Thursday 4 February 2010

The houses that slavery built

There is a thing happening now that is confusing to me. Perhaps you can help me understand it. The Barbados National Trust is a local charity concerned with "the preservation of places of historic and architectural interest or of natural beauty and ecological importance". One of their programmes in an open house initiative, in which the public is invited to view not only historical homes, but also "newer, luxurious Bajan-Style villas". You pay some money, enter the property, engage in due amounts of oohing and aahing, and there. You've had your open house experience.

It has seemed to me over the years that most of the people who attended the open houses were tourists, along with those locals and expatriates with a particular interest in architecture or museums. But there seems to be an effort afoot this year (I can't say with any surety that the effort is peculiar to 2010, but I am just noticing it in the campaign's publicity) to encourage more locals - your, ahem, average Barbadians - to participate. The CBC Evening news ran a segment this week showcasing the first open house of the season, and this is where I'm going to fail you on the details, because I don't recall the location, and I don't have a clip or article to show you. I have nothing, in fact. You essentially have to take my word - paraphrased as it is - that this is what happened:

Dr. Karl Watson, a UWI historian and local champion of historical and environmental preservation, was in attendance at the event, as expected, and as the camera panned around to show who the guests were, was giving his thoughts on the importance of open houses and the like. He was pleased with the turnout, and the fact that there seemed to be more locals there, because Black Barbadians should take an interest in seeing the homes that their ancestors had built. Sounds harmless enough, although Dr. Watson being a White man does tend to nuance his telling Black Barbadians in which parts of their heritage they should take an interest. But let's accept this and move on.

The reporter on the story also heard from the owner/resident of the property - also a White man, this time of non-Barbadian provenance - who was chuffed that people had taken the opportunity to come out and see his home, because when he first moved (t)here he had spoken to the people in the village from time to time, and they had said no, they'd never been inside, and had no idea what it looked like, a fact by which he seemed surprised.

Right then, so this is what the invitation translates to: I, as a descendant of slaves, should be interested in paying for the privilege of being allowed inside the homes built from the toil of my enslaved ancestors, in order to observe the inordinate wealth in which slave owners lived at that time (especially as compared with slaves, who literally owned nothing, including themselves), and in which White owners of these properties continue to live today. Yeah. Thanks.

Now I might be wrong about a fact or two. Perhaps in the interest of getting more locals in, they waived fees for those coming from the surrounding areas. I don't know if that's true. It would make sense if they had, and if it's true, feel free to correct me. But it doesn't change what is wrong with some of the absurd statements I heard in that newscast. Barbadians are famous for our reluctance to have anything to do with the history of slavery (incidentally, Dr. Watson is also making absurd statements in the article linked here, although I'd like to think the cluelessness is a result of something lost in the journey from the newsroom. Barbadians don't want to cut sugarcane because they see it as a relic of slavery? I can't think where they would get that notion). And I have my own thoughts on that - on the idea that engaging in any discourse that recalls the horrors of slavery is necessarily an undesirable thing - but I understand it. A few have tried to widen that discourse, to demonstrate that it might actually be a useful and empowering one, but the jury's still out on that. So I get that there's a need - as far as some of us are concerned - to stimulate Barbadians' engagement in learning about our heritage. But here's what I don't get: a group of privileged, often White, sometimes non-Barbadian, sometimes non-descendants of slaves telling me in what parts of my heritage and consciousness-raising I should engage as a Black Barbadian. And worse, encouraging me to do so in an environment that reinforces the racial and economic hierarchy that existed in the time of slavery. I'm meant to mill about a rich, White man's property - one that was built by slaves - as said rich, White man looks on - and then go home feeling honoured to have been allowed?

I say all that in the first person because there were Black Barbadians there, who said on camera that they live nearby, and had been curious about the place, so they took the opportunity to go in and see what was what. One woman, when asked her impressions, basically said (I'm paraphrasing again) that the stuff inside didn't seem all that ornate and she was expecting more expensive things, but overall it was nice, which made me chuckle.

I am not against the work of the National Trust in preserving and showcasing historic sites. I think it's a great thing. But here's the thing: when the only commentary you have to make on race relations in Barbados - both old and new - involves telling me how to experience the history of slavery on your terms, in an immediate environment not unlike the actual environment at that time, where the property built by Black slaves was occupied and enjoyed by the wealthy White, and you do not see or acknowledge what is problematic about that picture, then that's where I have a problem.

I was speaking to my friend about it last night, and I told her "I am going to call that man - Dr. Watson - on the telephone." And she agreed that I should. So I will. I'll let you know how that turns out.

8 comments:

  1. While I get the problems of as you say ‘a group of privileged, often white, sometimes non-Barbadian, sometimes non-descendants of slaves telling me in what parts of my heritage and consciousness-raising I should engage as a Black Barbadian’, I was thinking that the B’dos National Trust open houses are more than the disturbing example you saw on CBC.

    I was going to say that not all the open-houses are fancy, aristocratic, white-owned homes, some of the national trust properties are ‘quaint’ Bajan homes which reflect and preserves our unique heritage. Then I went to their website, just to check the properties they were in fact showcasing for the open houses, and well, maybe you are right. Why indeed would I want to go inside your fancy plantation house to see what you got?

