The view from Jamaica? – On Tour with The Queen
Posted by ZoeWare - 27/08/09 at 12:08 pmAs part of a UK Channel 4 series called ‘On Tour with The Queen’, presenter Kwame Kwei-Armah has been retracing the steps that The Queen took on her tour of the Commonwealth in 1953.
This clip, from the first programme in the series, shows how callers to Jamaica’s famous Breakfast Club radio talkshow with host Professor Trevor Munroe view Jamaica’s relationship with the Queen. The question provoked some surprising results! What do you think?
On Tour with The Queen finishes 31st August, 9pm, on Channel 4.
See www.channel4.com for more details.
Category : The Official Commonwealth, homepage items
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
August 27th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Inevitably, I suppose the type of people who call in to talk radio aren’t of regular stock…
But I think an act of Union between Great Britain and Jamaica would be most interesting.
As a serious point, this shows that British rule is/was not universally hated, as many modern commentators would have us believe. The fact that goodwill towards the Empire is extant in Jamaica is probably a good omen for a Commonwealth that wants to keep its traditions and continuity. I’m glad about this.
An organisation with an established history and timeline has a good deal more credibility than one which has to reinvent itself every decade.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:41 am
“British rule is/was not universally hated, as many modern commentators would have us believe”.
Could you name a ‘commentator’ in any country who has claimed British rule was universally hated in that country? A cranky talkback caller maybe but ‘a commentator’? You seem to be using a very broad definition of ‘commentator’.
British rule was always ‘supported’ by ruling groups within a colonised region/country because joining with local ruling classes and elites is an essential aspect of any imperial project. The method of colonisation used by the British parliament depended on the amount of resources & land the British Aristocracy wanted to control (given that for most of its history voting rights at the heart of Empire were severely limited) . There was always a range of options for colonisation depending on the size and military strength of the people living there.
In every country in the Commonwealth there are people who love the Monarchy and its traditions. There are also those who detest them. Danny Sriskandarajah, director of the Royal Commonwealth Society, claims ?The Queen is almost universally adored all over the Commonwealth.? If the Monarchy and the royal family are so popular why are the majority of country’s republics? Why is support for Republicanism within the remaining realms at record levels? That is Queen Elizabeth’s legacy to the Commonwealth. The slow but steady decline in royal prestige.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Savage,
I agree on all your points but the last one.
?That is Queen Elizabeth?s legacy to the Commonwealth. The slow but steady decline in royal prestige.?
I don?t think there would be any remaining royal prestige without Elizabeth. Following the upheaval of war, the abdication, the ending of empire? the one thing the monarchy needed to preserve itself was a long and stable reign. Had Elizabeth not reigned this long, and not carried herself in the dignified way she has, the British monarch would not still be head of state in New Zealand, Australia, Canada etc.
I think independence and ultimately republicanism will be the natural route that all former colonies will take (though it may be another hundred years before this happens). I think the Queen and the stability and dignity of the current reign has slowed this progress down.
The Commonwealth has played a part in this ? it has made the British monarchy and links with the old empire seem relevant. If not for the people of the Commonwealth, but to world leaders.
The Jamaican callers seem like cranks. The RCS polling shows Jamaican knowledge and appreciation of the Commonwealth is unspectacular. One quarter think Barack Obama is head, another third think he should take over when the Queen dies. Lets take these two phone calls with a pinch of salt.
http://www.thecommonwealthconversation.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Commonwealth-Poll-FINAL.pdf
August 29th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Yes you have a good point. Has QE2 slowed, increased or had no effect either way on the popularity of the Monarchy? (other factors being more important)
A very hard question to answer given all of the variables, and the extent of her many roles within the Commonwealth.
I would argue that, here in NZ, her disposition and manner, as a Monarch, has had conflicting effects. She has been head of state for so long and has remained prestigious and admired by many for her regal and dignified manner but that same manner and bearing is what so many people now dislike about the Monarchy. Distant, unemotional, overly formal and untouchable.
The style of the Monarchy have not changed much under her stewardship. Perhaps if it the Monarchy would have remained more relevant. Irrespective of her personal popularity ( which is still high) she has maintained a personal and constitutional approach that contradicts basic political rights and basic cultural values.
A few years ago our Prime Minister Helen Clark was criticised for wearing trousers in the presence of the Queen. Events like that highlight the contradiction.
It will be interesting to see what happens when QE2 dies or steps down. It will happen within ten years. I don’t think we will appreciate her popularity (or lack of) until she is no longer around.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Commentator:
1. a person who discusses news, sports events, weather, or the like, as on television or radio.
2. a person who makes commentaries
(dictionary.reference.com)
No mention of qualifications or popularity required… but I was generalising. I’d be interested to know who criticised Ms. Clark’s fashion sense – was it Her Majesty herself, or a paleomonarchist commentator?
