By OSWALD T. BROWN
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 13, 2023 –As I have indicated on several occasions in previous articles, I generally do extensive research on the subject matters I plan to write about. However, Internet technology has all but rendered encyclopedias — which generally were my main source of accurate factual information — to the dustbin, and I now use Google to research chronological records of significant events on the Internet.
Because of my involvement in the struggle for majority rule in The Bahamas in a very significant way in the 1960s, I had planned to write a fact-based book on my experiences as a Black Power advocate during that disgraceful period in Bahamian history when there was a “whites only” movie theatre, the Savoy Theatre, as late as 1962 on Bay Street. In fact, I was one of the demonstrators who forced the racist white power structure in The Bahamas to remove the racial barriers that prevented Blacks from seeing a movie at the Savoy.
My novel WOES OF LIFE, which was published in 2017, is loosely based on political developments in The Bahamas, and the demonstrations that led to the integration of the “whites only” Savoy Theatre are included in one of the chapters of WOES OF LIFE almost exactly how those demonstrations took place.
WOES OF LIFE is still available on Amazon, but I have not received a “royalty payment” in more than three years, although I periodically get messages in my inbox on Facebook from persons who claim that they “recently” purchased WOES OF LIFE and really enjoyed reading it.
As the promotional pitch on Amazon notes: “WOES OF LIFE is the story of an emerging island nation in the 1940s and 1950s. It is a story of the struggle against colonialism and racism, the rise to power of Byron Boyd, a young black man from humble beginnings, intertwined with the tragic relationship between a rich and spoiled young white woman and a black playboy club owner. As the story unfolds, oppression, the Black Power movement, political intrigue, a suicide and a murder plot are all woven together, with the drama of the struggle for majority rule and equality.”
Although there are several chapters in WOES OF LIFE that are indeed loosely based on actual political developments in The Bahamas, for the most part it is a fictionalized political novel. If it had been more financially successful, I had planned to write a sequel, but I have abandoned those plans. My only hope now to be financially compensated for the long hours spent in writing my first novel is if Tyler Perry, to whom I sent a copy of WOES OF LIFE, reads it and recognizes that it could be developed into a great movie.
Meanwhile, I plan to remain actively involved in commenting on current affairs, political and otherwise, and doing proper research to support my conclusions.
However, even though I did extensive research while writing a recent article I published in THE BAHAMAS CHRONICLE — under the headline, THE AMAZING POWER AND IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH — my mentor, Sir Arthur A. Foulkes, sent me an email that obliquely questioned the accuracy of some of the historical information on The Bahamas posted on the Internet by the esteemed Encyclopædia Britannica.
Here’s what Sir Arthur wrote in the email I received from him yesterday:
“Oswald, Very interesting, as usual. However, there are two points I should like to make for future reference.
The first is that we (the Free PLP) were not against independence. In fact, those of us who were NCPA were talking about independence for years. In 1959 or ’60 we had a debate at St. Agnes Auditorium on the question of independence. The PLP leadership publicly rebuked us.
During the nerve gas incident in 1970, both Cecil and I spoke in the House of Assembly saying it was time for an end to colonialism. Cecil went so far as to suggest a unilateral declaration of independence!
During my remarks I said, “No colonial power can be trusted to look after its subjects. The age of colonialism is drawing to a close and the sooner the curtain comes down the better.”
Our position in 1972 was that we had no confidence in Pindling to lead the country in independence. I think subsequent events proved that we were quite right. Within a few years. the country went headlong into the drug era and became “a nation for sale”. Not only was the government incompetent in dealing with this challenge, they were complicit, as the Commission of Inquiry clearly showed. We have never fully recovered from some of the effects of that miserable era.”
The other point is that there was no merger between the Free PLP and the UBP. When we formed the FNM at Springhill Farm (Jimmy Shepherd’s place in Fox Hill), there was not a single UBP politician present.
We gave existing opposition parties a challenge and it was that they should disband and allow their members who were so minded to join the new party. Geoffrey Johnstone, to his great credit and in the face of some resistance, disbanded the UBP.
Furthermore, he and several others resolved never to offer for political office again. He and one or two others, including Peter Graham, honored that commitment. Others decided to remain active and joined the FNM. Paul Adderley refused to disband the NDP although some of his members joined the FNM, most notably Orville Turnquest.
The PLP, of course, put out the propaganda that we had merged and “joined up with the white man”.
This very important “correction” to the “historical information” that has been accepted as being factual certainly should be included as an amendment to that information.
PERSONAL ADDENDUM: As the founding editor of THE TORCH OF FREEDOM, The Free National Movement’s newspaper, I actually was aware of the inaccuracies related to the formation of the FNM that Sir Arthur cites, but even I have on more than one occasion over the years written articles in which I said that the FNM was established as a result of a merger between members of the Dissident Eight in the PLP who had lost confidence in the leadership of Lynden O. Pindling and remnants of the disbanded UBP. I am totally in agreement with Sir Arthur that this very important correction to the “historical information that has been accepted as being factual” certainly should be amendment to reflect factual information.
