Plantation questions

When I heard that Deputy Premier Dr. Ewart Brown will no longer answer questions from the press that he considers to be "plantation questions", I wondered what on earth he meant. So did the Royal Gazette. So I emailed him to ask.

Just over an hour later, I got his reply:

"A plantation question is one which conjures up for me stories of plantation life where the relationship between the owner and his servant was a "man-boy" arrangement.

An example of such a question would be : "Did GlobalHue (a black-owned company) win the Tourism Ad contract because its owner assisted in getting Rev Al Sharpton to speak at the BIU banquet?"

It is often a question which is not asked of White politicians."

Dr. Brown is not without his faults, but a willingness to engage with the media generally isn't one of them. In fact, of his parliamentary colleagues, I have found only Dale Butler to be as responsive.

That's why his refusal to answer "plantation questions" is disappointing. Dr. Brown may consider such questions to be insulting, but if the media believes that there are sufficient grounds to ask them, a denial followed by an explanation is more likely to soothe their concerns. Whenever a politician refuses to answer a question it usually just makes him look evasive. For someone who is mistrusted as much as Dr. Brown, such a course of action seems particularly inadvisable.

For proof, Dr. Brown needs look no further than the suspicion that has been generated by his refusal to answer questions about the change of developers on the Club Med redevelopment. In today's paper he said that negotiations with the Renaissance group had been terminated because they had not satisifed the Government's conditions. So I also asked Dr. Brown if he could tell me what those conditions were - even in just general terms - and if not, why he was refusing to comment.

"I will not elaborate further at this time. It is a policy of mine to limit discussions regarding financial details to the principals and the Cabinet," he said.

Comments

[Bill Cook on 23.02.06 at 14:20]

Guilden,

I have other things to do in my busy life so cannot always pay attention to all the posts.

If you took off the blinkers you should have been able to see my comment on Globalhue was that it would be better to look at Globalhue relative to their past performance rather than pre judge them out of hand, as I thought that would be fair and free of predjudice.

Similarily I said we should wait until all the facts are in ref the Berkely report as it is serious to make accusations you cannot substantiate.

You will also see that I do not really care about the politics but do care about competence and performance.

You obviously have a limited knowledge of my past opinions regarding previous governments and I held them to the same standards.

When one criticizes the PLP you and every other supporter has every opportunity to counter with facts thats the whole point of debate is it not?

I find no shortage of vocal supporters of the PLP regardless of what they do good bad or indifferent.

Before you make statements it may be advisable to think a bit longer before coming to conclusions that may not be accurate.

[J Starling on 23.02.06 at 14:20]

Sorry, I meant PATI not PACT - the freedom of information act.

[loki on 23.02.06 at 14:22]

SmokingGun,

I'm disappointed in you, I really am. I expected more: haven't you realized yet that it's perfectly OK to generalize about whites, white attitudes and opinions, and lump all whites in together if they criticize black politicians and, specifically, PLP ministers?

[SmokingGun on 23.02.06 at 14:32]

Well Limey if you are going to do that then I certainly hope you are going to delete loki's "I'm disapointed in you" line.

Geeesh - I get a complement from Shelley and you're all over me like a feather duster on a polished bonnet at Pebble Beach.

Thanks Shelley, and yes Dr. Brown should clearly articulate his vision and strategy and how GlobaHue best fits in with Bermuda's needs to accomplish them.

And thanks Loki. I forgot my place in society for a moment there.

[Tired of Politics on 23.02.06 at 14:33]

Loki,
Of course... In Bermuda, racism is only a black thing right? Whites never get stereo-typed as being rich, born with a golden spoon or any of that nonsense... Portuguese NEVER get stereo-typed in any ways... It's only the poor black man right thats affected... Oh wait watch out, the referee has called a race card! Everyone off the field.. no more questions please for Mr. Brown!

Racism is perfectly legal the other way round in Bermuda is it not, what IS all this fuss about?!?

-Tired of Politics

[Zoom on 23.02.06 at 14:35]

Answering difficult questions is part of the job of being a politician. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Using racial emotions to dodge questions is unprofessional.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 23.02.06 at 14:38]

Bill,

"Would it not make more sense to have an evaluatuion of Global hue regarding its ability to do the job we the people are going to pay it to do ?"

These are your words, not mine. Please be so kind as to point out my inaccuracy.

How do you know that an evaluation fo the company was not done?

