NEW COAT OF ARMS REVEALED

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. [00:00:08] Speaker B: We get into one of our interviews here this morning discussing the issue of the new version of the coat of arms. It's been revealed and we're supposed to have two guests with us. One has joined us. Let's say good morning. And well, he's been with us before. We've spoken to him on several occasions as president of the Artists Coalition of Trinidad and Tobago. That's rubed every victor. Good morning to you and welcome to our program. Okay, your microphone seems to be muted. We're not hearing you. I'm not too sure if you're hearing us. [00:00:49] Speaker A: All right, that should be it. You hear me now? [00:00:52] Speaker B: Yes, we are. [00:00:54] Speaker A: All right. Great stuff. [00:00:55] Speaker B: Yes. Good morning to you and welcome to our program. Nice to have you here with us this morning. [00:00:58] Speaker A: Morning. Morning. Good to be here. [00:01:00] Speaker B: We've been for quite some time, we've been having the discussion about the coat of arms, the changes that were proposed, the announcement of the prime minister. And now we have on the front page of the Guardian newspaper an image of what the new coat of arms is going to look like. This morning on the program there were a number of comments about it for against some people indifferent and people questioning all sorts of things. The relevance, what's going to be achieved, what has been achieved and the significance, lack thereof, the cost and a number of different things that have been thrown into the mix. Let me allow you to give us your opinion of the entire discussion. The call for the ships to be removed, the eventual replace with the steel pan and what you think it means for us moving forward. Give us your opinion. [00:01:55] Speaker A: All right. Hi, welcome, Trinidad and Tobago. Hi, thanks for having me, guys. First of all, I'll say that activism around the change, the coat of arms has existed for a while. I mean, I know a wrong in terms of getting the pan on the corpse of arms stretching back to the George Goddard times, the founding of the Panchobigu through Arnhem Smith, through Willie Chen, the artist, the southern artist who's done so many monuments all over Trinidad and Tobago, and to Henry Harper, the guy who got the eventualum promulgation of pan as the national instruments. The activists who got the pan as a national instrument were ratified by government. All of these. So that lineage and the thing to indigenize the iconography of the images on the coat of arms stretches back to artists from independence comes straightforward to the present. So that's one thing. So that activism has been constant and going on. What was unfortunate was that the announcement of the change to the steel ban came in a political forum by the Prime Minister and that politicized the issue and it removed it from the activists. And, you know, like. So the PM was kind of like taking the. That. That thing to himself as if it was. It was an idea that he had that came out of, you know, thin air and it was a cause. It was, you know, already done. You know, it was peremptorily done by the PM and not something that had germinated through generations of people, you know, so that was unfortunate. Right, because process is as important as product, you know, especially in something like this, which has to do with the changing of the very symbols of a nation. And there were significant things, as I said, that came from below and which were ignored and never included in any subsequent statement by the Prime Minister or anybody else from on top. So it appeared, it is made to appear as if this was the PM's idea and his caveat. And that's really unfortunate. It meant that. I feel it was probably also meant as a political kind of tool because it. It drew the UNC out with the normal kind of things that African things. So where's the Indian thing and all that kind of stuff. And racialized. So it politicized it on one hand and racialized it on the other when it never had anything to do with that in the activism, the other thing. So that's in terms of process, it's part of a larger dialogue in terms of the indigenizing of local symbols and local monuments spaces. And our landscape, which came about really, really supercharged with the issues around the Columbus statue and the renaming of institutions led by Chewbacca Cambon and the Rhodes Must Fall foundation, and joined in by the indigenous peoples, especially the Wawau of South Trinidad, and of course, my group Artists Coalition and number of Sheldon Blackmon from the Blackmun family, a number of others joined in. So the thing is. And then there's global movement that Black Lives Matter helped quicken the replacement of all these symbols of white supremacy and genocide, ethnic genocide of black and brown and red peoples across the planet. So, you know, by images and by people and monuments and institutions that have to do with the heroic ideals of civilizations, ideals of peace, justice, freedom, beauty, love, light, all of those things. So that's the other part where the coat of arms things has come in out of those two kind of currents. The Prime Minister finally they created the Monuments Committee. And there were a series of consultations held with the Monuments Committee