NOTE: This book review was rejected by the editors of both The Bermuda Sun and The Mid-Ocean News in 1983; the former declared "This sort of thing is not done in Bermuda!" and the latter simply stated "Terry Tucker is a friend and I will not publish it." Three decades later after being found in my mother's 'archives' it is published here for the first time.
_____________________________________________________________________
(London:
Robert Hale Ltd./Bermuda: Baxter's Ltd.,1983)
Terry Tucker stands as one of Bermuda's most prolific writers.
Having written on many aspects
of Bermudian society for more than 40 years has become, perhaps, the person most closely identified
with the study of Bermuda,
particularly that which is
of a historical nature. Tim Hodgson refers
to her as "one of the Island's
treasures". (l) It has also been pointed
out that in addition to writing hundreds
of thousands of words, Tucker has spent countless
hours of research
time in an attempt to "bring
alive the historic events of this Island". (2) For her efforts she
was awarded an O.B.E. and given the title of "Bermuda Specialist" at the Bermuda Library.
While prolificacy may well be the quest of some
writers in their
desire for fame,
is in no way synonymous w ith quality, with scholarly
and disciplined literary
production. It is on these grounds
that serious objections can be raised
against the work of Terry Tucker,
and the argument vis-a-vis the book presently under review is that
it does a great deal to distort
one's understanding of the historical development of Bermuda. That previous
editions of this book have been so uncritically
received by the academic community in Bermuda is a sad comment on that
sector of society,
especially in light of their widespread
use throughout the schools.
A good point of departure for critiquing this book by
Tucker is to assess it against
the standards she herself establishes. In this respect she makes
the following observation:
[T]hat some careless
pseudo-history is compiled
as tourist bait….is
probably inevitable in a resort
and is easily rectified by studying early
records or such standard
scholarly works as those written by Dr. Henry Wilkinson…ln fact, for those who
will take time and trouble, Bermuda
[sic] history is well
documented.(pg. 158)
The perceptive reader will readily see that it is indeed
Tucker who is engaged in the writing of pseudo-history
and often succumbs to the "baiting up",
if you will, of tourists.
There are at least two levels on which to levy this critique—in terms of the
empirical data and the theoretical presuppositions—and each of these shall be discussed
in turn. Empirically, the most serious
shortcoming of the book is its treatment
of blacks and their struggles, which is both
scant and scurrilous. That Tucker neither uses nor mentions the two important
books on slavery in Bermuda by Cyril Packwood (3) and James Smith (4) simply astounds the imagination. But let us study more closely
her perception of blacks. As she explains
for the reader”
White victims of wars and economic conditions, Red Indian
captives from the Indian raids, and Negroes sold by their chieftains in West Africa for work
gangs in the New World were
all enslaved. The Negroes
quickly out-bred and out-numbered all others. (56-57) (5)
Two observations can be made in response to this. First, blacks were able to 'outbreed' and outnumber other racial groups on the island with not a little help from the white slave owners
(most of whom were of course
male). It is perhaps
noteworthy that Tucker indirectly admits as much later on when she speaks of those of "Negro descent" (pg.76). Secondly,
by pointing out the higher birth rate of blacks
over whites and Indians Tucker seems to be suggesting that it is for this
reason that
black slavery became
dominant. This has no basis in reality,
for the historical record
shows to the contrary (and here we are including
North America as well) that there was a conscious
choice (by whites) for blacks
as slaves. Indians
were not viable
partly because they could escape back to their homes, but also because they were killed off in large
numbers by the diseases carried
by whites, to which they had no resistance (having never previously encountered them).
Poor whites were first sent to the colonies
in various forms of bondage owing to over-population
in England; however, by the late 17th century,
with manufacturing developing there and the need for labour in larger supplies, this practice
was halted. (6) So it is mainly
for these reasons, coupled
with the relative ease of obtaining African
labour that black slavery
emerged as the prevalent form.
Tucker's treatment of the abolition of slavery is very
misleading, and this is primarily because
it suffers from the
non-inclusion of readily available information. For
one, she totally ignores
the prolonged and vigorous campaign
waged by the abolitionists in England,
who were really
only listened to when
it was convenient to do so. And then,by
peculiar and unclear
reasoning she manages to quote with approval
the comment by the
Archdeacon at that time that the Emancipation Act is "one
of the most altruistic acts of justice
ever performed by any nation
in history" (pg.115).That this
"altruistic" act was not followed
by the granting
of de facto political power to blacks
(this was only realized in 1968) is
of course ignored in this "most comprehensive book" (as described in the inside cover). As a historian
of Bermuda, Tucker should be well aware
of the various measures introduced to decrease
black political participation; and considering the subsequent impact they
had on Bermudian society, it is
remiss, to say the least, for her to disregard
it entirely.
