The failed project of the West Indies Federation

The end of World War 2 marked a watershed in world politics and international relations. Not only did it signal the end of the global conflict, but it also ushered in the cold war and revised perceptions on geopolitics. On the latter, Britain, significantly weakened by her war efforts and forced to divert attention to the rebuilding of the country, was compelled to reconsider its status vis-a-vis its considerable empire. The war had eroded much of the hubris that accompanied Britain’s status as a colonial power and it quickly became apparent that maintaining the British Empire was no longer tenable in the post war era.

Vast countries such as India (which then comprised modern day India, Bangladesh and Pakistan) could no longer be effectively controlled from the Colonial Office in Whitehall, even via regional and national proxies such as the Viceroy. Financially, especially in the wake of the war that had crippled the country, it wasn't viable either. Internal tensions within some colonies, and burgeoning independence movements or calls for further autonomy, could also no longer be contained by a weakened colonial power that no longer had the resources or the inclination to maintain said position. Consequently, as much as post war independence movements would lead to an inevitable demise of the British Empire, it was undoubtedly expedited by Britain's lack of resistance and encouragement due to her diminished status as a colonial power.

The notion of a country such as India being granted independence was deemed acceptable within post war attitudes. It had a huge population that would lend itself to its sustainability as an independent state. But what of smaller territories? Could they survive? How would they establish viable economies, free of support from the mother country? This was the line of thinking at the time when considering the British West Indies and the consensus was that the islands were too small with economies that were too dependent on Britain to survive as independent states.

Some of the islands in the West Indies had populations of fewer than 10,000. Independence for territories of this size was therefore unthinkable. Furthermore, the islands were in receipt of colonial grant aid which acknowledged their ailing economies. Nonetheless, the colonies had increasing desires for further independence. As a result, Britain, keen to reduce its economic responsibility in the region, sought to provide further autonomy for the British West Indies.

In 1945, the Colonial Secretary, Colonel Oliver Stanley, proposed the idea of a federation in the West Indies, asking West Indian governments what structure they felt it should take. It was the beginning of a brief journey in West Indian federalism that was arguably destined to fail from the outset.

The West Indies Federation was established in 1958 as an federal state (albeit still under British control) comprising Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago and Turks and Caicos and had a population of just shy of 3.5 million. With the exception of Anguilla, Montserrat, the Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos, which are currently British overseas territories, the Federation formed part of the respective islands’ subsequent journeys to sovereignty as independent states. The British had intended the Federation to eventually achieve independence as a sovereign state itself but this never came to fruition and the Federation was disestablished by Britain in 1962 with its major players achieving independence shortly after.

The insularity of the West Indies meant a West Indies Federation was always likely to impede the required cohesiveness for the political union. Camaraderie clearly exists in the region, as seen in the shared culture, regional pride and even generations of sporting prowess and support for the West Indies cricket teams (the creation of the West Indies cricket team actually predates the Federation), most recently demonstrated in the U19, women's and men's teams becoming champions at the the 2016 T20 world cup. Although when it comes to politics, such camaraderie is often trumped by self interest and hubris. Compounded by acute insularity in the region and a perception that the Federation was being built upon a basis of disparity between the islands, the Federation faced its first and most enduring obstacle from attitudes within the West Indies. This was applicable to Jamaica more than any other island. Indeed, many would opine that Jamaica was the island that sounded the death knell for the Federation in events that would unfold throughout its brief existence.

Historically, Jamaican attitudes have fostered a sense of superiority over the other so-called “small islands”. Thus for Jamaica to exist in a Federation whose capital site was in Trinidad and with a Barbadian Prime Minister, Grantley Adams, would not sit well with Jamaicans. The perception, as promoted by those against Federation within Jamaica, was that the other “small islands” in the Federation would drain Jamaica’s relative wealth (an ironic notion given Jamaica’s currently ailing economy) compared to the other islands.

Jamaica was also expected to have 17 of the 45 seats in the Federal parliament, 38% compared to its population comprising more than 50% of the new state’s population. These were contentious concerns for many Jamaican observers that merely stoked the opposition to the Federation that was growing within the island and building upon the existing antipathy towards their federal peers.

The Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) Alexander Bustamante, the eventual first Prime Minister of independent Jamaica and opponent of the Federation, often referred to the politicians of the other islands disparagingly as small island politicians. At the Montego Bay Conference of 1947, Bustamante addressed this alleged disparity with characteristic rhetoric in referring to their respective development -

‘Jamaica can walk. Trinidad is creeping, Barbados and Demerara are right behind Trinidad or almost the same. St Kitts and St Vincent are attempting to creep and only attempting. Antigua is creeping, and of all the other small islands, some can barely creep on the palm of their hands, and others on hands and feet, and others not at all, yet you say to us, “we want you to federate”… It cannot be done.’

Such attitudes were undoubtedly disparaging but more a product of opposition to what Bustamante et al viewed as a raw deal for Jamaica in joining the Federation. But these beliefs and perceptions had existed long prior to the conception of the Federation and for many islands, the disdain was mutual towards Jamaica. In fact, these were attitudes that were furthered by the British Empire in the West Indies where a sense of unity was never really promoted in their administration. Instead, many of the West Indian islands held largely unwarranted inter-island rivalry and antagonism. This was despite their shared culture and shared history as part of the African diaspora, not to mention their shared dark experiences of slavery and colonialism. It therefore begs the question why the aforementioned was unable to supersede the insularity and political squabbling that characterised the Federation’s short existence and demise.

The flag of the West Indies Federation

Jamaica’s mistrust of the other islands was valid on occasions and it would continue to impose itself as a hindrance to the progress of obtaining a sense of unity in the region. For example, with the exception of Barbados and Trinidad, the remaining islands of the Federation had promised to support Jamaica as the Federal capital site yet failed to do so leaving Jamaica feeling further isolated. Prior to and during its establishment, Jamaica would remain a thorn in the side of West Indian federalism and perhaps understandably so when considered from their perspective. Bustamante was well aware of this and he opportunistically exploited such sentiments as a vehicle to scupper the Federation for Jamaica’s departure from the union.

Bustamante’s political astuteness for opportunism is ultimately what led to the demise of the Federation. In 1960, Robert Lightbourne resigned from his seat in the federal parliament which resulted in the need for a by-election. However, Bustamante announced that the seat would not be contested by the JLP and that they would seek Jamaican secession from the Federation upon coming to power. This shook the British Colonial Office and the Federation as without Jamaica, the Federation would lose half its population along with the lion’s share of federal tax. With such a bold statement, Jamaica’s Premier and esteemed People’s National Party (PNP) leader Norman Manley was presented with the option of either calling a general election or a holding a referendum on Jamaica’s future within the Federation. He opted for the latter and on 1 June 1960 made an official statement in response to Bustamante’s announcement -

‘The official decision of the Jamaica Labour Party to oppose Federation has created a new situation in Jamaica. When both parties [of the JLP and PNP] were acting together, it was right to assume that they represented the voice of the people. Now that one party, the Jamaica Labour Party, has officially resolved to oppose Federation it is right that the issue of Federation should… come before the people for decision.’

In reality, the JLP and the PNP had never acted together within the Federation. Nevertheless, Bustamante’s strategy had made this acutely apparent. Bustamante and the JLP campaigned on the lines of secession being best for Jamaica while the PNP promoted the benefits of remaining within the Federation. Manley was hugely popular and respected in Jamaica but he was fighting the populist, patriotic rhetoric of Bustamante who portrayed himself as the defender of Jamaican interests. Though given the referendum was fought on party lines, the arguments were largely immaterial to the electorate who voted according to their party affiliation. Floating voters were more likely to be swung by Bustamante’s utterances that often played to ignorance rather than Manley’s deliberated rationale for a stronger voice for Jamaica within a stronger union of the Federation.

On 19 September 1961, Jamaicans voted on the question of ‘Should Jamaica remain in the Federation of the West Indies?’ with a result of 45.9% for and 54.1% against. Jamaica would leave the Federation and become an independent state a year later on 6 August 1962. Thereafter, in what was a domino effect, the Federation soon unraveled. Dr Eric Williams, Premier of Trinidad and Tobago, realised the huge burden that would be placed upon Trinidad and Tobago within the Federation following Jamaica’s departure. Williams famously announced “one from ten leaves nought” in reference to Jamaica’s secession from the Federation leaving it untenable and Trinidad left the Federation and became independent in the same year. Subsequently, the Federation was dissolved and the majority of its composite islands eventually gained independence from Britain.

