Colonialism has many meanings in the various dictionaries: “the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory” is the mildest I have read and “a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another” is the harshest. This definition also adds, “the difficulty of defining colonialism stems from the fact that the term is often used as a synonym for imperialism.”

The British were masters of both and there is a subtle difference. Edward Wadie Saïd (the controversial literary critic and bold advocate of the Palestinian cause in America) suggested that imperialism involves “the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory”. He goes on to say colonialism refers to the “implanting of settlements on a distant territory”. Robert J. C. Young (the postcolonial theorist, cultural critic, and historian) supports this thinking as he puts forward that “imperialism operates from the centre, it is a state policy, and is developed for ideological as well as financial reasons whereas colonialism is nothing more than development for settlement or commercial intentions.”

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. When we think of slavery we think of Africa and we think of America. We think of the British as it was the first English colony in North America, Virginia, that acquired its first Africans in 1619. But the practice of slavery was first established in the Spanish colonies in the 1560’s. The British expanded it. Although I say “British” perhaps I should say “English”? What is not reported is that slavery in Great Britain had never been authorised by statute and when it was made unenforceable at common law this decision did not apply to the colonies. It was the English slaveholders in America that were 100% behind the American Revolution and this is the reason thousands of slaves revolted and joined the British forces. In the closing months of the war, the British evacuated 20,000 freedmen, transporting them for resettlement in Nova Scotia, the Caribbean islands, and some to England.

When Jamaica’s Prime Minister, Portia Simpson Miller, said recently the queen, meaning Queen Elizabeth II, is a lovely lady but insists her country must sever remaining links to Britain “because of the shameful legacy of slavery”, it is obvious she doesn’t know her history. She makes her ignorance even more evident when she told The Associated Press in an interview on her reasons for cutting ties with the Commonwealth: “It is important to us because it is part of a journey, a journey that started when our ancestors were dragged, sold into slavery and brought here and elsewhere in the Caribbean.”

So this nonsense is her reason for isolating her country from the 52 other sovereign states that form the Commonwealth of Nations. So she is going to make it even more difficult for her countrymen to travel around the world because of something that happened in the past. And not only that Jamaica is isolating itself even more from a unique organisation of extraordinary diverse membership. Emeka Anyaoku of Nigeria, very aptly described the Commonwealth’s most important attribute as:  “Surely its ability to bridge racial, ideological and economic divides and inequalities, assisted by its common language and common heritage.”
In 1991 the countries of the Commonwealth pledged to concentrate their efforts in the following areas:

I) the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth.  (These are defined as democracy, democratic process and institutions that reflect national circumstances, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and just and honest government.  They also include fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief);

II) equality for women, so that they may exercise their full and equal rights;

III) provision of universal access to education;

IV) continuing action to bring about a free, democratic, non-racial and prosperous South Africa;

V) the promotion of sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty in the countries of the Commonwealth by supporting:  a stable international economic framework; sound economic management recognising the central role of the market economy; effective population policies and programs; sound management of technological change; the freest possible flow of multilateral trade on terms equitable to all; an adequate flow of resources from developed to developing countries and action to alleviate the debt burdens of the poorest countries; the development of human resources, paying particular attention to the needs of women, children and youth; and effective and increasing programmes of bilateral and multilateral co-operation;

VI) extending the benefits of development within a framework of respect for human rights;

VII) protecting the environment through respect for the principles of sustainable development;

VIII) action to combat drug abuse and communicable diseases;

IX) help for small Commonwealth countries and their unique problems; and

X) support for the United Nations and other international institutions.

Why do we look back to the past to come up with a distortion of the facts to give some credence to our personal flawed ambitions ? Is it to gain popular support for the “David v Goliath” mentality? And at what a cost? Wasn’t it the British that abolished slavery and some of its advocators actually died for it?

I am English but if I wanted to go right back to my history I would find my ancestors were Scots who suffered much hardship under the English. Do I wish to join the nonsense the Scottish National Party are advocating to promote independence for the United Kingdom because of the past?

Shouldn’t we learn from the past? Strength lies in numbers not in isolation. We Brits have done many wrongs but we also have contributed a lot, too. These islands roots are from the British. However, you wouldn’t have thought so from what was said at a church service last Sunday (4) when a wonderful Jamaican lady was honoured in front of our premier. “It is not just Caymanians that have built this country,” Mr Bush correctly said. The Rector of the church agreed and cited a whole list of countries. Britain never got a mention. I was and still am upset. I realised I am an outsider inside my own Church. I am to blame for what happened in history. When will this persistent contempt for Britain and especially the English ever cease? I referred to it in my Editorial on Tuesday (6).