 |
By Chris Tufton |
May 2002: During my first few days as a student in Manchester, England, back in September 1999, I was told not to live in a place called Moss Side.
Why, I asked.
"Because that's where the Jamaicans live," was the reply.
This I found to be a profound and disturbing statement. It did not matter that this person, a white male, was unaware that I was Jamaican, because even if I were not, I would still be struck by the fact that someone, with education, could harbour such strong and resolute sentiments, to offer such advice about a national identity.
Needless to say I felt hurt at the time and quickly abandoned the conversation, consoling myself by attributing his comments to reasons that were more race related.
STRONG SENTIMENTS
In the years that followed, I have consciously exposed my national origin, in an attempt to solicit reactions from non-Jamaicans, and particularly British-born, audiences.
I have been struck by the varying and mixed reactions. Rarely have I not noticed a response, explicitly through comments, or implicitly through facial expressions.
Consistently however, there is a view and/or an inquiry about this relatively small Caribbean island.
My unscientific study suggests that Jamaica has extremely strong name recognition in England, and solicits equally strong views among the population. Very few people are indifferent.
To most, we are a talented people, with demonstrable exceptional qualities in areas of sports, academia, and music. Most have heard of Bob Marley and the 1997 World Cup football team.
For others, we represent the island of hot sun, white sand beaches, beautiful women, rum, coffee, and according to one man "the best tasting marijuana money can buy".
Still others perceive Jamaicans as an aggressive set, always seeking to take control, 'run things'. For this reason they are ruthless in their pursuits and where those pursuits are channelled into negative action, they quickly earn the reputation for being the worst, or to put another way, the best at what they do.
It is this reputation that features in our involvement in the gang-related drug trade here or our periodic upsurge in mass protest and/or violence back home.
Both types of events, when they occur, are carried in the media here, and, in my opinion, both are major contributory factors influencing the opinions others have of us.
Another influencing factor is the approach adopted at times by the authorities in dealing with incidences that involve or are suspected to involve Jamaicans.
There seems a preconceived notion that given the reputation of Jamaicans, the more gruesome the crime, as long as it is drug, gang, or gun-related, Jamaicans are likely to be involved.
So, frequently we hear the term 'yardie style' being used to describe the most horrific incidence of gang or drug-related crimes, even when the evidence is still being collected.
In fact, the term conjures up so much fear among the society, it is used and abused by many, including wrongdoers, even those who would not be able to identify the country on a map of the Caribbean.
The truth is, the U.K. has been experiencing an upsurge in violent gun-related crimes over the last few years, particularly in its main centres of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol.
In London, for example, the number of shootings has increased by almost 100 per cent since 1995. And even with Home Secretary, David Blunkett's attempts to assure Britons that overall crime is trending down, publicity given to these violent street crimes has increase the fears of the society and turned attention to those accused of being the perpetrators of such crimes.
With the evidence suggesting that many of the most brutal crimes are associated with young men involved in the lucrative crack cocaine trade, it is no wonder that Jamaica, with its most recent reputation for being a main transshipment point for hard drugs into Britain, is high on the list of targeted countries and negatively positioned in the minds of the British public.
And there is evidence to feed this perception. According to official sources, there are currently approximately 2,300 Jamaicans in British jails, 90 per cent of whom are serving time for drug-related crimes.
Additionally, the creative approach to transporting the drugs seems nove - no longer among cargo, but in first, economy, or business class.
This tends to feed a competitive media and further reinforces the negative perceptions about us, among the wider population.
But for those who live among or interact with Jamaicans here, there is a clear sense that Jamaicans in general are important positive contributors to British society.
POSITIVE CONTRIBUTORS
Teachers, nurses, politicians, academics, civic leaders, or tradesmen, all make up the approximately 450,000 persons with Jamaican linkages living in Britain. Together they comprise a mix of talent and influence at the community and national levels.
The challenge seems to be how to leverage our strengths towards highlighting the positives, while neutralising or isolating the negatives. This should be possible because after all is said and done, there are a lot more positives than negatives.
It is how we organise and communicate that is our immediate task. Addressing this challenge is particularly important at this time, party because of the negative publicity associated with the few who are involved in the drug trade, but more generally because of an upsurge of rightwing sentiment across Europe blaming immigrants for the ills of their societies.
Towards a policy of engagement coping with this challenge is as much a responsibility of the law-abiding Jamaicans living in Britain, as it is of the Jamaican state. Taking a proactive stance should not just be viewed out of loyalty to country, but out of self-interest.
For the facts are that given public perception of Jamaica, it is only a matter of time before public pressure is brought to bear on legislators to restrict access of our nationals. Likewise this reputation is likely to affect our chances of taking advantage of opportunities in England, such as jobs or education.
In the case of the state, the reasons are even more obvious. In a country that depends on visitor arrivals, and is further burdened to accept deportees, many of whom have very little experience with the Jamaican society, there is clearly a case for more aggressive action.
To begin with, there must be greater mobilisation by Jamaicans in the U.K. towards forming community-based organisations that are actively engaged in networking, and in the process, highlighting the positives of our culture and people, and establishing a public voice to air our concerns at the community and national levels.
There are currently just under 40 Jamaican community-based organisations, many doing excellent work. However, it seems that their agenda and structure requires re-examination towards a greater focus on national networking and lobbying.
Here, I believe our Government can play a role.
Working through our foreign mission, there has to be a renewed focus on community relationships, working with these associations, where they exist, towards national identity management and promotion.
Basic structures like having a community newsletter, a media relation's officer, periodic meetings of heads of various community associations to discuss wider issues and strategies, are important parts of any modern structure.
And, in clusters of Jamaican communities where these associations do not exist, there should be renewed effort to get them established.
This can only be possible if there are the necessary resources to coordinate such activities. In the context of budgetary constraints the Government should look at making this type of activity a priority, particularly because our reputation in these markets is likely to have economic consequences for our island.
This approach should be extended to other important markets such as key states in the United States.
More generally, the time has come for our Government to develop a more comprehensive strategy towards our migrant communities.
Too many Jamaicans live outside of Jamaica, representing resources of one form or another, for us not to have a comprehensive programme of engagement or re-engagement. This holds true for the Government as it does for the private sector.
We must begin to view those who choose to relocate as potential assets, and provide them the opportunity to constructively engage in the country. Whether as investors, foreign-based consumers, tourists, or unofficial ambassadors. Progress dictates that they are courted and engaged.
Chris Tufton is a Jamaican doctoral student in England. This column was first published in the Jamaica Observor.