The West Indies Federation may have provided an opportunity for the region to have greater influence and prosperity as a regional bloc than it currently does. Conversely, it may have held the region under the shadow of colonialism as a design and legacy of the British Empire; something that being of the Caribbean diaspora I would greet with opposition. CARICOM (the Caribbean Community) has provided a supranational body for the region and includes states of the wider region that were not members of the West Indies Federation and shares more than just a common history of being subject to British colonialism. The wider Caribbean needs to bolster its position as a regional bloc that isn’t merely subject to the whims of America or Europe. Relinquishing irrational insularity that has held the region back politically, socially and economically would be a fitting legacy for the West Indies Federation and a representation of the regional pride and unity that should exist in the region.

Travel broadens the mind

Recently, I was fortunate to travel throughout Central America and the Caribbean. There was much I learned about the cultures of the respective countries I visited and each experience undoubtedly added to my awareness of the world. While travelling, I met several travellers who sought to do the same; to enlighten themselves with broader experiences and an appreciation of the lives of others. Though this isn’t a viewpoint that is universally shared and for some it can be very much to the contrary.

Travelling is an activity that is met with mixed perceptions. For some, it’s an opportunity to expose themselves to new experiences and cultures in an environment void of everyday stresses. For others, travel offers little benefit. Instead, it’s a pointless and often expensive exercise of inconvenience in being taken out of one's comfort zone; one where familiarity is unnecessarily eroded with no discernible rationale or benefit. Indeed, even for some who do welcome travelling, they seek to avoid as much of that unfamiliarity as possible.

I would place myself very much within the former category. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, I seek to travel. Whether it be domestically or abroad, experiencing different cultures and broadening one’s awareness is something that I would promote. It widens our perspective of the world and our appreciation of just how diverse the world is. For this to be something that one would be averse to is therefore a stance that some would struggle to understand. For many, rather than this being something that is rejected, travel isn’t an opportunity they’re afforded.

Speak to many inner city youth in deprived areas and you’ll be astounded at how insular their world is. They know their immediate community and the surrounding areas but they’ve rarely ventured beyond it. The same goes for travelling outside of their respective city let alone abroad. If their family are originally from another country where some of their extended family still reside, they may have made trips there. Otherwise, their world is incredibly small and consequently one of ignorance when it comes to being remotely worldly but this isn’t their fault. Travel isn’t an inexpensive activity and when your existence and that of your family is concerned with the here and now, going abroad is very much secondary. With airlines increasing the price of airfare during school holidays, for many families exposing their children to new places is therefore impossible (hence the number of parents who consider a fine for taking their children out of school during term time to be more favourable than paying peak fares).

Broadly speaking, I shared the aforementioned perspective in my own youth. Before going to university, some of my friends took a gap year. Yet that was largely to work and save money for the subsequent year when they would attend university themselves. Taking a gap year to travel was deemed a middle class activity that I couldn’t identify with. Not to mention, I felt doing so was something that wasn’t financially viable with other commitments. But the reality is, at the time I didn't possess the worldliness or maturity to appreciate what such a trip might afford me. Thus, it was never really up for consideration.

An opportunity to discover new places and cultures, to meet and interact with locals and fellow travellers alike and to remove myself from familiar surroundings that arguably moulded a somewhat narrow perspective at the time, is one that the more mature me laments at not having seized. Not doing so is something I long regretted and still do. In fairness, I have since attempted to make up for this by travelling whenever possible in a quest to create a gap year experience of sorts that is punctuated by annual leave and subject to the commitments of adult life.

The cost of travel is certainly a valid barrier for many. Taking a gap year to travel before university is often restricted to those from middle class backgrounds where their parents are able to bankroll the trip or at least mitigate the concern of spending what can be a huge amount of money. Alternatively, some decide to take a career break to travel where they've been afforded the opportunity to accumulate the necessary funds once working. In both instances the opportunity to travel is subject to socio-economic circumstances which creates an unfair access to the diverse experiences travel can afford. Furthermore, this merely allows the experiences and worldliness within middle class communities to blossom while within the working classes it remains narrow and stagnant. It's all the more reason why travel is so important, particularly for those whose perspective is already restricted by circumstance. Although even without the focus on the cost of travel, some would still question the validity of travelling.

I recall discussing the popularity of gap years in the UK and Europe with some American family for whom the purpose was completely lost upon. Instead of an opportunity to broaden one's mind, it was perceived as an expensive, prolonged and unnecessary ‘vacation’ that merely added to the debt that most leaving university or college are straddled with. Many would opine this to be an attitude inherent to American society given the aversion of many Americans to travel even beyond their respective state and consequently the insular perspectives of so many Americans. That said, I know worldly Americans who do refute this but it does highlight the varied appreciation of travel and how this can differ between class and culture.

