“Then you got Trevor Moniz over there asking what they did to George Scott. Come on, Trevor, you are the Portuguese consul and can’t speak a word of Portuguese — cut your nonsense out boy.  As Trevor Moniz calls it, ‘racist dribble’, every time somebody speaks about it, particularly when they look like us, they label it as racist. They don’t like to hear the truth. Get used to it.  You never thought that you would have to come to slaves’ children for an answer or a decision. That’s the problem: he doesn’t like that Mr. Speaker and he better get used to it.”

He was joined by Glenn Blakeney who called across at the UBP bench: “You are doing your master’s bidding — you should be ashamed of yourself.”

Our parliamentary discourse is in a pretty bad state.  They say the best defense is an outrageous offense.  The PLP seem to hurl the race epithets whenever someone asks questions or demands accountability hoping it will shut down the dialogue.  No wonder the country is in such a mess.

The PLP is fixated with point scoring and grinding away at 50 year old grudges.  The problem is that our customers see this behaviour and worry about the ongoing stability of Bermuda.  So, the PLP warhorses get to play the “big man” in an increasingly smaller country.  Smaller economy, smaller opportunity, and even smaller geographically for the teenage toughs who mimic this testosterone frenzy.

I think the Anglican Bishop, in his Hero’s Day sermon, hits the nail on the head:

“The question in my mind is whether this language, which was once the language of social justice and which has become the language of political rhetoric has now degenerated too often on the public level into the language of schoolyard belligerents.”

Yet, when Dr. Brown introduces a motion to the House of Assembly to debate the report, it gets repositioned to “the long-standing effects of institutionalised white supremacy on our young black males”.

So are we looking for solutions or for more recriminations? The difference in positioning is very significant.

However, Dr. Brown’s opening comments have a good deal of common sense in them.  I hope the debate centres on constructive progress, rather than the circle jerk of racial blame that often bogs these discussions down.

A Study of Employment, Earnings, and Educational Gaps between Young Black Bermudian Males and their Same-Age Peers (pdf, 1 Mb)

At 233 pages, it is worth skimming, and then reading again properly.  This subject tends to be clouded by staccato emotion and political games – and Professor Mincy’s report is a detailed and thoughtful analysis.

Of course, you can cheat and look at his policy recommendations starting on page 186.

And the Premier is busy pushin’ em out the door – later today the Bermuda First study is scheduled to be released.

Reading this stuff, we seem to still be engaged in fighting the fights of our grandparents and parents … time for the next generation to get involved in Bermuda’s leadership I think.

The 1967 debate criticizes the power of the island’s white oligarchy of the time as well as the history of political gerrymandering.  This too jumped out at me:

On the question of racial tension in Bermuda, I say, very seriously indeed, just one thing. It is possible to have white people in a community who try to stay too white for too long. I think that this danger has now receded in Bermuda because there is a real awareness on the part of the white people that a multiracial community has to be built up. At the same time, it is possible for the reactions of a coloured majority to be extremely strong.

What I hope will be avoided in Bermuda is the trend among not all but some part of the P.L.P. to fight for their policies on purely racialist grounds. I hope that that will not gain ground. I can understand it if it does. I can well understand the kind of motivation which leads to a party fighting for people of its own race to develop this predominantly political awareness. The influence of the American Civil Rights movement and particularly the more extreme elements of that movement have to be regarded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said last week that the P.L.P. recently held a meeting in Bermuda at which all whites were asked to leave. I have checked this and found it to be true. I can understand how this happens, but I do not think that it is best either for the P.L.P. or for the people it represents. It can be possible to build up a multi-racial society in Bermuda without the tensions and dangers which have been mentioned but the tricky point is whether the chance to create such a community is taken or whether people will put too much emphasis on racial politics.

Also this on independence:

I do not accept for a moment that our granting independence to Bermuda, with its total dependence on outside resources  … would make independence in any way a reality when we talk in terms of sovereign countries elsewhere with substantial populations … it is essential that they [Bermudians] work together and not apart because Bermuda, if they are working apart, is nothing at all.

You don’t need me to hold your hand; go read the transcripts yourself.

But the PLP’s spokesman has jumped to Minister Bud’s defence alleging that critics of Dr. Brown and the PLP clearly suffer from a “genetic predisposition or a socialisation experience”.

Seriously.   Did I miss something?  Is Boss Hogg running Alaska Hall?  I look foward to hearing the views of the Human Rights Commission and CURE about these regressive sentiments.

The PLP have exerted significant effort to maintain the distant “Forty Thieves” bogeyman.  But, if viewed dispassionately, many of their efforts seem to amplify and revel in that colonial authoritarian mindset than to reform and overcome it.

