Dear Editor,
It seems established that a letter from Mr Colin Bobb-Semple published in the Stabroek News of February 5, 2009 (‘The Guyana constitution makes more adequate provision for indigenous communities than the US constitution does for Native Americans’) had a passage missing and that the missing passage appeared in the same letter by him as published in the Guyana Chronicle of February 5, 2009. Before I attempt to draw any conclusion may I ask for an explanation to the public why your paper deprived readers of what Mr Bobb-Semple said in a very short letter to support one of the points he set out to make. If the passage offends any of the high principles that govern your paper please tell us, and if the passage is found not to offend, it seems to me only fair to readers and to the trusting correspondent himself that you should let us see his letter in full.
(Editor: After being informed that the passage in question was historically inaccurate, Mr Kwayana sent a second letter which follows.)
Thank you for your response to my letter. I had in fact anticipated the reason. Is it not a better way to publish a brief statement like the one in question and then point just as briefly to anything problematic for the benefit of readers? As a staunch SN supporter I did not enjoy receiving the complaint. What took place borders on what we all dislike and since the passage libels no one, I regret the deletion without an explanation. Editorial discretion belongs where it belongs and it is not for others to dabble in its exercise. I just looked at the passage again. Clearly Mr Bobb-Semple wanted to share the information he accepted as historical. I hope that you can find the time to tell us what is not accurate about it. If it had been another editor, I would have copied this to Mr Bobb-Semple who runs a radio programme somewhere in the USA and who introduced himself to me some years ago. I think editors have too many sensitive decisions to make in the course of any one edition. I just heard the rough news of Josh Ramsammy’s passing. Yours faithfully, Eusi Kwayana
Editor’s note
Mr Bobb-Semple’s excised paragraph reads as follows: “During the early years of colonisation in Guyana, colonial representatives signed trade and peace treaties with Amerindian leaders. Agreements were reached which included the supply of enslaved Amerindians who had been taken captive, and declared rights to use and occupy their ancestral land. From about the 17th century, there was large scale importation of enslaved Africans. Large numbers of Africans ran away from the plantations and formed free, autonomous, independent communities in the interior. They were referred to as ‘Maroons.’ These communities often comprised a diverse society of African, Amerindian and European heritage. Treaties were signed with the communities. An example was the peace treaty sealed in 1738 between the Dutch and the Creole Island community, which was established in the upper Cuyuni River in Essequibo.” There are no trade and peace agreements on record with the Amerindian “leaders” during the early years of colonization. There is a passing reference in Hartsinck to some Berbice Arawaks known as ‘Schotjes’ who were taken to Holland in the first half of the eighteenth century, but other than this group, the first treaties recorded are for Essequibo in 1778. There were clearly understandings, or conventions, that the Amerindians among whom the Dutch lived were exempt from enslavement – the so-called ‘free nations’ – as opposed to those which lived outside the Dutch sphere and were known as ‘slave nations.’ (The free nations were the Caribs, Arawaks, Akawaios and Warraus.) In addition, Amerindian slavery did not precede African slavery; it existed alongside it until 1793, when it was abolished. Africans arrived in this country at the same time as the Dutch. The date for Berbice is 1627, and while there is a reference to an African trading with the Amerindians on behalf of the Essequibo authorities in the 1620s, we cannot at the moment give a precise year for the first Africans in that part of Guyana. For almost a century and a half after the establishment of the Dutch colonies here, the Africans and Dutch were more or less heavily outnumbered by the free Amerindian population. In 1720, for example, Berbice had only 895 African enslaved, and forty years later the population was still under 4,000 amid an Amerindian complement estimated by the Moravian missionaries as around 5-6,000. Around 1700, Essequibo had approximately 644 enslaved, including both African and Amerindian, and in 1762 the total was 2,571. There were few plantations; Van Berkel gives the figure of 5 for Berbice in the first half of the 1670s. Contrary to popular supposition, the Amerindians did not retreat into the interior in the early period of colonization (they would retreat for the duration if there was an epidemic), and for a long time afterwards, because they had no need to. They began to move away from the plantations towards the end of the Dutch period, and this development is reflected in the 1778 and subsequent agreements, referred to above. The reason for their retreat was accelerated plantation development, particularly in the relatively new colony of Demerara from the end of the 1760s-beginning of the 1770s, and the dramatic expansion of the plantation population, all of which intruded on their world. Given the small numbers, there could not be any large maroon encampments before the period of the 1763 uprising, and in fact we know that there were not. As it was, before around 1770 (and for some time after) Essequibo (and later Demerara) runaways in general made for the Spanish held territory of the Orinoco, where maroons were sometimes allowed to settle if they converted to Catholicism. Enslaved Amerindians tended to escape there overland, while Africans preferred the sea route. Prior to 1764, there were no maroon camps in Berbice that survived any length of time. The large maroon encampments to which Mr Bobb-Semple refers, are undoubtedly those on the West Demerara which may possibly have had their origins in the Berbice escapees from 1764, whom the Dutch never managed to recapture after the uprising. They come to prominent notice in the 1790s, because they were regarded as a major threat to the plantations, and a war was prosecuted against them. Creole Island, which Mr Bobb-Semple cites, involved 36 maroons from a West India Company estate who had been hired out to a miner. They ran away in 1741 (not 1738, as Hartsinck says) and were offered a pardon and a promise they would not have to mine again if they handed themselves in to the authorities. Some elected to do this, but some did not. The latter were subsequently wiped out by the Waini Caribs.