myself and people were asked to submit ideas and those kinds of things. So I know they received hundreds of things from all across the country, all kinds of different things. I myself was at the consultation, I gave my my ideas. I also submitted, printed an online submission which went into details. I know coming out from the artists themselves and quorums that we held the two things that came out of people agreed morally and aesthetically with the replacement of the pan at the center there, right? Which as I said, came out of a lot of activism from the past from artists and cultural activists. The other thing was the helmet, the Queen's helmet and armor at the top of the crest, right, which is a serious symbol, which is still monarchy, white supremacy, colonialism and all those things. And to have that replaced with an indigenous symbol, a symbol that could encompass the multi ethnic nature of Trinidad and Tobago, but anchor us in Kalinago and Wara, what everybody knows to be Carib and Arawak native selves, right? That dates that puts our civilization at thousands of years old, rather than starting at flag independence since the 60s. You know that the nation Trinidad and Tobago as Iuri or Aba Nani is thousands of years old. The oldest fossil in this part of the world of human beings, 7,000 years old, is Banwari from the south and Gurdwarao peoples. So they said that the symbol that should be at the top of the seal should have been the symbol of the indigenous family, male and female, but as reconceived by Carlisle Chan, the artist who created the coat of arms and created the national flag out of the original national committee that was formed for national symbols. Carlisle Chang has a heroic motif that he created called the Hummingbird man, which is the figure that is the protagonist of the hero in the mural called the Inherent Nobility of Man, which was placed at the Arrival hall at the Piako airport about a couple years ago and which had been destroyed by a previous government in the 70s and had always been a symbol of the way that the arts have been treated by political leaderships in Trinidad. And finally, his apprentice, Glen Roopchand. Carlisle's apprentice Glen Roopchand redid the mural as a large painting. And just before he died, Glenn called me and asked me to see if I can get it placed. And I again activism. We got this then government to place the painting at the arrival hall, that symbol of the Hummingbird man, which is an Amerindian warrior with wings. We said that the male and female of that because that so then the Amerindian person, but the costume Amerindian person with Wings kind of represents symbolically all Trinbagonians, multi ethnic Trinidadians and our creative way that we transcend things and create costuming and create art and create the ability to fly from what's 1.5 million people to create all the brilliant things that we've created. So finally, in conclusion, the symbol as it exists right now that was unveiled, unfortunately, is, I mean, all respects to Gillian Bishop, whose Sister Pat we all love and who died in my arms fighting for this country in cultural matters in Central bank, at the top of the Central bank, that symbol is really badly done as a graphic. Right. So there's been a number of artists, representatives, artists groups, graphic arts groups and those kinds of things that have come out against, just in terms of the aesthetic realization of the symbol. You know that the shading on the symbol, the size of the pan inside of the red crest is too big. It should be reduced by about a quarter. The placement of the pan sticks so they're not balanced. The shading inside of the pan, the bronze, the colors and those kinds of things is unequal. And you know, it's just the lighting and those kinds of things. So there are a number of graphic artists who have, who offer their services, in fact, to work with the artists and government to just correct, in terms of the graphic, just dealing with the pure graphic arts of the symbol, to kind of correct it so that it meets with pure graphic design standards. And so there's that. So the eventual problems with the eventual thing have to do with the fact that the symbol itself is not being realized properly as best as it could be. And it's still an opportunity before it goes out to be corrected, hopefully with some graphic artists and stuff. And then two, what happened to the report of the Monuments Committee? Why is not this announcement and the change to the coat of arms being part, being put out in conjunction with the report from the Monuments Committees, consultations, national consultations, where we would have seen people's responses to those things. We might have actually seen. The engagement with a number of other replacements of other images like the hummingbird man and woman at the top of the crest and all those other kinds of things. So therefore the process of it's just been unveiled without the report of the Monuments Committee is again part of that tendency of the Crown Colony Governor complex, where the Governor slash PM just makes ultimatums and creates caveats and those kinds of things without consultation and without those things. Again, process is as important as product. And here the process and product are flawed. [00:14:16] Speaker B: Yeah. For those of you who may have Joined