JAMAICA and its culture did not fail to feature in the belatedly suppressed riots which recently flared in London and a number of other British cities.

One analyst at the heart of the mayhem traced the genesis of the wanton destruction to the growing popularity of the Jamaican lingua franca (patois) among her majesty’s dutiful subjects. This analysis seems to run counter to the perception among many Jamaican linguistic traditionalists that using Jamaican (patois) limits one’s capacity to communicate with outsiders who have little or no interest in accommodating our linguistic peculiarity.

Well the analysis out of Britain, though still contemptuous of our mode of speaking, seems to suggest that the impact of our language is not only pervasive but also corrosive. What is clear is that both the Jamaican and British traditionalists share a common disdain for the language of the rabble even if they differ on its impact.

Linguists such as Herbert Devonish and cultural theorists such as Carolyn Cooper have long argued that patois or Jamaican (whichever one prefers) is a distinct language which is a mixture of English, French, Spanish and a number of other European, African and Asiatic tongues. I have pointed out repeatedly in a number of my articles that the residents of the Colombian island of San Andres, comprised mainly of Jamaican migrants and their descendants, are able to communicate easily with anyone who speaks Spanish or Patois but will have extreme difficulty comprehending anyone who communicates only in English.

The current impact of Jamaican culture on British society was prefigured in Louise Bennett’s now famous poem Colonisation in Reverse.

Miss Lou’s prescient artistic sensibility was able to discern that the flow of cultural influences between the metropole and the colony was certainly not a one-way phenomenon. Which is why I have long resisted the imposition of cultural quotas in our nation as I have always contended that Jamaican culture is sufficiently robust to withstand the potential ravages of foreign influence.

Traditional notions of what it means to be British has come under assault. This development is proving to be rather apoplectic to many cultural purists who contend that British means Anglo Saxon. For a while many immigrants bought into that conservative trope and saw themselves as outsiders. Many of their children born on British soil did not see themselves as part of the national discourse. Things have now changed and as the great Jamaican cultural theorist Stuart Hall notes, that which is British is no longer the exclusive preserve of Anglo Saxon values.

The empire is now striking back with a vengeance and staking its own claim to what is essentially British. Britain is as much about curry and roti as it is about tea and crumpets. It is as much about Notting Hill Carnival as it is about the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Those who fail to appreciate this dynamic of British culture do so at their own peril.

In the Third World classic Rhythm of Life written by Ibo Cooper, there is the famous line in which our forebear is being beaten with a whip and responds to the harrowing experience with the creation of a rhythm. This I suppose is the quintessential backlash.

Art has long been a forum for political combat. In the absence of military muscle the people of Jamaica and the Caribbean have often waged their political and social battles through their cultural products particularly music. Caribbean artistic creativity has long been a source of dread for our former colonisers from the time of slavery.

Mutabaruka never fails to remind us that the people who are most fearful of his utterances are not those he criticises, but rather those he supports. He notes that many Jamaicans and black people who attend his shows abroad fear that his utterances will upset white members of his audience who ironically seem to enjoy what he is saying.

If my rudimentary calculus has not deserted me I think the process was always that differentiation precedes integration in these mathematical operations. I think successful cultural outcomes follow this mathematical principle.

I am one of those who believe we should promote bilingualism among Jamaicans. I have even advocated teaching English as a foreign language. Many of us speak and write bad English because we are not sufficiently conversant with the mechanics of basic grammar. One of the saddest ironies about Jamaican culture is that two of the most despised aspects of our heritage — Patois and Rastafari — are arguably the two of the most internationally revered features of our national character. Of course our music which has come in for its fair share of rebuke from our snotty compatriots is celebrated far beyond the limits of our borders. Foreigners seem to love in us what we hate in ourselves.

Yet Jamaican culture and language have been the subjects of recent debates in Britain through the airing of the popular Rastamouse television series on the BBC. The programme has been assailed from various quarters. Prominent Jamaican chef Levi Roots has criticised the depiction of Rasta as a mouse seeming to think that the portrayal would have been better served through the use of a lion. Then there are those who contend that the use of an anglicised version of Jamaican by the Rastamouse is promoting the erosion of British linguistic values. The fear is that soon the youngsters in Britain will be speaking Jamaican instead of English. Oh horrors of horrors.

So Jamaica and its culture have now become a useful scapegoat for the accumulated sins of the British. If one is to be fair, one would have to say that analyses from both the right and left have been largely lacking in sophistication. There are those (conservatives) who point to a moral breakdown in British society which has its root cause in multiculturalism — read the pernicious influences of the immigrants especially West Indians. On the other extreme are the liberals who seem to see most social ills as a problem in search of a welfare programme as a solution.

The problem is far more complex than analysts from the right or the left would want to admit.

Both sides might well be right as to the causes of the anarchy which gripped British streets for four days. The issue might be the relative weight each side has ascribed to the different factors. There were some among the rioters who were neither victims of poverty nor moral decadence, who simply got carried away by the orgy of violence as many law-abiding citizens are wont to do.

Whatever the remedies prescribed in the wake of the madness which controlled the British streets, for those fateful four days one thing is for sure, Jamaican and Caribbean culture and mores will be coming under increased scrutiny. Clearly culture matters.

cpamckenzie@gmail.com