to have the Information Centre, and the model of the Amerindian Village
in place. We have had the accomplishment of the lands, to put down the
information centre.
MF: So you have secured those
lands then?
RB:
Yes. And the village.
MF: You mean formally, with all
the deeds, and so on?
RB:
Yes.
MF: Were those granted by the
state or purchased?
RB:
No, it was given through a sort of contract to make sure it stays as is,
that's why I am saying there are certain people who are helping, but I
cannot reveal them now. There are other lands that we are focusing on right
now. I spoke about Arena. Then there is Paria. Madamas, Matelot, Guayaguayare,
and I'm not too sure about Mayaro and where it's placed in Mayaro. With
the introduction of COIP, and even though COIP right now has no motivation
to move forward, because their vision is limited, because of their internal
problems in how they operate, and because they have no fixed structure,
I intend to "twin", that is, adopt a village, a community or group within
the interior of South America, or within North America, or Central America,
or the islands. We could probably twin them, I am just throwing this out,
twin them with Tunapuna. We could have people from here, maybe not of aboriginal
ancestry, go there, say to Dominica, and then come back and tell people
what they do [in Dominica] and so on. Then we start to network throughout
all of the Americas, and I consider the islands part of the Americas. I
want to change the concept of "West Indian". I am getting more and more
annoyed when I hear "West Indies Cricket" and they are in Europe, and they
are linking us with the Americas, but we are not at the west of the Americas,
we are east of the Americas.
MF: So what would you say instead?
RB:
Well if a Film Festival is now taking place, the Kairi Film Festival, I
will say the Kairi islands. We say Hawaiian islands, we say Philippine
islands, so why should we go with "west"? If we want to change Carib, then
we cannot say Caribbean, we will have to say Taino islands or a Taino country,
which was the majority of the native people in the islands. That's what
I am trying to change--some people will say "well it cannot change so easily"--
MF: Yes, and they're right.
RB:
Well Cassius Clay went from Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali--
MF: Yeah, well that's one person,
that's not millions.
RB:
Millions can change their mind. Look at how the Colonel's Fried Chicken
went to KFC. It can change. If you don't think you are an Indian, then
reject "West Indies". I tell the Prime Minister he is an Indian Prime Minister,
and he says no, and I said you are a West Indian. And now you are
Carib too, because you are a Caribbean man, you are a Carib, you
ate people. And then he will say no, then I will say, do we accept that
or do we eliminate it?
MF: When you play with and change
names, Roger, what have you really changed?
RB:
A mindset--
MF: Oh really?
RB:
A concept. A change of attitude, of what somebody propagated, to facts.
You cannot teach lies. Like I said, you cannot change a Cashew tree into
a Plum Rose tree.
MF: Well, actually, now that I
think of it, that is typical thing in Trinidad, to invent names or apply
names in a strange ways. Like what in Trinidad is called a "plum", is by
no means what a North American or European would consider to be a plum.
Or when they talk about "sea grapes", or "cherries". All of these things
do not even remotely resemble those things that they are named after. Plums
are large and sweet and these things here are small and sour, actually
closer to being olives if anything.
RB:
OK, and who labelled it?
MF: I'd like to know that, tell
me.
RB:
Well not the native people.
MF: I doubt it was Europeans either:
I don't see a European calling something small, green and sour, a "plum".
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
RB:
As I said, we have to study these things because 500 years is just the
other day, in world time. It is not thousands of years.
MF: Well, 500 years is indeed
a very long time--
RB:
Yes, in terms of human life spans, but not in world time.
MF: Alright.
RB:
And in terms of cultural practices, they say it takes close to a thousand
years for it to become factual. So 500 years is just half of that.
MF: I read through your Wallerfield
Project Proposal. One of the things that struck me, forgive me for grinding
this axe, but nowhere in the proposal when you speak of future plans, activities,
what you hope to develop, expand, nowhere is use of the Internet mentioned.