Despite the popularity of travelling, for many it represents escapism from regular life that is nonetheless void of the experiences unique to the location of their respective destination. Essentially, their aim is to replicate familiar circumstances such as food and culture, albeit in different surroundings that perhaps provide a more favourable climate. It's an approach that irks me and I find somewhat offensive.

To travel to another country, with its culture awaiting to be immersed within, is a great opportunity and privilege. Nevertheless, many will reject this and would prefer to stay on a resort while declining the opportunity to interact with locals, eating local food and experiencing a culture other than their own. To go abroad and seek cuisine of your own country, rather than sample that of where you’re visiting, seems absolutely pointless but it’s a common observation. Sadly, this is something many tourist industries have cottoned on to and it’s regrettably something they’re catering for.

During my aforementioned trip, I spent time in Jamaica and opted to stay in an all-inclusive resort. The beach and overall resort was beautiful and every bit as picturesque as has been promised by the images on the website. Similarly, the service was impeccable. However, being of the Jamaican diaspora, it didn’t sit well with me that the experience being offered was one that sought to overly cater to European and North American guests in lieu of providing a quintessentially Jamaican experience. There was also a whiff of colonialism in the attempted relationship between staff and guests such as my partner and other women being referred to as “m’lady”.

It was also noticeable that guests would rarely leave the resort and opportunities to interact with locals were largely advised against by the resort staff. Conversely, a highlight of our trip for my partner, who isn’t of the Jamaican diaspora, was when I took her downtown to see the ‘real’ Jamaica with its rich vibrancy. It begs the question if tourists seek these somewhat sterile holidays. Though based on the popularity of such resorts, sadly the answer is probably yes.

To travel is to broaden one’s mind. Although it’s sadly a privilege that many aren’t able to access. But with the cultural diversity within the world, the more exposure to these experiences, the less homogenous perspectives become and the more our appreciation of the world around us is heightened. Nonetheless, the benefit of this is one that is often and regrettably overlooked by those unable to appreciate its value.

The effrontery of David Cameron's visit to Jamaica

David Cameron’s recent visit to Jamaica was the first for a British Prime Minister in 14 years. Cameron claimed that his visit was with the aim of restoring and renewing the relationship between Jamaica and the UK; a relationship that was born out of the British Empire and latterly the Commonwealth. In both instances, there is still a reciprocated affinity between some sections of the respective nations. Though for many, this is a relationship characterised by slavery, pillaging and a legacy of disdainful colonial attitudes that have permeated the diaspora and beyond.

Slavery and colonial empires will always be considered with contention and contempt by the nations that were subject to it and the subsequent generations of colonial oppressors. On the latter, this has been the basis for much of the reluctance for reparations to be paid for slavery so long after the system was abolished. After all, can generations that are indirectly connected with the ills of several generations ago be expected to atone for their ancestors? And if so, where does the recrimination stop? Looking at contemporary history, how would post-Apartheid black South Africans or the post-war Jewish Diaspora have begun the process of healing and reconciliation had they continued to seek atonement in perpetuity? Arguably, they wouldn’t be able to. However, the difference is the respective groups have received reparations and unreserved apologies from the governments of the day for the plights that have been inflicted upon them.

In 2003 Thabo Mbeki, then President of South Africa, announced that the families of Apartheid victims would receive the equivalent of $3,900. Similarly, in addition to the culturally inherent contrition many Germans hold for their country’s role in the war and the Holocaust, the German government has made reparations towards Israel and Holocaust victims, most recently €772 million for the care of elderly Holocaust survivors.

Reparations and apologies do not erase the pages of history. Nonetheless, with sincerity and acknowledgment of a country’s role in heinous transgressions, they go some way to beginning the healing process and progress for all concerned. It begins to draw a line under such events while attempting to address wrongdoings in the here and now. Alas, this seems to be something lost on David Cameron as evidenced on his visit to Jamaica.

In addressing MPs in Jamaica’s Parliament, Cameron made clear that while slavery was a regrettable event in history, the British government was unwilling to pay reparations nor make a formal apology for the UK’s role in the slave trade. But it was his language that was most telling about how unempathetic he is when it comes to the legacy of slavery –

“That the Caribbean has emerged from the long shadow it cast is testament to the resilience and spirit of its people. I acknowledge that these wounds run very deep indeed. But I do hope that, as friends who have gone through so much together since those darkest of times, we can move on from this painful legacy and continue to build for the future.”