Ummmm, did I refer to you when I mentined anything about the Berkeley project or are you trying to make an assumption that I did?

Also please show where I questioned your not holding previous governments accountable.

As far as I am aware I only referenced your name regarding GlobalHue.

Maybe you should thoroughly read my posts because you accuse me of taking you to task or questioning what you have or have not done.

Your view of Al Sharpton is your entitlement but do you know him personally to think he is an a**hole? Because unless you know somebody outside of their public persona how could you possibly determine who they are as a person. Or do you form your view because of his very aggressive stance and no nonsense approach on racial predujice? Should he sit quietly by and allow certain things to transpire? Would that alter your view of him?

[loki on 23.02.06 at 14:41]

SmokingGun,

Did I need to point an irony point at the end of my post?

[Rossini on 23.02.06 at 14:41]

For the avoidance of doubt I am not Col. Burch.....hate to break it to you, but there's more than one or two confident (for you read arrogant)black men around who ain't afraid to bring you face to face with the truth and invite you to look in the mirror. I know it hurts when I take on your sacred cows of the black community but they're sacred to you...to a lot of us they're to blame for this whole issue. If they had stood up and not been afraid when they had the chance we wouldn't be having these nasty and occasionally profane chats.You wouldn't be surprised or offended by a black man whose claim to fame is a little more than "he speaks, hugs and kisses everybody". Please....

[observor on 23.02.06 at 14:53]

Guilden

Some of us have opinions and are not afraid to express them, no matter how they may upset you. You either deal with it or ignore it but we are not going away anytime soon

I may not agree with everything you say but I certainly appreciate your contributions to this website and the perspective you offer.

I think those posters that are defending Dr. Brown and trying to justify his position are losing sight of a simple fact: the government works for us, not the other way around. We pay the salaries, we pay for the advertising agency contracts, we pay (double) to build new schools, we pay for new fast ferries, etc., etc.

As far as I’m concerned if a reporter, or anyone else for that matter, asks a minister a question regarding how, where, why and when our tax dollars are spent they damn well deserve an answer. For the avoidance of doubt, government has a clear responsibility to its electorate to answer questions truthfully, timely and completely. Dr. Brown's remark that I will always tell the truth. I might not tell all of it is totally unacceptable and does nothing more than bolster the argument of his detractors who feel his primary goals are more personal than national.

[loki on 23.02.06 at 14:56]

Two words for you Guilden: Tawana Brawley.

That's for starters. I also put forth for your consideration that:

(a) non-assholes don't get caught on videotape negotiating a drug deal;

(b) non-assholes don't promote loan companies with predatory lending practices aimed squarely at poor African Americans;

(c) non-assholes wouldn't associate themselves with Jesse Jackson's shakedown techniques and outright fraud;

(d) non-assholes don't refer to Jews as "bloodsucking Jews", or refer to whites as "crackers"

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 23.02.06 at 14:58]

Observer,

Does President Bush disclose every single penny spent by his administration and every contract signed to the American populous? No.

I agree that government work for and are to report to the people but at the same time they are hired to run the country and they cannot effectively run the country if they have to run to the public with every little detail.

Tourism may find alternate stregic marketing partners and if Tourism is positively impacted why should the Minister have continuously meet the press to tell them the who, what, where, when and how?

Yes, they work for us but they also need the autonomy to get on with the job.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 23.02.06 at 15:05]

Loki,

A**holes also don't have fairly broad support from their peers.

Many people think lawyers are a**holes but maybe its just the nature of the profession that give that impression :-)

[Bill Cook on 23.02.06 at 15:08]

Guilden

If I gave the wrong impression what I meant was would it not be better to evaluate Globalhue rather than dismiss it out of hand by making a judgement without facts.

You make assumptions of UBP supporters of which I am one and we are referenced frequently.

I know quite a bit about Al Sharpton and that is why I said if invited to meet him I would ask him the referenced question.

People are heros to some and assholes to others thats life and we are all entitled to our opinions based on our individual analysis.

To generalise about people presents difficulties but I would admire courage, strength, integrity, honesty, selflessness and to live a life that would leave the world a little better for having lived in it.

It is one thing to say show me where I said that, another to say show me what I MEANT when I said it, as frequently the two are not one and the same regrettably,ie one is more interested in winning arguments rather than solving problems,at least in my own long term observation.