our conversation midway. You've been listening to president of the Artists Coalition of Trinidad and Tobago. That's Ruben eri Victor, also with us this morning. We spoke to him just after this initial announcement was made by the Prime Minister of the intention to change the three ships and replace it with the steel pan. As welcome back to our program Director of the Caribbean Freedom Project. That's Shabaka Camborn. Good morning to you. Your microphone is muted when we're not hearing you. [00:14:54] Speaker C: Good morning, Victor as well. I just want to make that connection between the way the Dakota bombs is created in the past, you know, the circumstances that were less than ideal for an emblem of such significance, you know, with a number of problematic features foisted on us by the College of Heralds in England. And to see that we have, you know, it's not about. We've been able to critically challenge those features now in 21st century and to change them to remove the ultimate symbol of genocide, the worst aspect of the coat of arms, and to replace it by a symbol of freedom. But of course, again, I don't think we lack the lessons of the past and we're moving in haste under circumstances that, you know, according to. And I'm just reading here from the report that we sent to Parliament, circumstances that are less than ideal for an emblem of such significance. And what has been realized, what has been reported in the press, what have been sent to me, you know, I have to conclude with all these things that Ruby said in terms of the size and plan, in terms of the shading of the plan and so on. As a communication professional myself, I could tell you that from a graphics point of view, it hasn't been realized in a way that we would want it to be realized. I also want to make sure everybody's aware that because again of the haste and so on within which things have been done, the change leaves a number of problematic symbols in place. Pointed to the helmet, which represents Queen Elizabeth ii, which we had to ask permission from her to utilize, you know, which is really a symbol of colonialism, the symbol of Tobago. I'm not sure if that colonial symbol of the seal, the colonial seal of Tobago is something we want to continue to utilize. And certainly three peaks on the coat of arms, which celebrates Columbus's absurd process of renaming the places that he went, you know, without respect and regard for those who live there. And of course they are a dubious, perhaps non existent feature of the southern range. Altogether, based on history, the historical reading of it, it's very likely that there's no such thing as a. As Three Peaks. It's part of the mythology of Trinidad, and of course, a mythology that celebrates something that we no longer see as sacred. And so all those things, I think that kind of conversation is what we attempted to promote when we started this process. But let me just say this. While we critique this thing, and of course, we hope that this is not the final moment on the subject here. We have to celebrate those leaders in the Caribbean today who have taken it upon themselves, whether they've done it in the right way, given credit to the activists and so on. You know, to step forward and challenge these symbols at this time. It's not an easy thing for leaders to do. We have just a few. Mia Motley from Barbados, you know, what's his name, from Saint Vincent I Grenadines, Ralph Gonzalez, and now Prime Minister Motley. And I remember when we were in the height of activism. Sorry, Prime Minister Rowley, we said distinctly that our position was that leaders have a right at this time because these symbols are so egregious, they're so obvious to step forward and address them. But having said that, again, I want to second what Brother Ruben said. And I think that this hasn't been done in the appropriate manner. It's been racialized and politicized, and unfortunately, it's been separated from the process that is taking place right now, the process that we petitioned Parliament for back in 2020, to all symbols of white supremacy and colonial violence. And because it's separated from that larger national dialogue, the change comes in a way that leaves most of the population unaware of its significance. [00:20:00] Speaker B: Yeah, Ruben Eriev did a pretty good job of outlining for us the process that got us to where we are. And that's important in the discussion because the MANNER in which Dr. Rowley made the announcement of the change brought into the discussion elements that probably should not have been evident or a part of the discussion today simply because they had no role and function in getting us to this point. But because it was made at a political rally and because of the overtones that were associated with the announcement. The discussion, I don't want to say has been skewed, but has been inflamed with people not understanding, in many instances, all that went into getting up to this point. How many people over the years were involved in the various forms of activism to change what they thought to themselves and to others and representing who they were, something that needed to be changed at this point in time in the country, how much support? And I don't know if you might ever be able to gauge this, but you can give me your opinion. How much support