Without context, his utterances read as if he were referring to a playground falling out between two youths. One had got the better of the other in a largely one-sided fight and subsequently their relationship was characterised by undertones of bitterness that needed to be put behind them. Yet this was all without any meaningful restorative conversations or acknowledgment that their fracas left one black and bruised with permanent injuries. While the other went home with the other’s lunch money and unscathed beyond a slight dent to their image based on a perceived lack of ethics. And that is exactly how Cameron sees slavery.

The rhetoric of “move on” was most suggestive and indicative of how removed Cameron and his Conservative government are from the issue of slavery and how it continues to permeate the black diaspora worldwide. ‘Move on’ suggests there’s nothing to dwell on or reason to continue with a respective conversation as it’s run its course. Although would anyone expect the Jewish Diaspora to ‘move on’ from the Holocaust and its legacy? Absolutely not. Were anyone to suggest so, it would be met with anger and vitriol. Therefore why should the nations that were victim to a policy from which the scars are still present ‘move on’?

Perhaps the issue of an apology and reparations for slavery is too close to home for Cameron. Indeed, both his family and that of his wife are known to have been slave owners who were handsomely compensated for their former ‘property’ when slavery was abolished in 1833. And given both come from ‘old money’, one can make of it what they will about how much those payments indirectly contributed to their current status within Britain’s elite and privileged.

One of the legacies of slavery is the negative impact on a nation’s social progress. That can be manifested in education, economic growth and democracy amongst other factors due to the vacuum that slavery and colonialism left. In turn, that leads to crime, debt and societies of restricted growth of which Jamaica is subject to. It’s therefore ironic that Cameron announced £25 million of British aid (that’s right, aid) would be used to build a prison for Jamaican criminals in the UK to be transferred to.

Given the money is coming from the British aid budget, surely a better (and more importantly appropriate) use of aid would be to build a school, a library, a hospital or even cancel debt. But instead, it’s being used to build a prison. Not only does this illustrate how blind Cameron is to the legacy of slavery that the UK has found itself home to Jamaican criminals (just as it’s found itself as home to criminals from non-black nations but the right wing media won’t suggest that), but it’s also lost on him that there was enough imprisonment during slavery. Spending British aid money on something else would have provided an opportunity to move away from a marred feature of the historical relationship between the two countries.

Cameron also announced a £300 million development package for infrastructure in Jamaica. This was probably announced within the same visit to take the sting out the colonial undertones of ‘here’s some aid to build a prison to take your criminals’. Consequently, the Jamaican government has not been as vocal as it could be on the issue of reparations and an official apology. CARICOM has established a reparations commission to push the issue of addressing the legacy of empire – something Cameron has made plainly clear isn’t on his agenda.

Reparations, apologies and resetting of ties don’t undo the legacy and the ills of slavery and empire but it’s a start in addressing them. André Wright, comment editor of the Gleaner, wrote in the Guardian that Jamaica, as is the case for other former colonies, cannot solely place blame for its misfortune at the feet of the British or their respective former colonial powers. He’s right but it’s not as simple as that.

Being of the Jamaican diaspora and the wider black diaspora, I’m acutely aware of the mismanagement of economies, acceptance of polarised wealth, corruption and neglect of education and socio-economic standards since independence in Jamaica and many former colonies. And without the necessary caveats, many would argue that it is a bed we’ve made for ourselves so we must now lie in it. While we must make the necessary efforts to address it ourselves, we cannot forget the foundation of this predicament and it squarely sits with the respective former colonial powers. Can one shoddily raise a child, neglecting and abusing it as it grows while taking what riches it has, only to abandon it when this flawed custody is no longer tenable and expect the child to do much more than survive let alone prosper? The situation is no different for the former colonies that several decades later are still struggling to fully shake off the shackles of their oppression.

David Cameron has shown on countless occasions that he is out of touch with most of the British public and now also his awareness of British history and its legacy. His perception and lack of realisation of how deep the scars of slavery run shows just that. Although his chutzpah in ‘addressing’ them suggests he either doesn’t care or is even more ignorant to the sentiments around the matter than might have previously been assumed.

Jamaica "to di world" – the global cultural influence of Jamaica

With a population of fewer than 3 million, the extent of Jamaican influence worldwide is no small feat. Jamaican cultural influences and presence are visible in music, cooking, western vernacular, sport and beyond. Yet how has a relatively small island managed to be so far reaching in its cultural impact around the world?

Jamaican cultural icons have transcended their respective fields to become household names. Bob Marley, Jimmy Cliff and many Jamaican musicians are internationally known and have achieved iconic status within the mainstream. Similarly, the Jamaican track team has become internationally recognised beyond just athletics aficionados and sports fans. In the UK, Levi Roots’ Reggae Reggae Sauce has become a product that can be found in many households and even BBC children’s programme Rastamouse has brought a Jamaican influence, albeit stereotypically, to a preschool audience. Jamaican influences have clearly touched diverse aspects of society.

Jamaica has always commanded a presence beyond that expected for its size. Jamaica was the first country in the British West Indies to gain independence in 1962. This was following Jamaicans voting to leave the short-lived West Indies Federation in a 1961 referendum. With the British empire no longer being sustainable, largely due to World War Two having taken its toll, the Federation was considered a solution by the British to achieve eventual decolonisation in the Caribbean. At the time, it was inconceivable that a nation the size of Jamaica, and the other smaller islands in the British West Indies, could be viable independent states. However, a year after the referendum, Jamaica gained independence with most of the other islands following suit in subsequent years. Throughout contemporary history, it’s apparent that Jamaica has never perceived itself as a so-called “small island”, as it often (somewhat disparagingly) refers to the other Caribbean islands as. That posturing too underlines the explanation for the extent of how far afield Jamaican culture has managed to be exported.

The Jamaican diaspora is key to understanding the wide reaching influence of Jamaican culture. Post-war emigration from the Caribbean largely found West Indians travelling to Britain, America and Canada. With Jamaica as the largest and most populous island of the former British colonies in the region, Jamaicans made up the majority of West Indian immigrants in their respective new homes and their culture was duly exported with them. In Britain, the sizeable Jamaican diaspora has meant its influence can be found even in commonly used British vernacular. Furthermore, Jamaican culture has often influenced those within the nations the diaspora finds itself in.

Jamaican influences in Black British music are well documented and have been throughout contemporary history. Reggae was not exclusive to Jamaicans or even blacks with acts such as UB40 experiencing success within the genre. Meanwhile, ‘undiluted’ reggae from Jamaica continued to thrive while reggae infused genres such as lovers rock provided an accessibility for audiences that had no connection with the Caribbean let alone Jamaica. Similarly, Snow, a white Canadian artist, was clearly influenced by Jamaican culture as reflected in his music.

The accessibility of the culture has underpinned the success of Jamaican cultural exports that have been embraced in unlikely places. I’ve seen reggae enjoyed by natives in Thailand and witnessed the authentic dancehall (and Soca I might add) scene in Germany where there wasn’t anything contrived in seeing daggering and the nuh linga along with hearing the German DJs speaking in patois. There’s also a vibrancy and welcoming nature that is intrinsic to Jamaican culture that makes non-Jamaicans compelled to experience it even without any connection to Jamaica themselves.

This infectiousness is extended to subsequent generations of the Jamaican diaspora and there’s a pride in the culture and heritage within those of the diaspora that were born outside of Jamaica. As a second generation Jamaican and Bajan, I don’t embrace the culture of one side of my parentage more than the other. However, Jamaican culture is probably what I am more associated with by others who know my heritage.

Within my generation of second generation Jamaicans, the culture is certainly championed as strongly and proudly as it would be by those born in Jamaica. And with the size of the Jamaican diaspora, the longevity and impact of the culture is almost a given. While there are larger diasporas with similar traits, said cultures struggle to transcend to the extent of Jamaica’s, despite the island’s relatively small size and population.

China, the South Asian subcontinent and many African nations to name a few, have sprawling diasporas with subsequent generations retaining the same pride in their heritage as those from Jamaica. Yet while their respective cultures are visible, their influence has not managed to permeate mainstream society in the same way. Perhaps their size affords them a degree of insularity that prevents this. But comparatively, it indicates just how much of an unparalleled impact Jamaican culture has worldwide. Only Latin America comes close with the influence it has largely on American society. Yet to compare a continent with an island the size of Jamaica merely compounds the argument.

Jamaica’s global influence will continue to thrive with its diaspora and the vibrancy and accessibility of the culture. The influence of Jamaican culture has meant it has now positioned itself to be championed by even non-Jamaicans that have no connection or heritage with Jamaica. With the extent to which that influence has already permeated mainstream societies, it’s likely to remain a feature of cultural globalisation for some time.