I am very much entertained by Dr. Russell’s letter to the Editor. It was enlightening to say the least.
Nevertheless, accepting the agrument that there does exists such a thing as an “ontologically white” person, one must be more concern by the thought, that this persona/syndrome is in fact infectious when it comes to the governance and the social endurance within this Bahamas.
If one accepts the agrument that this world is in deed a ‘white driven’ world; where black, brown and yellow persons etc, play catch up, consequently having no other choice but to assimilate a white way of existence to succeed/survive. Moreover, if it is in deed true that our system of governace is white based, better yet, our very legislature is geared toward a white way of living, or moreso our social existence which is tied toward what we consider successful is judged through white eyes, then perhaps it is natural for one to move toward being “ontologically white,” rejecting and looking down to anything foreign to this way of existence. Black Bahamians have been brain washed to believe that thinking/being white is right, better yet, it is the way to be!
We as black persons in diaspora are confused. We have been severed from our tibal way of thinking. It seems as if we no longer understand nor appreciate what it is to be black: our true selves.
In our pursuit to be something other than what we are, we now seperate ourselves from our traditional villages in order to live in gated communities. We no longer send our children to the local private schools, not to mention the public schools, rather, we now ship them overseas to boarding institutions. We no longer are eager to help our neighbours instead we donate monies. We join fraternities, sororities and lodges to ensure that only our selected members are progress.
So when, Dr. Russell suggests that we should be weary of the likes of Mr. Brent Symonette due to them being ‘Ontologically white;’ i.e, not being able to associate/relate themselves with the majority of the Bahamian populace, (i.e black Bahamians), I say we should be weary of ourselves, for it seems as if our entire population is undoubtedly moving toward being ‘ontologically white.’ An entity that thinks it is quite natural for them to be superior to their neigbours.
CN
THE BAHAMA JOURNAL
29th November 2005
Letter To The Editor
Brent Symonette “Ontologically White”
Dear Editor:
Please allow me space in your daily for a comment.
Friedrick Nietzsche advances the idea, in his monumental work The Genealogy of Morals, that there are no ‘truths’ only ‘perspectives’. With this dictum in mind I offer the following analysis.
There is much talk, still, about Mr. Brent Symonette being a white man. If the discussion continues to be about the color of his skin, we are wasting valuable time and energy debating the blatantly obvious. What may not be so apparent–and is far more important–is that Mr. Symonette is ontologically white. That is: whiteness is the grid out of which he thinks and makes decisions. It’s okay to think white if the job for which you are vying is writing editorials for The Tribune, but if, potentially, you are seeking a national office in a country predominantly populated by black people then it is not permissible.
Ontological whiteness is elitist. It is insensitive to the plight of suffering, struggling masses of people, who, in this country, happens to be black. This is not the case everywhere in the world where ontological whiteness holds or is trying to gain power. In some cases the masses are brown, yellow–even white.
Moreover, ontological whiteness perceives itself to be superior, with some innate, God-given right to rule the masses. It is restless until it achieves this goal. Further, it believes its particular world view and cultural perspectives to be universal, ignoring all others or relegating them to a place of inferiority. But what is most disturbing about this insidious human aberration is that it insists upon the masses having a sustained collective amnesia about history, so that its grotesque face and diabolical actions can be washed away in a river of forgetfulness.
To be sure, there are white-skinned Bahamians who are not ontologically white, but Mr. Symonette is not one of them. And this evaluation of Mr. Symonette by many Bahamians is not pulled out of the ether; it is a matter of record.
For example, when he was briefly the Minister of Tourism and faced with the human dilemma of whether to close a government hotel that was losing money, or to keep it open allow struggling Bahamians to keep a job, Mr. Symonette’ s decision was in favor of closing it down.
Of course, if a hotel closes Mr. Symonette would not miss any meals and his bills will still be paid. He doesn’t concern himself with the masses who would be caught in this predicament. For him market forces take precedence over suffering people. This is the thinking of ontological whiteness.