do you think there is overall for this change to the coat of arms? [00:21:23] Speaker A: I mean, I'd say that I think a lot of people might be indifferent. I think that there's a large quorum of people who believe in it and understand it to be so necessary as something necessary. But the thing is, you can't weigh that independent of the way that the discussion has emerged. You see, the thing is that Trinidad and Tobago has a history of erasure of memory and erasure of legacy and erasure of heroes. That's an unfortunate part of the Trinbegonian. It's something that is pushed and encouraged by our elites and private elites and leaders, and that is part of the terror of this landscape. It's something that we inherited from colonialism by Columbus and the entire myth of discovery, which erased thousands of years of Native American presence and civilization. As I said, 7,000 years here in Trinidad and Tobago, the oldest in the region, and replaced it with the myth of discovery and the myth of white supremacy and. And the myth of when only when white enters the picture, those things become significant, Right? The Hollywood myth, Right. That is further bolstered by the independence myth. So the independence myth is that nothing matters in the country before 1962 and independence, right? The nation is formed in independence. This kind of gift from the colonial powers to us kind of thing in the way that Trinidad and things received it. You know, we didn't have the bloodshed and all those other kinds of things that other people. But there's the myth that the Nation begins in 1962. And so you have these waves of erasure happening which is detrimental to Trinidad and Tobago union. It means that in a country with hundreds of world record holders, hundreds of world firsts, in a world with Oscar, Emmy, Grammy, Tony Award winners, Nobel Prize winners, 1.5 million people, this extraordinary heroic legacy. None of those people are visible anywhere in the landscape in terms of monuments, institutions, places of memory, curricula, media, or in the utterances of our leadership. And all of those heroes represent aspirational pathways to the people of Trinidad and Tobago and have been erased. And so the only protagonists or heroes in our landscape become the politicians who are the only ones present, you know, who always in our face and in every headline and in every newscast and every, you know, and everybody else is erased. All the great artists, all the great liberation leaders, all those people I raised. And so Dr. Rowley's PM, Rowley's manner in which he introduced this thing and prosecuted the entire thing, because he still has not ever given mention to any of the activism that went before and given credit to any of that lineage of activism that puts the thing into context. So it still remains a prime ministerial caveat made as a political thing which politicizes and racialize it. So I think when you ask the question to people, you're going to get a response that is contextualized by the politicized way that it was introduced. So plenty PNM people will support it, plenty UNC people will not, in the racialized way that it was done. So a lot of Indian people may not support it. You know, where is Itasa? Where is he? This, you know, it becomes that rather than the pan as a national symbol created by African and East Indian people and white. And all the different peoples of Trinidad and Tobago poured their sultans, yes, mostly the black, urban working class, but all of those other people contribute to the pan, contribute to the phenomenal symbol of the Pan. So that, unfortunately, that erasure has tainted what could have been a serious, almost unanimous national celebration, you know, and that's the terror and tragedy of the moment. And that dialogue and narrative still has not been rescued by the leadership, you know, and so. And because, again, the weight has just been dropped without the report from the committee, without any, you know, without the national context of consultation that had happened, now everything feels, you know, forced. [00:27:03] Speaker B: Yeah. Mr. Campon, your opinion as to the level of support that this change to the coat of arms has nationally. [00:27:18] Speaker C: Viewers genocide? Because we produced a poetry and a short film on this issue featured very, very clearly, and, you know, the perspective that we took on it was that young people, which is really the missing part of that chorus, is Caribbean people take no pride in genocide. So our position was, if you offered sense of lovely celebrating with monuments to Christopher Columbus, which, of course, our coat of arms was a monument to the invasion and genocidal occupation of the Caribbean. That is what it was. Once clear that that's what they're involved in, they will move away from it. They will shun such a symbol. It is not part of the value. It goes against the core values that we believe in as a people. But Brother Romudin is absolutely correct, unfortunately, and even as we want to. And history will celebrate that decision, that morally correct and courageous decision by Prime Minister Rowley. He realized that the inability of him and the rest of the political leadership to acknowledge those who pioneered this work. And that's not just. I'm not just talking about the Caribbean Freedom Project. We're