It's interesting because a lot of indigenous groups--not all of them obviously,
and certainly not the ones in poorer countries, although even that is not
entirely true these days--a lot of them have been using the Internet, it
seems quite successfully in terms of promoting different perspectives,
providing answers, and so forth.
RB:
Yes, they have now reached "First World status."
MF: And they are not relying all
that much on others. I noticed you speak in the proposal of starting a
publication series. Whenever you deal with print, that will cost a lot
of money, printing, distributing, marketing, and so on. So how come that
Internet aspect is nowhere in the proposal?
RB:
As yet. Until the physical infrastructure is in place.
MF: But you mention other things
there that will depend on physical infrastructure too, but you don't mention
the Internet.
RB:
I was going to put that down...until we do a proper, a proper hardening
of the gel, and then say we have a Secretariat, and we can now put in the
Internet. If we don't have physical personnel to respond to it on a day
to day basis, is like building a boat and having nobody to row it. In that
concept, I want to use true indigenous peoples to operate it. They
are the ones that have to respond from their indigenous mindset, and not
from a "freshwater" mindset--
MF: These "true indigenous peoples",
would they be Trinidadians?
RB:
I will say we are defeating the whole purpose of empowering the indigenous
peoples in the region. And the other groups that will support us will benefit.
MF: So, these "true indigenous
peoples", would they be Trinidadians or from abroad?
RB:
Well if it is that we are expanding our things through the region, then
it will have to be COIP.
MF: So you are talking about a
COIP website.
RB:
That's right, it will have to come through them, because we are just the
secretariat. But the whole umbrella body for the region will now be COIP.
MF: So Partners will never have
its own website for itself.
RB:
Eventually, you see, but I don't want to propagate that at this point.
MF: So it's not a part of the
plan at this point in time.
RB:
Well, not having funding, or a physical structure, I don't want to lose
focus, and Partners does not have a physical place to operate, it will
be difficult to respond at this point in time. It will be difficult for
us to focus, to respond, and funding to have a permanent site will be an
issue at the beginning. It's better that we have a working project in terms
of a physical place, where people can come physically and appreciate, than
to just go on a website, understand what people are doing, but they have
nowhere to visit. They [Internet users] then have nothing physical to respond
to. [Another of a stream of interruptions, and I remark, "thank god this
is not live."] It's like saying, I want to come visit your home, and you
don't have a home.
MF: On another point in your proposal,
you mention tours of archaeological and historical sites. There is a constant
emphasis on the distant past, on things, that is, artifacts, not on people,
and certainly not living ones. Are you not then giving the impression that
this culture is simply dead?
RB:
They are dead in that area. But they exist worldwide. They exist in other
regions. We must understand that when the invasion took place, a lot of
people who lived in these areas left and went back to the mainland. So
it's not to say that the culture is dead, it's just replaced, or displaced.
Like someone going into exile. So we have to recreate their presence back
on that which were their ancestors' lands, and for those who exist here
to appreciate. Unlike this song on the radio [he refers to a very popular
song by calypsonian, David Rudder, on the unity of Africans and East Indians
in Trinidad], that is propagating, "where the river flows, the Ganges meets
the Nile...on this naked isle."
MF: Let me ask one of my final
questions. It's a small one, but one that keeps coming back to me. Let
me summarise it. There are more people than ever now challenging the notion
that Tainos ever went extinct in places such as Hispaniola or Puerto Rico
and Cuba. Some people might assume that Caribs went extinct in Trinidad,
and there's a good counter argument against that as well. But I noticed
that whenever we speak of Amerindian heritage in this country, it is always
with
reference to Trinidad, and never with reference to Tobago. I get
the impression, let's say, that since we almost exclusively talk about
Trinidad, nobody really has a problem with the notion that Amerindian culture,
and Amerindians themselves, have gone extinct in Tobago. It's a very interesting
idea, because Tobago is just two steps away. So why would it survive in
Trinidad and not in Tobago? Or, if the extinction thesis is "OK" for Tobago,
why isn't it "OK" as well for Trinidad?