[SmokingGun on 23.02.06 at 15:10]

Loki - not unless you think I needed to. :)

Ross - glad your black... I mean back... for goodness sake lighten up. If we can't have an honest, open ended discussion about why "our" elected officials choose to use inflamatory language then what's the point of even having a discussion.

And who's saying these chats are nasty? I for one appreciate learning what you and others have to say. Just because I may not completely agree with all of it doesn't mean I don't understand that what you say maybe based in something you may have experienced and are simply trying to share.

[observor on 23.02.06 at 15:18]

Guilden

Your comparison of Bermuda to the U.S. isn't applicable ... at all ... by anyone's standards. We have less than 0.02% of the population of the US and proportionally a much larger government on a per capita basis.

I’m not asking for affirmation of government’s every decision making process, I’m simply asking for the release of information regarding how, where, why and when our tax dollars are spent.

[SmokingGun on 23.02.06 at 15:22]

"Does President Bush disclose every single penny spent by his administration and every contract signed to the American populous? No."

Guilden. Come on. This is Bermuda. Bush has probably got a ranch in Texas bigger than our country.

Actually come to think of it there is a place in Texas called Bermuda that's bigger than our country. They call it Dimmit County. I guess our leaders think we should call ours Dimwit Country.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 23.02.06 at 15:33]

Observer,

As far as how, where, when and why tax dollars are spent, could you not pick up and read a copy of the budget? Does the budget not show previous year actual and projections for the coming year?

[observor on 23.02.06 at 15:36]

Guilden ... you're forgetting the two most important..how and why ;-)

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 23.02.06 at 15:40]

Observer,

With cheque and because a service had been provided ;-)

[SmokingGun on 23.02.06 at 15:41]

True: And I can hear Paula Cox's response as to why the budget was 100% over: "We decided to make a bigger investment".

[observor on 23.02.06 at 15:49]

Guilden

If it's a payment for services rendered I guess they are quite a few uncashed and unissued cheques remaining in the ledger .... at least for housing contractors :0

[SmokingGun on 23.02.06 at 15:54]

Good one Guilden!!

[silencedogood on 23.02.06 at 16:07]

He is following the example set by those icons of "good black boys" like John Swan and Jim Woolridge who in their heart of hearts know that "it" is all about race and know that they were courted not because of ability but because of affability and the ability to bring other blacks into the fold whilst not being any threat to whites because of their lack of depth.
Posted by Rossini on 23.02.06 at 13:07

You are held captive by race and colour the same as the white racists you despise. A black man can disagree with your viewpoint without lacking depth. I was raised to see a man for who he is, not his skin colour and that's how I try to live. You might consider it. The statement above is one of the saddest things I've read here.

Guilden,

You accused me the other day of taking anti-PLP accusations as gospel, but you are jerking your knee to quickly to this finding. Performance, accountability, and motivation are what defines any government and that's all I care about.

I'll give you three examples:
1)I respect Michael Scott because I believe he is genuine in the conduct of his role even when I don't agree with his decisions.
2) I do not respect Ewart Brown because although I agree with alot of his decisions I believe he is motivated by personal gain rather than public service and when those two goals do not coincide I suspect he will choose his own interests. His hamfisted attempts to justify secrecy only reinforce this view. I also think his past public statements show him to be dishonest and prejudiced.
3) I respect Paula Cox because I believe she does a good job. I have no personal opinion about her one way or another. I have never heard her connected with a scandal, nor have I heard anything particularly outstanding either. But my view of her is that she is qualified and hardworking.

Unfortunately I think the PLP has more leaders similar to EB than the other two individuals. My criticism of your party is every bit as principled as your criticism of the UBP, which incidentially, is not my party.

I hope you take this to heart and are not so quick to lable, but given the fact I and others explained yesterday that we do not jump to those conclusions and you are making the same accusations again today I won't be holding my breath.

I also find it mildly amusing that you seem to threaten to stop blogging on a quarterly basis because people criticize the PLP in ways you deem unfair. Then people post for an hour saying "Baby, please don't go!".

Welcome to the club. People on this blog seem to bash the religious, supporters of the iraq war, want to give away rights to free speech and property ownership,and blame every issue including trash on bermuda's roadside on the United States. I happen to disagree with all of those positions and find them unfair. But you either want to debate or you don't. I've appreciated our discussions prior to yesterday when you labelled me a PLP hater but if you want to go, its your right. I'm sure the discussions will survive without your divine inspiration. Fish or cut bait.