Anyone else noticed Bermuda’s increasing brain drain of talented young Bermudians seeking their future elsewhere?  And you wonder why?

Update:   The Premier indicates that he has made Minister Bud responsible for the takeover of the municipalities.  So … on one side he says he wants to destroy the local government to increase accountability … and on the other he assigns the guy who tells his constituents to eff off. It’s funny, in a pathetic heartbreaking imploding kind of way.

Nearly 60% persons who voted for the PLP in the 2007 general election, and nearly 90% of those who voted for the UBP, disapproved of the decision.

In the face of such widespread rejection, you can count on the pot being stirred a lot more this week to try and rebuild some solidarity based on race.  See Bud’s breathless pulp fiction on the PLP website today.  You have to ask yourself – do I trust people who are so willing to resort to emotional manipulation to avoid discussing the situation like adults (never mind the political representatives they are supposed to be)?

Every day this circus continues is another day that Bermuda’s political elite are not focused on Bermuda’s real business.  That will have a penalty one day.

Note from today’s media, we have spent more than $10 million on noise abatement for the dolphins but don’t have the budget to build the homeless shelter.  Of course they have to divert attention.

UPDATE:  The PLP bloggers are trying it on for size that I might be a media or opposition insider.  Nice spin.  I heard it on the radio this morning like everyone else, and the email is winging it around far and wide on this island.  You think people aren’t talking about this?  Now, how about employees of the Cabinet Office posting on a political party website during civil service hours …

“Because it breaches the Constitution, this exchange of notes [leading to the Premier's Great Uighur adventure] which was negotiated and sent on June 10, was in our view, invalid. In other words, the Bermuda Government’s action to solicit the arrival of the four Uighurs was unacceptable. I talked to the Bermuda Government yesterday, June 16, and suggested to them that they should now consider carefully their next steps.”

However he adds that the Uighurs “cannot and should not go back” to Guantanamo Bay, adding that the UK, US and Bermuda needed to work with one another to find the right outcome.

The Uighur episode must be seperated from the conflict regarding Ewart Brown’s leadership.

Meanwhile, the Sun is reporting that the PLP backbenchers are backing off support for a no confidence vote for fear of losing the PLP’s majority in the House. They are at no risk of losing their majority.  Just their credibility.  If they don’t act, they are sowing the seeds for immense future problems for their party … and for all of Bermuda.  Their withdrawal would show that there is no action – no matter how irresponsible, harmful, or illegal – for which they’d be willing to act as a check or balance.

Moreover, the PLP’s spin tactics of pushing this all as a racial issue is further deepening the poison in Bermuda’s soul.  Today the Premier depicted the protests as “a perceived loss of privilege that has driven our whites into extreme anger”.

He knows better.  The whole idea of Rule of Law is that it provides equity of treatment for all.  The Rule of Law was key to breaking segregation.  When the that Rule of Law is bent to the changing desires of a single politician – and his party falls over in sycophancy – then no-one can count on this country.  And what do we have then?

(I find the silence of Bermuda’s lawyers regarding this Constitutional issue to be amazing and reprehensible.)

The debate was desultory and weak.  But you should read the report yourself.

It points out that should Bermuda’s economy expand even moderately in future years, our need for expatriate workers will grow.  There just aren’t enough Bermudians, never mind ones with appropriate education and professional experience for the international sector’s immediate needs.  This will have several impacts:

• Outsourcing off Bermuda will grow.
• The ratio of Bermudians in the working population will decline.

Bermuda does not have the policies in place to deal with these factors.

The report also opines that the use of CURE’s statistics provide an incomplete and inaccurate basis for the legislation in Government’s proposed Workplace Equity Act. Government uses the CURE data to allege that black Bermudians are under employed and under paid in Bermuda companies, requiring hiring quotas and other Government interventions.  I don’t know why this is resurfacing again now.  The Workforce Equity Act was poorly thought out back in 2007 when it was proposed – and stands on even more dubious ground today.  In Bermuda’s weak straits, it would be economic suicide to proceed with it.

The report points out several factors:

Only larger companies are included in the CURE report – 587 out of the 5000 registered to pay taxes.

It is clear that the majority of those businesses not included in CURE’s statistics are most likely small in nature and operated exclusively by Bermudians. This is significant given the likelihood that the racial balance of those working in the excluded businesses most likely reflects the racial composition of Bermudians. As a consequence, CURE’s report likely under-represents the percentage of black Bermudians in the workforce.

This, combined with some other statistical red flags mean that:

In fact, as a means of measuring true racial balance in Bermuda’s total workforce, the CURE statistics are of doubtful value.

The report also points out the skewing impact of Government’s own hiring spree in recent years.

