---

Dear Sir,

A few weeks ago when talking to white acquaintance who was bemoaning our divided state and felt that it was insoluable, with an implication that blacks like myself, Rolfe Commissiong and Dr. Ewart Brown were responsible.

I responded to the person by stating that it was not insoluable since if all white people joined the PLP there would no longer be a racial political divide. I did not urge them to do so. I did not even suggest that they do so. I merely pointed out the result if they were to do so. I later repeated the comment on the Talk Show. I did not say, or imply, that they were racist if they did not do so. There certainly was the implication that since it was the white community that had insisted on our divide by imposing segregation on us despite our protests (Mr. Hayward once joined in the verbal protests) they had a responsibility to bridge the divide.

  When the PLP was established during the days of rigid segregation, they went overboard trying to get whites to join. No PLP person was saying the kind of things that some blacks (like Dr. Brown?) are saying today.

They wanted whites so badly that they drove away a long time black politician (at a political price) in order to place a white Englishwoman in a "safe" constituency. I will confess that I, personally, never agreed with, nor approved of, their frantic efforts to get whites to join the PLP.

Does Mr. Hayward believe that whites, at that time, were being "set up in a no-win situation"? Was it "depraved" for the PLP to go to such lengths at that time to get whites to join? In any case they did not join the PLP. Even die-hard Labourites from England stopped being labour once they set foot in a segregated Bermuda.

They did not join because Bermuda was divided by a rigid policy of segregation imposed on the black community by the white power structure and wholeheartedly supported by 99.99% of the white population - despite the strenuous objection of most in the black community. Why was there a policy of segregation, Mr. Hayward, "from the cradle to the grave"?

As for racial hypocrisy: blacks did not divide this island by a policy of segregation. It was white folks who did that. It was not inevitable that white MPs (who professed not to believe in party politics) form another political party in response to the PLP if race and racism were not a factor. We, as a black community, were handed the very sour lemon of a racially divided society. Today there are blacks who are saying, "let us make political lemonade out of this lemon, this racial divide imposed on us". Why such harsh judgement, Mr. Hayward, on politicians who think, "The racial divide is there, we did not put it there, we did not want it there, but let's use it to win votes?"

As for the perceived "debt" that Portuguese do (or do not) owe the black community (and most blacks believe the former)... it is a historical fact that when white Bermudians would not teach little Portuguese children, black teachers taught them (and loved them). I know because I had several aunts who not only taught them but attempted to learn Portuguese in order to tutor them in English outside of school and to befriend them in other ways. They saw the tears that the children shed when their leaders became established enough to have segregated schools built for them so that they would not have to attend school with the despised blacks.

Then there is the more recent long term issue which the PLP pushed through, much to the resentment of many in their own constituency who saw them spending more time and effort on a Portuguese concern when so many of our own issues were not being addressed.

Mr. Commissiong may, or may not, be the most racially divisive soul in Bermuda but he is certainly not responsible for our racial divide - and frankly I do not see very much from the white community to suggest that they have a desire for racial harmony, even if Mr. Commissiong dropped dead tomorrow.

As for the Premier being cynical, BE (before Ewart) Mr Commissiong was one of a very few people who would even touch the subject of race because anyone who even mentioned it was labelled as divisive and racist and made to pay a price. He also has the qualities Mr Hayward mentions. He has the smarts, makes useful analysis and is articulate. He was also born and reared in a divided society. How could he not be divisive? Who would Mr Hayward have suggested? Someone who held blacks responsible for our divide?

Why does Mr. Hayward say about the supporters of the PLP "if they can cajole, coerce or shame enough blacks into support for the PLP. Are the UBP supporters doing something different to blacks?

It is so frustratingly unfair when Mr. Hayward writes about the recent attention to whites and Portuguese. Obviously the PLP desperately wanted whites to join from the outset, if for no other reason than that they resented segregation. Whites would not and the PLP got attacked as if they were responsible  for whites not joining - and now that Dr. Brown with his skills (and whatever else)has persuaded a couple to join, Mr. Hayward is distorting it in order to attribute evil intent! So what if negative and unfair motives are attributed to whites for joining the PLP? There have been plenty of negative and unfair motives attributed to blacks who joined the UBP. But they did so anyway.

Why is Mr. Hayward so understanding and forgiving for what white folks do or do not do politically and then end his piece on an idealistic discourse about what should be the basis for political decisions? It was apparently meant for blacks since he had already justified whites for their racial en bloc voting for the UBP.

He contends that it is divisive to suggest that race should determine partisan affiliation. That may be true but considering that we are already divided and Mr. Hayward seems so understanding of the whites voting en bloc for the UBP, he cannot expect blacks to be unduly impressed with the idealism that he is attempting to impose upon us.

Eva N. Hodgson

Hamilton Parish[[In-content Ad]]

---