Another audacious display of this thinking process occurred when he was chairman of the Airport Authority. He offered a contract for work at the airport to his company (to himself). Of course, to every ethical person–who is not blinded by the torch–this is a conflict of interest and abuse of power. At least it is to any person not infected by ontological whiteness.
But, alas, Mr. Symonette is unrepentant. In an interview years later conducted by Christian Campbell, in the Weekender of May 27-29, 2005, Mr. Symonette was asked about his decision to award himself a contract; he stated: “I’d do it again tomorrow because it was the right decision. It was the cheapest price. The mistake I made was not getting the board to approve it.”
Astonishing! But he is thinking from his grid. He has not changed because he cannot change. It is who he is: by nature and nurture. This is his being. He thinks white. His ilk is defined by this kind of arrogance, and is used to not being accountable to any law outside themselves. He is incapable of thinking his way into the shoes of the masses. It is not in him. He has no map, no tools to find his way in. Every policy he would formulate and every decision he would make would disproportionately benefit a private precinct of power and, in the end, adversely affect the masses. He is not fit for national office because he is incapable of a national thought.
In a final example, during the same interview Mr. Campbell asks: ‘Why is it that ‘white’ Bahamians find it difficult to celebrate African-rooted culture, which is also their culture?” Mr. Symonette responds: “My heritage is France, hence the name ‘Symonette’. France to England and possibly to Bermuda and then here…I didn’t come that route (meaning the African slave route). So my cultural history isn’t based in the navel string of Mother Africa, so how can you ask me to celebrate that heritage.” Unbelievable! And this man, potentially, wants a national office in a country where 98% of the population–himself included–has roots in Africa. (It would strengthen my argument at this point to include here his evasive and dismissive comments when asked about the presence of blackness in his immediate ancestry, but I find it to painful to write.)
This is why Mr. Symonette’s very presence on the ticket conjures up three hundred years of ugly Bahamian history, where blacks (and some whites) were marginalized, demonized and dehumanized. It isn’t the color of his skin, it’s the color of his thinking. Some white people marched alongside blacks to gain the freedoms we all now enjoy. Mr. Symonette is not one of them. Although it is a historical fact that most people infected with this ontological disposition have been, and are, white, the sad fact is that many people with black skins are ontologically white. They think from the same elitist, insensitive, superior, self-deprecating grid.
As for Mr. Ingraham, understandably, I don’t get the same visceral feelings regarding, his presence on the F.N .M.’ s ticket. Yet, I have never liked his brash, insensitive, dictator style of leadership. In my opinion, it is inconsistent with the deepening of democracy. In addition, there are those of us in Grand Bahama who still remember his caustic remarks to working Bahamians with the closing of the Lucayan Beach Casino. Some of us still remember how long the Lucayan strip was closed; remember the construction company who came to rebuild it running off with Bahamians’ paychecks. We remember Gulf Union Bank. We know who to charge with the debacle of the former Princess Hotel Property. And some of us can discern in Mr. Ingraham’s recent actions the Pilate syndrome: the symbolic washing of hands, denying responsibility for or culpability in the sacrifice of innocence. The human slaughter of sons has long been rejected by God with Abraham on Mt. Mariah.
All of the above is a matter of record. None of it can be obfuscated from the acute eyes and keen memory of the Bahamian public by the jubilant gyrations and genuflecting of Mr. Ingraham’s hypnotized supporters. Still, I have always been appreciative of Mr. Ingraham’s willingness to serve, his willingness to put he and his family under fire. This is no small contribution, notwithstanding his delusions in the present circumstances. Thank you, sir.
And so, the show is over. It was interesting and exciting, with drama and intrigue, full of pump and pageantry, rising balloons and falling confetti, but with Mr. Ingraham and Mr. Symonette as the headliners, I don’t think that the Bahamian people, the majority of whom are the working class, can afford the price of the ticket.
Sincerely,
Dr. Keith A. Russell
(c)www.gapseed.blogspot.com
