The Politics of Naming an Event by Ryan J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“War is at us, my black skin”: The Politics of Naming an Event By Ryan J. Fontanilla B.A. in History, May 2012, George Mason University A Thesis submitted to The Faculty of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of the George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts August 31, 2016 Thesis directed by Andrew Zimmerman Professor of History and International Affairs © Copyright 2016 by Ryan J. Fontanilla All rights reserved ii Dedication To Mandy, for her love and patience To Pierre, for teaching me how to hear the music again To Josh, for teaching me to dream again To my Jamaican friends, for teaching me about their ancestors iii Acknowledgement Professor Andrew Zimmerman played a formative role in the development of this project. His guidance, advice, and thoughtful criticism were pivotal to its completion. His seminars opened my mind and heart up to the political possibilities for scholarship, and I thank him sincerely for his support to myself and every student he meets. I greatly thank Jessica Krug for focusing my ideas through discussion. Her perspectives greatly influenced the course of my research and her suggestions provided me opportunities to make sure the project always remained centered on people and their creation of new possibilities. iv Abstract “War is at us, my black skin”: The Politics of Naming an Event The event that scholars and Jamaicans frequently call the “Morant Bay Rebellion” of 1865 resulted in long-term social and political consequences which profoundly shaped the course of Jamaican history. Yet contestation concerning the name and the naming of this event by Jamaican people on the ground has received scant attention in the historiography. In contrast to previous approaches, this thesis establishes that ordinary, subaltern Jamaicans from 1865 to the present day specifically named and remembered the events in question as a war at the exclusion of names like “rebellion,” “uprising,” “riot,” and “insurrection,” and that (post)colonial elites, aided by conventional scholars and commentators, have omitted this history in order to (re)produce and legitimize the idea that oppression and exploitation on the basis of race are things of the past. In turn, this thesis demonstrates that perceptions of blackness and whiteness during the events of 1865 were contingent and shifting rather than reducible to racial binaries and essentialisms which corresponded simply with skin color. Paul Bogle and his allies imagined blackness as tied to anti-statist political orientations, while many contemporaries in support of the colonial state used racial identification to represent and differentiate various groupings of black people as (dis)loyal to the governing regime and its racial hierarchies. v Table of Contents Dedication ........................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgement .............................................................................................................. iv Abstract ................................................................................................................................ v Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 I. “This is evolution…an unfinished war” 1. What is at Stake in the Memory of 1865? .................................................................... 10 2. (Anti-)Statist Memory, History .................................................................................... 15 3. “We have to decide what we want to call it”: Contested Names, New Meanings ....... 30 4. “[P]eople know it to have been a rebellion”: Historiographical Bases of a Name ....... 53 II. “War is at hand” 1. Memories of War: 1865-Present .................................................................................. 76 2. Acts of Self-Naming: Warriors for Justice ................................................................... 91 3. Paul Bogle’s Letter: Contested Blackness .................................................................. 108 III. Discourse of the Colonial State 1. “Rest assured, my friends”: Naming Rebellion, Proving Loyalty .............................. 129 2. “The laws which bind society together”: Contemporary Historical Narratives and the Representation of Black People ................................................... 146 3. (Counter-)Counter-Memories and Histories: The Maroons, 1865-Present ................ 161 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 176 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 184 vi Introduction On October 11, 1865 an estimated four to five hundred African-descended people from eastern Jamaica marched to the sounds of fife and drums toward the Morant Bay Courthouse. Paul Bogle, a wealthy farmer and “Native Baptist” deacon in Stony Gut, led the people that day to present their grievances over years of economic and social hardship to the Custos of the Parish of St. Thomas-in-the-East, Baron Von Ketelholdt.1 Colonial authorities were already aware of a possible violent confrontation with Bogle, and had posted local militiamen at the Courthouse in anticipation.2 Two days prior, colonial authorities had issued warrants for Bogle’s and twenty-seven other people for attacking police officers at the Courthouse in protest over a trespassing case. After the policemen arrived in Stony Gut to serve those warrants, hundreds of people surrounded them. They were captured and taken as prisoners. Bogle forced them to swear an oath of loyalty to him; one of the policemen reported that his oath had included kissing a Bible and affirming that he would “cleave to the black and cleave from the white.” The rest of the policemen were released after they had taken similar oaths.3 When the people arrived at the Courthouse, Ketelholdt refused to listen to their claims and demanded that they disperse. Their protests intensified, and eventually, stones were thrown at the colonial military forces. Ketelholdt gave the order to fire and the people were temporarily repulsed, giving the colonial forces time to retreat into the Courthouse. The soldiers had killed seven people. In retaliation, the survivors set fire to 1 A “Custos” in Jamaica was similar to a Justice of the Peace, functioning as the representative of the Governor-General in a parish and as Chief Magistrate. “Custodes,” Ministry of Justice, Government of Jamaica, http://www.moj.gov.jm/services-and-information/custodes (Accessed 10 May 2016). 2 Gad Heuman, ‘The Killing Time’: The Morant Bay Rebellion in Jamaica (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1994), xiii-xiv, 3-6. 3 Evidence of William Fuller, Parliamentary Papers [PP], [3683] XXX, Report of the Jamaica Royal Commission, 80-81. 1 the Courthouse in order to drive the officials outside. By the end of the day eighteen people had been killed, including some black people allied with the whites. Governor Eyre quickly declared martial law and mobilized elements of the white and non-white population as military forces to crush the state’s enemies. Two weeks later, Paul Bogle was captured and hanged. Martial law however lasted until November 21, 1865, and in the aftermath, colonial military forces had executed at least four hundred and thirty-nine people, tortured and flogged hundreds, and burned over one thousand homes throughout eastern Jamaica.4 This event that scholars and ordinary Jamaicans frequently call the “Morant Bay Rebellion” resulted in long-term consequences that have profoundly shaped the course of Jamaican history.5 While scholars continue to explore and analyze the historical trends and contexts immediately tied to the events of 1865 in ever expanding ways, the particular name by which the events are represented and remembered have received scant attention. Historians have argued over whether the events of 1865 should understood historically as a “local riot” or a widespread, planned and organized “rebellion.” Yet they have tended to treat the names and naming practices of ordinary Jamaicans for the events of 1865 as unimportant and separate from the history of those events. Of course, in the present-day usage of terms like “rebellion,” scholars specializing in this historiography 4 Heuman, xiii, 3, 7-14. The official statistics stand at 439 killed and executed in the aftermath of the suppression. Clinton Hutton claims there is evidence for 1500 killed and executed (Clinton Hutton, “150 Years Later, Paul Bogle War 10.11.15,” YouTube video, 4:02:59, Posted by “Albert Binns,” October 11, 2015, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty6yqNEHgNg. Verene Shepherd claims the number is likely over 1000. 5 Mainstream interpretations in Jamaica over the outcomes of the events of 1865 have for instance historically gravitated around (1) the aftermath of the events and public criticism of Governor Eyre over his conduct during martial law and the (2) planter dominated Jamaican legislature’s agreement in 1866 to place Jamaica under direct metropolitan control as a Crown Colony, effectively ending its status as a self- governing colony. The event also prompted a greater discussion of race and class, and how to best manage the diverse peoples under its control and prevent further occurrences of violent unrest. 2 have rejected and gone beyond