FYI--the US provides for extensive public rights to information under the Freedom of Information act--so feel free to inquire on all the Haliburton contracts you may believe to be the cause of the Iraq war:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm

[SmokingGun on 23.02.06 at 16:23]

Guilden's not going anywhere.

He knows as well as anyone that this site is'nt just about bashing the PLP. It's about bashing whoever's holding the keys to our future and making sure they stay within the lines. And that effects him as much as anyone else.

The only reason the UBP doesn't get dumped on is because they aren't bringing anything to the table for us to chew on. But when they do, I for one will be happy to ride them just as hard as we ride our current decision makers.

[Silencio on 23.02.06 at 16:23]

I really do get a laugh at the number of people who actually think they are being logical and objective in their treatment of the PLP. It really is a farce. Regardless, Ewart is in the wrong, so very, very wrong. It is his claim that these are plantation questions, but he cannot prove that these are simply not questions being put to a party with very little credibility and a very poor track record of honesty. In other words, a person with a record for being dishonest is likely to get asked more questions that test their degree of honesty. So take the blame for it, Ewart. But even if these reporters were being racially hostile, and I'm sure some where, Ewart should have risen above it. There is a way of dealing with these issues up front, frankly and openly. To cowardly dismiss them as "plantation questions" is just not good enough. The end result is that he did not improve Bermuda's racial context - he contributed to making it worse. So on that basis alone, he failed, miserably.

[Uncle Elvis on 23.02.06 at 16:29]

The only reason the UBP doesn't get dumped on is because they aren't bringing anything to the table for us to chew on."

Sorry. Just thought this needed to be said again, with a little emphasis, this time.

Oh, and Silencio, would you be so kind as to define racially hostile in this context? I don't want to debate, I just want elucidation.

[Silencio on 23.02.06 at 17:11]

Really Elivis, why would I bother as it is quite clear? If you need me to backtrack into what he means by plantation question, why would I bother? Let me guess, it's only racially hostile if the reporters are wearing white sheets and burning crosses, right? Nuance and deception has no place in Bermuda's racial politics, eh? Reminds me of this ad I saw once. Totally lucid that one was.

[Uncle Elvis on 23.02.06 at 17:18]

So I can assume that you either don't HAVE an answer, or are being disingenuous. Thanks.

Oh, and I really appreciate you bringing THAT shit up again.

Well done trying to bring us all together.

I was asking in all honesty. I just wanted clarification. Seems you're either unwilling or unable to do so.
You could have just said that, instead of pot shots.
So, thanks for the attack, thanks for nothing.

[loki on 23.02.06 at 17:22]

Nice way to bridge the racial gap there, Silencio. Maybe you could take some pointers from Guilden, Jake and Onion, who actually prefer to bring something to the table and don't try to 'win' debates by tossing grenades designed to do nothing more than hurt and anger people. Nice. I hope you're proud.

[SmokingGun on 23.02.06 at 17:25]

"But even if these reporters were being racially hostile, and I'm sure some where, Ewart should have risen above it."

Am I to assume all reporters in Bermuda are white? And racially hostile ones to boot?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 23.02.06 at 17:32]

Silence,

I agree I have stated in the past that I may stop posting. You may recall that was when the very strong racism posts were presented by Red Ridinghood.

Please show me where I have said here that I would stop posting.

I do not live my life hoping anyone would pander to me because I know who I am and generally I really do not care what people think of my opinions. I express them because I have a right to express them, in my expressing my opinions I do not ask for support nor do I fear reprisal. So if that is what you believe that should clear it up for you.

[Silencio on 23.02.06 at 18:20]

"I was asking in all honesty. I just wanted clarification. Seems you're either unwilling or unable to do so."

Elvis, do you honestly need me to explain what I meant by being racially hostile in reporting???????? Are you serious?

[Phil on 23.02.06 at 19:02]

ken (and Guilden)

The sad thing is that I believe that the holders of these opinions really believe they are being objective, but unfortunately they cannot see the forest for the trees.

The print and broadcast media are supposed to be objective. Blogs are not. I'm not trying to be objective, I'm offering my opinion. You're not objective either, you're just offering your opinion. And that's fine.

Guilden

As far as how, where, when and why tax dollars are spent, could you not pick up and read a copy of the budget? Does the budget not show previous year actual and projections for the coming year?

Not always. Read the budget and tell me how much the PLP is spending on the independence debate.