RB:
Because there are still those who propagate their indigenous culture here
in Trinidad. In Tobago, you don't have anyone propagating their indigenous
culture. They have the artifacts and the historical sites, but in terms
of physical presence here in Trinidad we have the Carib Community, and
the names like Arima, Mayaro, Tunapuna, Chaguanas, Chaguaramas, Siparia,
and so on, so the names keep it alive. The names keep the memory alive.
MF: So you don't really have a
problem with the idea that Amerindians have gone extinct in Tobago.
RB:
I don't have a problem. They are extinct. Just like certain areas in Trinidad.
When they realised the European onslaught, they just went back to the mainland.
The islands will always be aboriginal peoples', aboriginal history, thousands
of years before Columbus. Even though people are exiled from their land,
it is still their land.
. |
On
Sunday October 13, 2002, I went with a small group to one of the caves
here in the Dominican Republic that I had wanted to see for a long time--Guacara
Hoyo de Sanabe above the Presa Hatillo near Cotui, which is a manmade dam
and reservoir. There is a smaller cave, also called Guacara, below the
big one, that also has Taino drawings, though not so many. We didn't get
to it because we had no boat (you can only enter the smaller cave by boat,
for it was partially flooded when the government created the reservoir)
and because we ran out of time. We also had no time to explore two other
nearby locations which are above ground with Taino drawings. I hope to
get back to Cotui soon and do so.
The entrance to the Guacara is wide, located about halfway up a big, domed
hill. You have to drop down about 15' into the cave, but no ropes are needed,
for rock slides over the years have created natural "stairs." I could find
no guardian carving at this entrance, so assume that it and the rock on
which it was carved were cut away and sold to some collector--our guide
confirmed that there used to be some rock carvings, but he couldn't seem
to remember any specifics about them (the guide was Xenon, an old man who
lives by the reservoir; he and his son guide in the 20 or so people who
come here every year, mostly Germans and Americans, Xenon says). The ceiling
in the cave is about 20-40' high in most places, with chimneys going up
higher yet. There are a few cascade formations, stalagmites and stalactites,
and one or two places with crystals, but mostly it's not what you'd call
a beautiful cave. There are a few bats, but not many. The cave arcs around
to the west, and there is another natural opening that appears to have
been blocked by a rock slide since the Tainos used the cave, for the guardian
sculptures still exist there (see photo at right) and there are not only
drawings in this area, but a huge midden pile of snail shells. The "Guardian"
sculptures are from the now almost totally blocked entrance at the western
arc. There's one guardian complete with head, body, and one leg (his
left leg may have been on a stalagmite that has since been broken off).
He's about 4' tall. Above him, to the left, is the round face of
a second guardian, about 6" in diameter.
It's in this side tunnel that I took the photo of a bizarre drawing that
I have titled "Human Prey" (see photos below). At first I assumed
it was a drawing of a pair of hunters with a pole carried across their
shoulders upon which is trussed the animal they captured--but then I saw
that the "animal" was large, with a round head, long arms, and long legs.
Obviously it's not a hutia, the largest mammal on the island (about the
size of a rabbit), nor a manatee (not only its shape belies a manatee,
but the fact that Cotui is a long way from the ocean), and does not appear
to be a goat or other Spanish-imported animal, which could have been hunted
by Tainos cimarrones (those who had escaped the Spaniards by running away
to peripheral, hard-to-reach areas like this). Are these Tainos who have
captured a Spaniard? We can only guess. This morning, going one at a time
over the photos I'd taken, I discovered a similar drawing among many others
in a "mural" within the main cave, near the main entrance--I've labelled
it "Human Prey2" (see below), but you can see that, while similar, it's
also different, for it seems to portray two men swinging hand over hand
from a tree branch, with the central figure clinging to it with hands and
legs, whereas the "Human Prey" drawing from the side tunnel depicts two
men walking and one trussed up. I would appreciate discussion on these
two, remembering that all we can do is guess at what is really being depicted
in these incredible drawings.
..