The distortion of the historical process is further perpetuated by Tucker in her treatment of the labour and desegregation movements. These
two movements are of special importance in Bermuda's history insofar
as they mark a watershed
in socio- political life. With respect
to the labour movement (which she manages to cover in less than a page), she attributes its origin to the work of a single individual, Dr. E.F. Gordon.
"Actually", she argues, "the
movement evolved from the activities of Dr. Edgar Fitzgerald Gordon, a Trinidadian of Coloured and Portuguese
parents who came to Bermuda in 1924 in his thirtieth
year" (pg.162).First of all Tucker
is wrong to state that the struggle to form an
organization for
labour developed out of Gordon's activities. The decision had already been made by the workers
at the US
military base to form a workers' association owing to the unfavourable working conditions there,
prior to the involve
ment of Gordon. (8) The fact that the possibility
of forming a workers' association soon gained wide acceptance amongst
Bermudian workers is indicative of a far more pervasive
'labour problem'. As a corollary to this and implicit in what has just been stated, broad-based movements are never
the result of action
taken by a single individual, although there can be great leaders,as was Gordon.
Movements such as this, which fought for the right of
workers to organize collectively must be understood in the
context of fundamental changes in the social structure in conjunction with the
conscious action taken
by individuals. It is quite obvious that Tucker is either unable or unwilling to write history
with these very basic criteria
in mind.
Tucker’s treatment of the end to segregation is nothing short of
scandalous: this is dealt with in one sentence. All that is said
on this is that 1959 "saw the voluntary end to segregation for dining and dancing
in the islands' major hotels" (pg.162,
emphasis added). Conspicuous in its absence
is any discussion of the
successful theatre boycott,
which set the pace for desegregation
in other areas. Perhaps more than anything
else, the success
of this boycott forced
the hotel owners
to realize that it was in their
long term interest
to desegregate, despite the all too frequent claim that to do so would drive away American
tourists. To describe this as "voluntary"
is to accord
an entirely new meaning to the word.
At one point when discussing the criminal code brought to Bermuda by Governor
Tucker, which listed
twenty crimes as being
punishable by death and scores more by whipping, Tucker does not moralize on the rights and wrongs
of it. The historian that she
is, she states that "[h]istory must be considered in its context and in perspective"(pg.
85), which is fair enough, for the role of the historian is (at least in part) to explain past events. The problem,
however, is that Tucker is not
prepared to be consistent on this. Whereas
she can understand that so many crimes could be punishable by death,
she calls those slaves "evil"(pg. 89) who attempted
to take action (of a diverse
nature) against the slave owners.
Surely this is an example
of blatant double standards and is most unbecoming of someone making pretense to be a scholar, and a "specialist" at that!
This same unwillingness to comprehend reappears in her treatment of the United Bermuda
Party (U.B.P.) and the Progressive Labour Party (P.L.P.). It is repeatedly pointed out that the U.B.P. is biracial and the P.L.P.
mainly black (pp.163,
164, 165,175) which
is, of course, quite correct.
But in view of the significance Tucker attaches to this, one would think
that it is as a consequence incumbent upon her to explain why this is so. Because no such effort is made in this direction, she leaves the reader with the impression that the P.L.P.
consciously organizes itself along racial lines,
whereas the U.B.P.
strives for racial integration. Not only is this ahistorical, it is incorrect.
When the P.L.P. was formed it was committed
to advancing the cause of the
working class voter and its allies; because
most of the working class was (and still is) black this was naturally reflected in the P.L.P.'s composition. There is also a not insignificant white working class, although historically it has not identified with the P.L.P.
(There are indications that this is now beginning to change.) On the other hand, the U.B.P., which
since its formation has represented the interests of the (white)
ruling class, has never had a problem in getting black support since there has been and continues to be a growing black elite or those
who identify with the dominant
class.
Although Tucker is critical of those who seem to be writing for tourists, the very structure of the book appears to be directed towards
them; illustrative of this is the listing
in the appendix of sight-seeing locations as well as the names of hotels
and guest houses. This "tourist-bait" evens finds its way into the text itself: at one point she observes
that "[c]harming
Walsingham is well worth a visit
as one of the very few houses
remaining from the seventeenth century"(pg.l03; and then later on
she supplies a brief
note for Canadian visitors concerning the Canadian exiles banished there for thirteen
weeks
in 1838.(pg. 117)
These then are a few of-the criticisms which apply to Bermuda: Today and Yesterday in terms of the information presented, or more often
the lack of it. The next section
will examine the book
at the level of theory, where
the main concern
is to address its theoretical underpinnings, or in other words,
Tucker's approach to historiography.