Dear Editor,
In Response to your Note
Thank you for your explanatory note on Mr Kwayana’s letter. I am grateful to you for publishing my response, as it enables me to elaborate upon, and clarify, the points made in my letter of February 5, 2009, at this time of Mashmarani celebrations and the commemoration of the Berbice Revolution of 1763:-
Re: The trade and peace agreements to which I referred:- There appears to be ample evidence that from the early years of colonisation, the Dutch, and later the British, entered into a variety of agreements, alliances, compacts or treaties with Amerindian leaders (chiefs or captains). The earlier agreements were probably not treaties in public international law, but were more likely to have been in the nature of private international law contracts. The early Dutch traders at first concentrated on commercial relations with the Amerindians, and then used their commercial experience to their advantage in their colonisation strategy. Adrian Groenewegen, who established a Dutch settlement in Essequibo in 1616, married a Carib woman. I would refer your readers to an article “Amerindian-European Relations in Dutch Guyana”, from Colonialism and Underdevelopment in Guyana, 1580-1803, and published in Caribbean Slave Society And Economy, A Student Reader, 1991, Beckles & Shepherd, Eds, in which Professor Alvin O. Thompson referred to the interior migration of Amerindians in Guyana, due to the presence of the competing Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese colonists. He explained that “The early Dutch pushed the Indians out of their homelands, and those whom they could not push out they attempted to wipe out with superior military technology and strategy. In some instances the Indians offered physical resistance, but at other times they quietly retreated to areas less accessible to the new invaders.” The Dutch did, however, seek the friendship of some of the Amerindians, in particular the Caribs, as they needed their services for trade (including the trade in enslaved Indians) and military purposes (e.g. hostilities with the Spanish, conflicts with some Amerindian nations, and the capture of enslaved African runaways). He noted that “As early as 1685 the Caribs are recorded as migrating from the Spanish to the Dutch zone…” and that the Manaos, said to have been “…a powerful slave-raiding group…” of the Rio Negro and Rio Branco districts, areas of modern Brazil, had sought to engage in regular trade with the Dutch, but “…found that their efforts were being thwarted by the Caribs and Akawois who occupied strategic areas along the established trade routes.” (Thompson, 1991, pp. 13-15). Professor Thompson also cites accounts given by Van Berkel and the British Guiana Boundary Arbitration with Venezuela , which confirmed that alliances were entered into between the Dutch and various Amerindian captains or chiefs. The Dutch developed the practice of distribution of gifts to these captains or chiefs from about the late 17th century. The practice of gifts ‘as a token of friendship’ became more formalised in 1778 and was recorded in the minutes of the Court of Policy of Essequibo and Demerara. The Dutch sought to establish occupancy and to exercise jurisdiction over a large area of the interior, which Amerindians had occupied for several millennia! In 1784 the Dutch West India Company even went as far as to approve “…an elaborate plan…” for the government of Essequibo and Demerara to honour the “…chiefs of the Carib, Arawak and Warrau peoples…” by including the offer of “…lands on which to settle permanently, close to the Dutch settlements.” In 1810, when the British were in control of the colony, a Carib chief, Mahanarva, went into the Demerara capital with his forces and threatened hostilities unless the presents and allowances were forthcoming. The government decided to “…appease the chief…” (Thompson, 1991, pp. 18-19). These practices may be deemed to have been treaties in public international law, or ‘the law of nations’ as it was then called, as they may be regarded as having taken place between ‘nations’.