    That said though, some of the visits to the more obvious historically significant sites, may prove a little more interesting and somewhat educational for the average local. I’m talking about George Washington House, Ilaro Court, St. Nicholas Abbey…

    It may be interesting/useful/hilarious to actually go on one of these open houses for further insights - then again you might be too annoyed. But if you're up for it - in the name of research of course - I'm willing to come with.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you very much for highlighting this, I missed seeing or hearing anything about it. I live in Barbados and I support the work of The National Trust. However, I have only ever attended one Open House like this and that was a few years ago.
    Going by your analysis I must agree that there is definitely something very problematic about this. You also said:
    "....when the only commentary you have to make on race relations in Barbados - both old and new - involves telling me how to experience the history of slavery on your terms, and you do not see or acknowledge what is problematic about that picture, then that's where I have a problem."
    I agree with you 100% and unfortunately this happens a lot in Barbados.
    Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i get the points your making, and they make sense.. but the flip side is also.. it was an invitation to bajans (regardless of background) to have some interest in the relics of the past (regardless there social-stigma)

    Charging to go in may be a bit, what would you say, slap in the face like...as you put it across. I get that.

    As a white bajan, who certainly doesn't live in one of those big plantation sort houses, and has a mixed enough background that it's impossible for me to say I came from any of the families that actually owned/built them, I like it when i get the chance to go in and see those things for just the historical point of view. But then again, I enjoy that be it in Barbados or anywhere else I get to go (or aspire to go)

    I've never thought, my ancestors didn't live in this luxury, nor do I, and been bitter about it. But like I said, i guess I have enough of a mixed background (as do many Caribbean people) that I don't feel obliged to take sides either.
    I like to be historically aware, but remain conscience in the present.


    So as far as the present goes..Where do the entrance fees go? To the owners or to the National Trust, what are they allocated to do... just might be interesting to know.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Anonymous above: Certainly no one is saying that there is no value in the viewing of historic properties. It's an area that interests me, as it does many others. The problem is with the message conveyed in the manner that these houses are shown.

    And that word you use? 'Bitter'? That's a problem, and frankly an insult. Are you suggesting that Black people who take issue with the comparative wealth and privilege still enjoyed by certain communities as a result of slavery are bitter? 'Taking sides' is also a fairly ridiculous notion. And finally, also ridiculous is the idea that people who take exception to certain (current) behaviour for historical reasons are living in the past rather than the present. It's a bit of a cop-out and an oversimplification of the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess my comments weren't totally specifically about this isolated post per say but come from the topic in general.

    As you can see in the beginning of my post I concurred that the charging of people to go in to view 'rich man (past or present)'s house can be seen as a bit of a slap in the face.

    However, how would you suggest the general public be encouraged to cultivate and interest in our historic architecture? (of which these houses are a part, although not only)

    "Right then, so this is what the invitation translates to: I, as a descendant of slaves, should be interested in paying for the privilege of being allowed inside the homes built from the toil of my enslaved ancestors, in order to observe the inordinate wealth in which slave owners lived at that time (especially as compared with slaves, who literally owned nothing, including themselves), and in which White owners of these properties continue to live today. Yeah. Thanks."

    We all have the potential for some bitterness, I'm just saying some things in this discourse (specific to this one conversation and the conversation at large among Barbadians re our history/races etc) have definite potential for bitterness.

    Like i said, as a not-rich, white Barbadian who has no control over what any of her ancestors may have done yesterday, matter of fact decades ago... I'm not sure an objective position on the Open houses is that it's an insult to black Barbadians...

    Sorry if that came across insultingly, but I'm just trying to converse honestly.

    Past vs. present... the past cannot be changed. The present is all we have. When people stop at, wrong was done in the past..and thats the end of the conversation.. there is no resolution, because the people of the past are gone.

    So..hence my question about where this money is going from viewing these houses? If it's only going into the pocket of the well-to-do person owning the building, then I can see how the situation of " an immediate environment not unlike the actual environment at that time, where the property built by Black slaves was occupied and enjoyed by the wealthy White" is created

    I would think the National Trust should be pouring those funds into restoration of other sites.. But you never know though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I'm not sure an objective position on the Open houses is that it's an insult to black Barbadians."

    I'm not at all implying that. You'll notice that I'm describing an incident of an open house, and how it's shown - i.e. with a wealthy, White property owner joining the National Trust in encouraging, specifically, Black Barbadians to come and see the homes that their ancestors built while he stands there and observes - as a pretty foolish way to undertake this initiative.

    The fact is, I don't want White people telling me how to experience my own heritage, especially heritage that they're still benefiting from, and specifically advocating that I come view these homes because my ancestors built them. Encouraging all of Barbados to see our collective architectural heritage is one way to encourage participation. But do you not see how it's problematic for a White person to cast me as a descendant as a slave for his own purposes? "You are a descendant of a slave, and therefore, you should come see how slaves, your forefathers, contributed to the wealth of White people like me." To use that as the pitch, when there are so many other pitches that might be made, is completely one-dimensional and quite frankly out of order.

    I'd imagine that the money from the events goes toward the expenses of the National Trust, and if that's the case, I have no issue with that. They do good work in general. It's just that they need to reframe this particular approach.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gotchya

    and yeah that makes perfect sense to me..

    thanks for th clarification :)

    I concur.. no one should be telling anyone else how they should experience their heritage

    and "as a descendant of _____" should never be the pitch used for anything I'd say...black nor white

    I guess in my reading of the original post the line between disagreement with the open house events & disagreement with the marketing pitch was kind of lost.

    Speaking of Heritage/history & buildings..
    Sam Lord's rotting away..NT not interested in that or is it privately owned?

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's more than the marketing pitch, though. That can't be separated from how the events are executed, and the clear philosophy behind it all, which comes from a place of privilege.

    I think there might be a new owner of Sam Lord's. There were some plans announced for it some time ago, but I don't recall what they were.

    ReplyDelete

Creative Commons License
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence