Dear Editor,

When the US and many other countries started the painful process of deciding which historical monuments needed to be retired, politicians did what politicians do — used the period of introspection as an occasion to score points with their electoral base.

The removal of certain statues was reframed as an attempt to erase history and to engage in a vindictive form of historical revisionism. In the US, the Democratic Party seemed more favourably disposed to the removal trend, while Republicans cried like a lady of horizontal pleasures who had not been paid for her services.

On November 30, 1966 when the Father of Independence Errol Walton Barrow led Barbados into self-rule, there were two bits of unfinished business with which Barbados and the rest of the Caribbean still needed to grapple. Notwithstanding its status as a newly independent country, Barbados was still saddled with the English Privy Council as its last Court of Appeal and the British monarch was still its head of State.

The first bit of unfinished business was handled in 2001 when the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was established to replace the Privy Council as the highest court in the Caribbean. Barbados fully embraced the CCJ, making it the final Court of Appeal for Barbadian jurisprudence. Even though the CCJ is located in Trinidad, the English Privy Council still continues to be the final Court of Appeal for Trinidad and Tobago. Jamaica, also, still retains the Privy Council as its final Court of Appeal.

On November 30, 2021 Barbados addressed the second bit of unfinished business when it bade farewell to the English monarch as the official head of State in Barbados. As to be expected, politicians of all political stripes waded in on the change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Some felt Barbados should have gone the route of a referendum. Others said the move was too fast, while others claimed it was a procedurally flawed process. The 100 per cent control of Parliament enjoyed by the Mia Mottley-led Government meant that the shift to a republic was unstoppable.

In its quest to allay the fears of Barbadians, the Government went on record to state that there would be no changes to the name of the country, the pledge, the flag, or Independence Day. Against this backdrop it is understandable why some Barbadians are as mad as a hatter about the shift from November 30th being called Independence Day to Barbados National Day.

Leader of the Democratic Labour Party Dr Ronnie Yearwood described the change as callous, wrong, and disrespectful. Dr Yearwood added that the Government of Barbados had no right to make the change and it should be reversed. Retired politician and trade unionist Bobby Clarke warned that Errol Barrow Day might be next on the Government’s hit list.

While it is true that the Government seems to have breached its promise not to rename November 30, it is also true that the day now has added significance, which should also be recognised. On November 30, 1966 we achieved self-rule under the stellar leadership of Barrow. That is a fixed star in the firmament of Barbadian history that can never be removed. Renaming November 30 Barbados National Day does not in any way alter or detract from what was achieved by Barrow.

The suggestion that the rebranding of November 30 somehow changes the history of Barbados or minimises Barrow’s gargantuan contribution borders on the ridiculous. Any efforts by the Government to eviscerate Errol Barrow Day would definitely be callous, wrong, and disrespectful. That would be the time for all of Barbados to come together and in one voice tell the Government that it is smoking too much medical marijuana.

The rebranding of November 30 is, however, quite appropriate, while the opposition, though understandable, is much ado about nothing.

Lenrod Nzulu Baraka

founder of Afro-Caribbean Spiritual Teaching Center

rodneynimrod2@gmail.com