Race is an issue that many on this blog believe needs to be address and the PLP, in many ways, have addressed. Sometimes what has been said maybe be deemed to be inappropriate but the fact is the party is addressing race

How are the PLP addressing race, Guilden? By building a mega-school that most people seem to think will do nothing to improve educational standards? By announcing an economic empowerment zone in North Hamilton - after the UBP announced their plan to do the same? By calling people "house niggers"? They haven't even had the balls to introduce an affirmative action programme. So why exactly do you think they're addressing this issue?

Tired of Politics

I read the paper every day, but only because i get a free one at work and it kills time, other than that I would likely look online for news.

Regardless of your opinions of Bermuda's press, they are essential. Despite the rise of the internet, they are still pretty much the only source for local news and I don't see that changing any time soon. This blog wouldn't exist without them.

Rossini

"...those white boys don't mind a black man in charge as long as they can tell him what to do"

This comment by Jim Woolridge keeps getting brought up. Can you clarify in what year he made it and who "those white boys" was referring to? I'd like to understand why you feel his comment is still relevant today.

White people in this country cannot accept a strong, black male, period.

All white people? You really believe that?

Look at the recent private bloodbath that removed Grant Gibbons...do you really think that that meeting at Michael Dunkley's house is all that secret ?! Of course not...I personally know that an attendee has shared an in depth account with the press.....but not one branch of the media has covered it, save for a passing reference that it happened. Is there happiness and light on the Opposition benches about the allocation of Shadow Portfolios...no way....has any of that been covered by the media ? Not a dickey bird.

Notwithstanding my comment to Tired of Politics, Bermuda's press no longer have sole control over the flow of information. The emergence of blogs has given anyone with a computer the opportunity to make their voice heard and set the agenda of the rest of the media. When the hospital failed to tell Peter Crisson that he had cancer following an emergency appendix operation, he went after them for an admission of negligence and started a blog to publicise his case. It was picked up by Michael Dunkley and subsequently reported in the Royal Gazette.

If that attendee wanted his account of the UBP meeting made public, and the mainstream media wouldn't print it (even the Bermuda Sun?), he could have done the same and dropped me, the press and the PLP a link.

So I have no sympathy for PLP supporters who whine that the media is stopping them getting their message out. Start a bloody blog already. It may not be easy to keep it going and build a readership, but it's a hell of a lot easier than starting a newspaper.

[Triggerfish on 23.02.06 at 19:26]

"This comment by Jim Woolridge keeps getting brought up. Can you clarify in what year he made it and who "those white boys" was referring to? I'd like to understand why you feel his comment is still relevant today."

He was referring specifically to two members of his Tourism Board who fit the old Front Street stereotype ... when Front Street was still an economic force to be reckoned with (the shuttering of both Triminghams and Smiths should underscore the fact the old tourism-based oligarchy ain't got much clout in an era when there are no tourists). Woolridge was not speaking in general terms. And he enjoyed broad support from both blacks AND whites during the furore that broke out after his remarks -- which referred to a specific incident at a specific time involving two specific individuals -- were published in The Royal Gazette. In fact that comment was only one remark in a much longer article. The full story can be found, placed in its proper context, in Woolridge's book The House That Jack Built.

[Slowhand on 23.02.06 at 20:12]

"Start a bloody blog already"

Are there any blogs out there that may be "pro PLP"?? That is not to say that I feel that this blog is 'anti-PLP' but rather more anti-racism, anti-corruption, anti-totalitarianism etc but if because of these things that makes us look anti-PLP.... Tah Dah!!!

[Phil on 23.02.06 at 20:22]

Slowhand

None that I'm aware of. And I think that's a shame. The more voices that make themselves heard, the better.

I'll repeat an offer I've made before: if anyone wants any help in setting one up, please get in contact with me.

[SmokingGun on 23.02.06 at 20:31]

Jim Woolridge is one of the few individuals that I know who will take the time to stop, shake your hand, look you in the eye and remembering you by name ask how everything's going with such and such and is still with it on today's subjects in regard to all of our concerns for Bermuda.

In my opinion he is a gentleman who learned how to live and grow under terms that were not in his favour and in no small way helped lead the way forward for many people who today do not have to live under the same conditions that he did. Even though Bermuda is a small place in many ways I consider him in the same stature as some of the others who have helped pave the way for their fellow man on far greater platforms. Even to a certain extent, MLK.

[Slowhand on 23.02.06 at 20:50]

So that Begs the question... "Why?"