Re: The Maroon encampments:- There were large Maroon (African Bush Community) encampments in Guyana prior to the Berbice Revolution of 1763. In an excellent book, which I would recommend to your readers, Maroons of Guyana, Some Problems of Slave Desertion in Guyana, c. 1750-1814, published by Free Press in 1999, Professor Thompson states that in 1744, in the North-West District of Essequibo, there were large encampments of “at least 300” Maroons. A gruesome incident occurred, following an expedition against them. Hands of Africans killed were severed and taken to Governor van Gravesande, who had them “…nailed to posts as a warning…” (Thompson, 1999, pp. 15 & 21). Professor Thompson also referred to a letter from a French official in 1782, during the short period of French rule, which estimated that there were “…a little over 2,000 maroons…” in the territories of Berbice, Demerara and Essequibo (Thompson, 1999, pp. 14-15). He also noted that the status of Maroons was defined by the authorities. In 1806, the Court of Policy of Demerara and Essequibo ruled that “…one year’s residence in the bush…” was the criterion to be applied for defining a Maroon, and that those persons “…who were resident in the bush for more than two years were regarded as being confirmed in their way of life as maroons.” In 1810, the Court of Policy of Berbice applied the same criteria, and added a clause to the effect that Maroons also apparently included those “…over sixteen years of age who ran away in groups of ten or more from one plantation, and who stayed away for three months or more…” (Thompson, 1999, p. 16).
Re: The Treaty with the “Creole Island” Maroon community:- Professor Thompson has shown that Maroon communities were firmly established in Guyana well over 260 years ago. He reports: “There were few occasions in the history of the colonial experience of the New World , when the White colonial governments found it more expedient to come to a modus vivendi with the maroons than to seek a military solution to the problem. The most outstanding examples of this are in the cases of the maroons of Jamaica in 1739, and those of Surinam in 1761, 1762 and 1767.
We also note an instance of such an arrangement taking place in Essequibo in 1738. In that year, according to Hartsinck, (and 1741, according to Netscher) between 36 and 40 creole slaves belonging to WIC’s estate, Poelwijk, situated in the Mazaruni River, ran away and established themselves on an island, later called ‘Creole Island’, in the upper Cuyuni River. This island offered considerable difficulties of access to the Whites who sought to apprehend the deserters. The latter had fortified themselves on the island and, it is said, even challenged the Whites to come and get them. The Commander of the colony … decided to arrange a treaty of peace with them. By this treaty, they and their progeny were to be declared free people, on condition that they work every other month for the WIC. This group was sometimes referred to in contemporary Dutch sources as “half-free creoles.”… they were not satisfied with their lot for … in 1765 it was said that the entire group “intend to desert to the Spanish Missions up in Cuyuni, so as to be entirely free.” ” (Thompson, 1999, p. 27). This suggests that the Maroons had been established on Creole Island for at least 24 years.
I trust that the provision of the historical sources which formed the evidential basis for my letter published on February 5, clarifies the position. In view of the factors referred to above, including the defining of the status of Maroons (Bush Communities) by the authorities in the early 19th century, there would appear to be considerable force in the assertion that the descendants of those communities are ‘indigenous peoples’ in accordance with the relevant provisions enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana.
Finally, I confirm that I am based in the UK, and not in the USA.
Happy Mashramani!
Yours faithfully,
Colin Bobb-Semple
Amendment to line 3 above: The correct spelling is of course – “Mashramani”.
Colin
Dear Editor,
In Response to your Note
Thank you for your explanatory note on Mr Kwayana’s letter. I am grateful to you for publishing my response, as it enables me to elaborate upon, and clarify, the points made in my letter of February 5, 2009, at this time of Mashramani celebrations and the commemoration of the Berbice Revolution of 1763:-
Re: The trade and peace agreements to which I referred:- There appears to be ample evidence that from the early years of colonisation, the Dutch, and later the British, entered into a variety of agreements, alliances, compacts or treaties with Amerindian leaders (chiefs or captains). The earlier agreements were probably not treaties in public international law, but were more likely to have been in the nature of private international law contracts. The early Dutch traders at first concentrated on commercial relations with the Amerindians, and then used their commercial experience to their advantage in their colonisation strategy. Adrian Groenewegen, who established a Dutch settlement in Essequibo in 1616, married a Carib woman. I would refer your readers to an article “Amerindian-European Relations in Dutch Guyana”, from Colonialism and Underdevelopment in Guyana, 1580-1803, and published in Caribbean Slave Society And Economy, A Student Reader, 1991, Beckles & Shepherd, Eds, in which Professor Alvin O. Thompson referred to the interior migration of Amerindians in Guyana, due to the presence of the competing Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese colonists. He explained that “The early Dutch pushed the Indians out of their homelands, and those whom they could not push out they attempted to wipe out with superior military technology and strategy. In some instances the Indians offered physical resistance, but at other times they quietly retreated to areas less accessible to the new invaders.” The Dutch did, however, seek the friendship of some of the Amerindians, in particular the Caribs, as they needed their services for trade (including the trade in enslaved Indians) and military purposes (e.g. hostilities with the Spanish, conflicts with some Amerindian nations, and the capture of enslaved African runaways). He noted that “As early as 1685 the Caribs are recorded as migrating from the Spanish to the Dutch zone…” and that the Manaos, said to have been “…a powerful slave-raiding group…” of the Rio Negro and Rio Branco districts, areas of modern Brazil, had sought to engage in regular trade with the Dutch, but “…found that their efforts were being thwarted by the Caribs and Akawois who occupied strategic areas along the established trade routes.” (Thompson, 1991, pp. 13-15). Professor Thompson also cites accounts given by Van Berkel and the British Guiana Boundary Arbitration with Venezuela , which confirmed that alliances were entered into between the Dutch and various Amerindian captains or chiefs. The Dutch developed the practice of distribution of gifts to these captains or chiefs from about the late 17th century. The practice of gifts ‘as a token of friendship’ became more formalised in 1778 and was recorded in the minutes of the Court of Policy of Essequibo and Demerara. The Dutch sought to establish occupancy and to exercise jurisdiction over a large area of the interior, which Amerindians had occupied for several millennia! In 1784 the Dutch West India Company even went as far as to approve “…an elaborate plan…” for the government of Essequibo and Demerara to honour the “…chiefs of the Carib, Arawak and Warrau peoples…” by including the offer of “…lands on which to settle permanently, close to the Dutch settlements.” In 1810, when the British were in control of the colony, a Carib chief, Mahanarva, went into the Demerara capital with his forces and threatened hostilities unless the presents and allowances were forthcoming. The government decided to “…appease the chief…” (Thompson, 1991, pp. 18-19). These practices may be deemed to have been treaties in public international law, or ‘the law of nations’ as it was then called, as they may be regarded as having taken place between ‘nations’.