talking about giving it back to its proper context, starting with those people even inside the colonial planet who objected to the colonial violence was being memorialized. We can go back to in the 1780s who said that slavery was a crime of the first magnitude. And the procurers of. Of slavery. This is. That represents how we saw slave masters and people involved in the genocide of the indigenous people. You know, Speaking in the 1780s compound in the 1950s, the poet laureate of Diana, Martin Carter and Rory west bombed the Queen Victoria, Queen Victoria statue in Guyana. I just came back from Guyana where a recent government, without thinking things through carefully and put it back, fixed it up and put it back in front of our courthouse for a visitor. Some royals, it tells you which direction we're going in. But we have a long tradition of objection to the veneration of symbols of colonial violence and white supremacy in the Caribbean. The 1970s generation. Bob Murray and Peter Tosh articulated their view that black power generation very clearly in 1973 when he said, if you teach the youths about Christopher Columbus and you say he's a very great man and about all these pirates and robbers and murderers, then you can't ruin them when you end up with a society crime. Bob Marley and Peter Tosh said that in 1973, 1980s compared to the 1980s, you have Stalin and Shadow on the eve of the 500th anniversary of the celebration of Christopher Columbus coming forward and saying, you know, burn them. And Stalin says quite clearly, he's a new Columbus to me because he's one of the worst perpetrators in our history. And Stalin, of course, says he was a liar. In the 1990s, you have Ata clan, you have Brother Resistance, and all these voices coming to the floor all these years, you know, like Dr. Spring up, Dr. Brinsley, Samu and others like that who died in the process of trying to. To. To end this. This casual celebration of coronavirus that's all around us. And I think that the way that things were done, this change has been removed from its broader dialogue, and therefore it's not likely to have the kind of impact that it was supposed to have on our understanding of our past kind of children who want to make as a nation, as part of our Caribbean civilization. [00:32:05] Speaker B: Yeah, we just have a couple minutes again left. It's amazing how quickly time went by, and we've just barely scratched the surface of the number of issues that continue to swirl around this entire development. I mean, this morning people sent a number of voice notes and messages, and so there are some strong, strong emotions about this thing for and against. And some people, as Rupert said, they're indifferent. It'll make a difference to some people. They really couldn't care less about what happens. Some people who are concerned not about the messages that are sent based on the historical nature and everything else. Some people are concerned about how much it's going to cost us as a nation to fix this thing. Now that we have to change the coat of arms on every single thing, people start raising some money. It's on your passport. So that's the concern of some people. It shows where their perspectives are. We may not have time to delve into much more again because I have a couple messages to take us up to the top. But we definitely, this is a discussion that needs to be furthered. We need to have more discussions about it because there are some elements of it that need to be explained further to people as to why certain things are taking place the way they are. As to whether or not it will get more people to support, more people to understand, more people to buy into what's going on, that's left to be seen. But I can tell you at this point in time, given the number of messages, the conversation we were having before, the conversation we had when the announcement was made at the political meeting and everything else, this rubbing some people the wrong way, as it would, there are some people who are in high praise of these developments, some people who are ingoing tributes to the work that has been done done, some people who are signaling that this is a step in the right direction and there's much more work to be done in this regards, and some people who totally disagree with all of those positions for whatever reason. But I want to thank both of you for being with us here this morning and giving us your perspectives, giving us the insight, giving us the history and the rationale for what has happened, why it's happening, and some of more what needs to happen as we move forward. Thank both of you once again for being with us here this morning. [00:34:13] Speaker A: Thanks for having us. I should again say that the graphic arts community is willing to intervene with the artists and the government to kind of correct the graphic arts errors on the pacing. So I'll just say that, yeah, I just want to second that point. [00:34:33] Speaker C: I think that needs to be redone. It needs to be retouched in some significant ways for it to be realized in a way that we could all be proud of. [00:34:45] Speaker B: Yeah, definitely. Thank both of you for being with us again. And I'm sure that we'll have further conversations. We've just scratched the surface. [00:34:51] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.