I think they are a proven, effective way of getting the word out, expressing your own opinion, and getting feedback from people of like mind as much as other view points. Or would that be a "Plantation Question"?

We have some obvious supporters of the original 'PLP values' (pre-Hijacked values I must stress) many of whom will complain about those on this blog expressing their "Biased" opinions (??). Would they not like to have their own venue to spout the rhetoric (oops.... my biased opinion slipping out).... I mean enlightened information about the PLP way of improving race relations, fiscal responsibility and democratic governance? Or would that be too much like a lovefest where only their supporters would visit, so there would be nobody willing to play the race card with them.

[Uncle Elvis on 23.02.06 at 21:08]

I wouldn't have asked if I didn't mean it.

Yes. I would like you to define what you mean by that, with examples, if possible.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Or is this going to be another case of "If you don't get it, I'm not going to explain"?

I said I honestly want to know, so...

Yes. I honestly want to know.

Is that clear enough or do you still not believe I want to know?

Not sure how to put it any clearer...

[Slowhand on 23.02.06 at 21:22]

I think Elvis wants to know....

[J Starling on 23.02.06 at 21:32]

Dear Slowhand, I do not think that PLP supporters who contribute to this blog are unwilling to accept constructive criticism of th ePLP, nor are they unwilling to defend the Party from well-reasoned rational arguements. PLP supporters do however get fatigued from irrational constant undue harrasment and heckling from rabid anti-PLPers. Sure, the terminology and behaviour of some of the PLP leadership may not help us any, but the Party is more than them, and we resent that none of the genuinely progressive actions of the PLP government are acknowledged while all its negative attributes are blown out of proportion. I'm not saying that racial chauvinism and imperialist arrogance shouldn't be challenged - they should and are being challenged, even within the Party. But the dialogue does seem unbalanced from time to time.

[Tiger Bay on 23.02.06 at 21:52]

"Start a bloody blog already. It may not be easy to keep it going and build a readership, but it's a hell of a lot easier than starting a newspaper."

Or spending $1 million of taxpayer money to set up a TV station. DCI already employs 18 or more people ... and they can't get the message out? Ahem, a few of them are known to frequent this blog.

[Slowhand on 23.02.06 at 22:26]

J Starling,

I disagree with you, I think if the party is more than them, then let it be proven, get leaders that reflect the ideals of the party! If this can't be done, then the leaders have become the party. If it looks like an outhouse, and smells like an outhouse, then that’s where all the crap is.
I'm sorry to say that through all the nonsense that has gone on, brought about by the very leaders that are creating the stir, I cannot recall one instance of any genuine progressive action of the PLP government. I'll not accept any excuse that might be made that its all due to unfair attention spent on these issues by the local media (in a lot of cases this could have been avoided by simple control over ones tongue, which is what I expect of my youngest child)
As for the harassment and heckling, that goes both ways, tit for tat. Both sides have their extreme reps that go past what’s necessary, and that’s unfortunate, but I'd like to think the sensible ones can see past the drivel and make their own sensible arguments despite the challenges.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 23.02.06 at 23:06]

Limey,

"They haven't even had the balls to introduce an affirmative action programme."

You are joking right? The majority of the population in Bermuda is classified as black Affrimative Action is a programme aimed at assisting minorities. Black have not had the same economic advancement as whites in Bemruda but they are the majority. How can you justify an Affirmative Action for the majority of a population?

The PLP may not be addressing race as you would approve of our the way many on this site would approve of but they have done things to make certain that black businesses see an increase in revenue via government contracts. You may not like it or agree with it but Dr. Brown's plantation comments expressed to a large degree how many black Bermudians feel. The fact that the PLP was re-elected say much about this feeling. You may wish to deny it but it is reality and the reality is that race will continue to play a role in politics in Bermuda until the playing field is deeme dto be level. The thing with racism is that you don't necessarily have to do anything physical, an acknowledgement that it exist goes a lot further than you would know.

The UBP brushed the issue under the rug and pretended it did not exist. Many whites in Bermuda have done the same thing because they say they never saw any racism, well, duh, if you are not the target you wouldn't see or feel.

The PLP has brought race to the forefront and those that get upset about it are the one's who would prefer it not be spoken about. They may not have brought up it the way you would like to have seen it brought up but it is a nasty subject and no matter how it is brought up someone is going to be offended. Maybe the PLP felt that if anyone is going to be offended let it not be the people who have had to endure the effects of racism.