Re: The Maroon encampments:- There were large Maroon (African Bush Community) encampments in Guyana prior to the Berbice Revolution of 1763. In an excellent book, which I would recommend to your readers, Maroons of Guyana, Some Problems of Slave Desertion in Guyana, c. 1750-1814, published by Free Press in 1999, Professor Thompson states that in 1744, in the North-West District of Essequibo, there were large encampments of “at least 300” Maroons. A gruesome incident occurred, following an expedition against them. Hands of Africans killed were severed and taken to Governor van Gravesande, who had them “…nailed to posts as a warning…” (Thompson, 1999, pp. 15 & 21). Professor Thompson also referred to a letter from a French official in 1782, during the short period of French rule, which estimated that there were “…a little over 2,000 maroons…” in the territories of Berbice, Demerara and Essequibo (Thompson, 1999, pp. 14-15). He also noted that the status of Maroons was defined by the authorities. In 1806, the Court of Policy of Demerara and Essequibo ruled that “…one year’s residence in the bush…” was the criterion to be applied for defining a Maroon, and that those persons “…who were resident in the bush for more than two years were regarded as being confirmed in their way of life as maroons.” In 1810, the Court of Policy of Berbice applied the same criteria, and added a clause to the effect that Maroons also apparently included those “…over sixteen years of age who ran away in groups of ten or more from one plantation, and who stayed away for three months or more…” (Thompson, 1999, p. 16).
Re: The Treaty with the “Creole Island” Maroon community:- Professor Thompson has shown that Maroon communities were firmly established in Guyana well over 260 years ago. He reports: “There were few occasions in the history of the colonial experience of the New World , when the White colonial governments found it more expedient to come to a modus vivendi with the maroons than to seek a military solution to the problem. The most outstanding examples of this are in the cases of the maroons of Jamaica in 1739, and those of Surinam in 1761, 1762 and 1767.
We also note an instance of such an arrangement taking place in Essequibo in 1738. In that year, according to Hartsinck, (and 1741, according to Netscher) between 36 and 40 creole slaves belonging to WIC’s estate, Poelwijk, situated in the Mazaruni River, ran away and established themselves on an island, later called ‘Creole Island’, in the upper Cuyuni River. This island offered considerable difficulties of access to the Whites who sought to apprehend the deserters. The latter had fortified themselves on the island and, it is said, even challenged the Whites to come and get them. The Commander of the colony … decided to arrange a treaty of peace with them. By this treaty, they and their progeny were to be declared free people, on condition that they work every other month for the WIC. This group was sometimes referred to in contemporary Dutch sources as “half-free creoles.”… they were not satisfied with their lot for … in 1765 it was said that the entire group “intend to desert to the Spanish Missions up in Cuyuni, so as to be entirely free.” ” (Thompson, 1999, p. 27). This suggests that the Maroons had been established on Creole Island for at least 24 years.
I trust that the provision of the historical sources which formed the evidential basis for my letter published on February 5, clarifies the position. In view of the factors referred to above, including the defining of the status of Maroons (Bush Communities) by the authorities in the early 19th century, there would appear to be considerable force in the assertion that the descendants of those communities are ‘indigenous peoples’ in accordance with the relevant provisions enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana.
Finally, I confirm that I am based in the UK, and not in the USA.
Happy Mashramani!
Yours faithfully,
Colin Bobb-Semple
Learning Spanish is not so hard, especially now, when you find all kind of “learn spanish” DVD’s.