The common answer
to the question "What are your theoretical
presuppositions?" by historians writing in the tradition
of British empiricism (the tradition in which Tucker writes, but to be fair to the British empiricists who have had in their ranks scholars of an extremely high calibre, Tucker
is perhaps of the
worst sort) is that they are simply
dealing with the facts and have
no theory. Serious
historians no longer accept this and
now recognize that facts are not innocent—they are used or not
used in a particular way to make a particular point. As the late E.H.
Carr noted:
The facts speak
only when the historian calls on them; it is he [or she] who decides
to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context. (9)
This has numerous implications which would require
further elaboration, but the point is simply that Tucker does have a particular way of studying society
irrespective of her consciousness of it. Her approach is typical of what has become known as “history from above", explaining events
from the perspective of the ruling elites. We read a great
deal of the events affecting
those in power: the privateers and the accumulation of capital; the various exploits of the propertied
class—the Tuckers,
the Triminghams, the Outerbriidges,
and so on.
Absent is any serious treatment of working class people:
what were the early experiences of blacks in Bermuda? What forms
of struggle did they engage in? And what of the very significant role played by the Portuguese in the development of Bermuda, who have
never been given adequate coverage?
This is all quite alien to
Tucker. But this is not to suggest
that a "history from below" is an effective palliative, for it is important for the
dominant and dominated classes
to be understood in terms
of a dialectical relationship, where neither
is independent of the other. As the
noted English historian E.P. Thompson
argues, making a similar
point: "We cannot have love without lovers,
nor deference without squires and labourers". (10)
Also problematic in Bermuda: Today
and Yesterday is the independence of action given to individuals.
Tucker tends
to attribute most action
to the activities of an individual (as was
seen in her treatment of Gordon) totally removed
from structural relations. But to study important figures out of historical context leads one to confer on them more power than they as lndividuals possess. Neither Gordon, Governor Reid nor Gladys
Misick-Morrell (the staunch
advocate of women's suffrage) would have been
the persons they were had they
lived
in different times: circumstances
called forth
people of their ilk and so it is these circumstances which should be studied. It is now time to dispense with the notion
that it is fruitful to study history
via the actions of people qua individuals. To invoke E.H.
Carr once again:
The desire to postulate
individual genius as the
creative force in history is characteristic of the primitive stages of
historical consciousness. (11)
Far more
helpful is the recognition that people do in fact make
their own history, although not entirely as they please;
this history is made within
the confines of the present situation in addition to those circumstances inherited from the past.
To conclude then, this review has not portrayed Bermuda: Today and Yesterday in a very positive light, but if the critique has taken on a particularly incisive
tone, in no way is it meant as a personal affront. The attack has been against
a book which does many injustices to Bermudian history
and the people who made
it, and it is this brand of history which
needs to be abandoned.
Bermuda's history is well-documented and the
time for scholars
to engage in serious
research in all aspects of it is long overdue.
NOTES
- Tim Hodgson "My Brother's Keeper: In Her
Own Write -- A Profileof Terry Tucker" in The
Bermudian Vol.
52 No.8 September 1981, pg. 27
- Eric Hopwood "The Other Tucker Treasure" in The Bermuda Sun 18 June 1982, Section B pg. 2.
- Cyril
Outerbridge Packwood Chained on the
Rock: Slavery in Bermuda (New York: Eliseo Torres & Sons/Bermuda: Baxter's Ltd.,1975)
- James Smith Slavery in Bermuda (New York: Vantage Press,
1976).
- The
implications contained in the juxtaposition of the "quick breeding" Negroes with (in the
first line of
the paragraph immediately below) the "invading army" of
rats, will be
left for the reader to reflect upon.
- For a more detailed discussion
of this see George M.
Fredrickson White Supremacy:
A Comparative Study of American and South African History (London: Oxford University Press,1981)
pp. 56-63.
- This year
saw the first election in Bermuda
based on universal adult suffrage without a plus vote for those who
owned land.
- See Gerald Brangman Thank You, Dr E F
Gordon (New York: Vintage Press, 1973
- E. H. Carr What is History?
(New York: Vintage Books,
1961) pg. 9.
- E.P. Thompson
The Making of the English
Working Class (London: Penguin Books, 1980 pg. 8
- Carr op. cit. pg. 55.
Posts