[Slowhand on 24.02.06 at 07:06]

Guilden,

Sorry man, but that is a crock. They have brought race to the forefront by insulting, offending and attacking not only the people of another race, but also anyone of their own race that does not conform to their way of thinking. Oh sure, they are proving that it exists, by living it themselves and by their own actions, encouraging and condoning it. The approved way to address racism would be to speak out against it.... in any form, not by developing a whole new way to promote it!!!

[Silencio on 24.02.06 at 07:43]

"I said I honestly want to know, so...

Yes. I honestly want to know.

Is that clear enough or do you still not believe I want to know?"

Elvis,

No I do not believe that you want to know, because the answer is in the very subject of the post. What you are asking for is an example of an overtly racist question, because that allows you to categorise nuanced and covert racism as innocuous, or "just good reporting" (and let's not forget "accidental racism"). Ewart is dismissing the comments as racially hostile because he believes they come from a man-boy arrangement. And by that it means that a reporter feels free to ask certain questions, in a certain manner that they'd never ask if a white man (or an appointed black man) were in power. If you needed this explanation it is because you didn't want to hear it in the first place.

[Combat Banker on 24.02.06 at 08:30]

Silencio, I really don't believe that the same questions would not be asked of the equivalent white man if indeed he too were such a boob as Premier.

[Phil on 24.02.06 at 08:54]

Guilden

How can you justify an Affirmative Action for the majority of a population?

You answered your own question: because the playing field is not deemed to be level. Affirmative action programmes are not aimed at assisting minorities, they're aimed at assisting the disadvantaged. Doing things "to make certain that black businesses see an increase in revenue via government contracts" is affirmative action that dares not speak its name.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 24.02.06 at 08:59]

Slowhand,

To you it is crock and that's ok, you are entitled to your views.

In 1996 the then Premier David Saul and his Deputy Jerome Dill held several meetings with a group of us young, black professionals to determine what our concerns were within the corporate environment.

When asked why they wanted to meet with us it was alleged that it was to find out what we thought and how the "glass ceiling" could be removed. When asked wha they would do about it they could not answer he question.

When I confronted David Saul about why he, as Premier, had remained silent after Michael Collier, the then President of the Bank of Butterfield, stated that blacks weren't promoted because of a lack of education, his response was, "Do you mean publicly?"

Although we were there to talk about our concerns to hopefully have them addressed we very quickly realised that these meeting were nothing more than gathering information for th enext election campaign. They were not interested in addressing the issue of racism within the work place.

Say what you will about how the PLP has brought race to the forefront, for many within the black population confrontation is long overdue. If those who have in the past denied that racism existed and they now feel uncomfortable about that translates into awareness.

I do not believe that the matter needs to be brought to the forefront in a comforting way, it needs to be met head-on and dealt with. Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, many people are still very angry about the effects of racism and sometimes to get rid of anger you have to express it.

Many will not openly express it out of fear but there are those in the government who will get very aggressive about the subject and believe me when I say they speak for many people.

So if you get upset about, instead of getting your backs up agains the wall and saying "We did not do it", which is in most instances very true, you need to understand, not necessarily accept, that the expressions being made today by some have to boiling inside for a very longtime.

I do not condone the actions of Burch but he has had to remain absolutely quiet for a long time while he was in the Regiment because expressing his views then could have cost him his job.

As I said previously, when it comes to addressing racism it is not about doing some physically, it is more about acknowledgement of its existence and working together to resolve it.

Think about it, the PLP has been accused of racism since the very first day it was elected to government. Here we are nearly 8 years later and that matter is still on the table. Could it be that there has still been no widespread acknowledgement of the fact that racism is still alive in Bermuda and that the effects from the days of blatant racial practices are still being felt by many?

Some say the PLP should have focused on reconciliation rather than confrontation, in some ways that may be right, however, with matters as emotionally damaging as racism sometimes it is best that they are handled in a confrontational manner.

Personally, I would not handle racism in this manner but I am not a part of the government and while we may believe that there is a "better way" we have to remember that we are dealing with humans here and most things humans do are driven by emotion and we all deal with our emotions differently.

A recent case to support this is the after effects of Hurricane Katrina. Blacks took the failings of the government to be racially motivated (emotional reaction), whether they were right or wrong does not matter as much as the fact that is how they felt. We are not talking about one or two people we are talking about an entire city of blacks feeling this way. Therefore, perception is reality and this matter had to be addressed.