Government has gone from employing 14.8% of the national workforce in 1981 to 17.1% in 2006.  Put another way, of the total of 2,212 Bermudians added to the workforce between 1981 and 2006, the Government absorbed 43% of the additional Bermudians available to the national workforce

Not only does this fuel the private sector’s need to import expatriate workers, but also further skews the pay and race statistics.

• Government jobs often pay less than the private sector, thus showing Bermudians at a salary disadvantage (and creating the unsustainable urge to bump up the public payroll).
• Author Larry Burchall points out that 81% of Government employees are black.   This means that fewer black Bermudians being available in the general workforce and thus impacts the racial balance in the private sector.

I am all for programmes that encourage our international companies to hire and train Bermudians – but these must be based on proper statistics and a pool of Bermudians with advanced education that meets the needs of our employers.  Let’s be real!   Furthermore, given the intensity of our international competition, carrots are going to work far better than sticks.

“We affirm our wholehearted commitment to the cause of reconciliation between all races; and that we ask for forgiveness for the role that this House has played in race division.”

It is a pity that so little is done to communicate in advance what the House is up to – and that true transcripts are unavailable for its proceedings.

One would hope that this Motion would allow the dialogue to move to a new level.

I am disappointed that Bermuda’s “official race adviser” appears to have merely used it as an opportunity to dive back into the same old axe grinding.  It is an opportunity missed to build unity on this divisive issue.

If Bermuda continues on its present trajectory of playing the racial blame game instead of committing to actual racial reconciliation, we will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of our forbearers.

Of course people need to be aware and acknowledge that racism still exists in Bermuda and we all need to actively fight against it with meaningful policies, but until we start to think of ourselves as one community we will continue to be self-destructive:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

True to form, the PLP aggressi-bloggers immediately attack:

Do you agree with the United Bermuda Party’s elder statesman that white Bermudians should refuse to apologise for the deep injustices committed over centuries in this country?

This illustrates the PLP “define your opponent” trickery.  No-one is advising people to refuse anything.  They just don’t get it.  Sure, white people can apologise for our ancestors if they want.  And that changes life how?  But you can expect those same progressive white people to ask today’s PLP leaders to cut the racebaiting as well.  Conversations have two sides.

Also, by referring only to a “UBP elder statesman” I assume they are hoping their followers will conclude the speaker is some regressive white – not the very popular John Swan – thus illustrating exactly the dysfunction that Sir John is describing.

But how can we “start to think of ourselves as one community” when so many in power wish merely to stir the pot of divisiveness and to re-live the battles of the 1950s?

Governments improve life by governing well.  Big conversations happen between people, not Government decree or by committee.  Healing will come from the grassroots and common motivations – and I think that healing is hampered by the “old guard” still in power.

See my earlier post on Identity Politics.

QUESTION:  Could I ask you about race?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You may.

QUESTION: Yours is a rather historic presidency, and I’m just wondering whether in any of the policy debates that you’ve had within the White House, the issue of race has come up, or whether it has in the way you feel you’ve been perceived by other leaders or by the American people. Or have the last 64 days been a relatively color- blind time?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I — I think that the last 64 days has been dominated by me trying to figure out how we’re going to fix the economy, and that’s — affects black, brown and white. And you know, obviously, at the Inauguration I think that there was justifiable pride on the part of the country that we had taken a step to move us beyond some of the searing legacies of racial discrimination in this country, but that lasted about a day. And you know, right now the American people are judging me exactly the way I should be judged, and that is, are we taking the steps to improve liquidity in the financial markets, create jobs, get businesses to reopen, keep America safe? And that’s what I’ve been spending my time thinking about.

Note that the conference included only 10 minutes of speech, followed by 40 minutes fielding 13 questions from journalists.  Even the most popular American president in recent history must make his case.

What about Bermuda?   Ten years later, are we still supposed to suppress all criticisms of poor performance because of race?  Do all questions continue to merit the “plantation slapdown”?

Sorry, that’s not healthy.

MPs congratulated themselves heartily after their impromptu “race debate” last Friday … While praising themselves for launching a “big conversation” on race among the Bermudian people, they have proven to be almost totally incapable of mature sustained dialogue on the subject…

White Bermudians – and black Bermudians too, for that matter – are yearning for somebody who can tackle their country’s problems – including the problem of racial division and inequality – without pushing us forever backwards with name-calling, stereotyping, and other forms of mindless divisiveness…

But instead of clear and calmly-reasoned action, what they are dishing up far too often is backwards-looking childish rhetoric.

This formula does not work, it will not work and it cannot work.

The road forward is inevitably difficult. But until our leaders change their tone, it is will be completely impassable.