It’s worth noting that this assessment of Royal Popularity varies wildly according to the source of the information. Of course Monarchist organisations will claim that the Monarchy is universally loved. Republican organisations will make similar claims. I doubt that any poll has ever taken a universal view. I wasn’t polled in the UK. Nobody I know was, either.
But there is an issue here. Republicanism is, indeed, at its highest point in the Commonwealth Realms. I would argue that that is the nature of the times. The defining principle of the 20th Century has been mass consumption, self-gratification, and introverted and self-conscious attitudes to internationalism. This process has particularly accelerated in the early years of the 21st Century.
The Republic model of nation-building is in vogue at this moment. It is the domininant structure of the 20th Century, just as Monarchical Dictatorship was in vogue during the 19th. Not universal, necessarily, but fashionable. Having a President whio changes every year fits with the self-absorbed collective mentality of rich nations with education and individualism, and poor ones for whom no leader will ever be sufficient to solve their problems. It fits well into the American Novo Ordo Seclorum which took over the West in 1945… and everywhere else in 1990.
But, as with every century, the paradigm shift is coming. And I have no doubt that this time it will be fueled by climate change.
Soon every nation on earth will be suffering the effects of global warming. Crops will die, coastlines will fall into the sea, and there will be massive population movement to the safe nations on the planet. I have written upon the Commonwealth’s duty to protect against this elsewhere on the site.
Throughout history, when the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are abroad, human society tends to converge on strong leadership figures. Democracy submerges for a very, very long time. Now I’m not saying that the House of Windsor will be the administration of the future – but I do know that, no matter what happens when Her Majesty passes away, the days of the wonderful, glorious Republics where the sun shines every day will be numbered as well. I’m aware that Aeonics is not a good principle to base a political argument on, but it is no less valid than Lex86′s argument, and is founded on a long view of history. We’ve had Republics in the classical world. They didn’t work out. I think we’ll see the end of this latest crop within the next century.
The Republic is not the inevitable future model of all the Commonwealth states. It is a fashionable American creation which has thrived well in peacetime when its simplistic understanding of democracy can be broadcast to disparate societies, disparate peoples. It doesn’t bring freedom. It doesn’t end opression. Sometimes it makes them worse, as its message is a divisive one which often pits races and religions against one another. Such has been the case in Nigeria and Kenya, where ethnic and sectarian violence has been in the news more than once lately.
Monarchy doesn’t solve these problems either, but it does offer a stable symbol for societies to rally around. It’s worth noting that even after more than a decade of dictatorship, Fiji’s council of chiefs were still prepared to declare themselves loyal to the Crown.
Monarchy offers stability. That’s a statement which is as impossible to prove or disprove as it is true. This clip clearly shows that there are those abroad who feel that not just Her Majesty, but Britain in general did right by their countries. I would argue that the polling results where many Jamaicans cannot name the head of the Commonwealth is more an indictment of the education system than the monarchy.
But Savage is absolutely right – we won’t see the truth of any of these suggestions until Her Majesty leaves this mortal plane. And that won’t be just yet, I hope.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
There is no Justice in Jamaica. The system is totally corrupt, and i am a victim of it.
Police officer (in civilian) beat me with the help of two securities in a Kfc restaurant in Ocho Rios.
The same police constabul charge me.
They kept me two days in cell with no food.
I noticed a lot of offances with the human rights.
I was descriminated because of my colour.(i am white). I was humiliated. And today i am the criminal that have to reports three time a week at the police station. They provoc and humiliate me. i can’t find a good lawyer to really defend myself. There is intimidations that is done . HOW IS IT POSSIBLE IN 2010?
How is it possible in a commonwealth country?
September 15th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
To Jean (September 11)
Oh dear Jean, you need to enrol in school – your spelling and grammar are atrocious, I can only hope that English is not your first language! I just hope that you are not female but male (are you French/Belgian?)because that would be an even worse situation for a woman to be beaten in public like that.
Sorry to hear about your troubles with the Police but you never fully explained what you were charged with and the reason for your beating. Ochi is my hometown and I can honestly say I have never witnessed this type of behaviour from the Police in broad daylight in a public place (this is not to say that these things do not happen behind closed doors or under cover of darkness).
Regarding not being able to find a good lawyer to defend you, maybe you could seek help from the embassy of whichever country you belong to. Good Luck!
September 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
While i personally would support Jamaica being welcomed back into the British Overseas Territories, i can see how others may find it a bit too 19th century. As such, i think that the commonwealth should take a more active role in both international and national politics of its member states. This would hopefully increase the power and living standards of the commonwealth as a whole, not just the “white commonwealth.”
September 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“A bit too 19th century”!!!
But what action should the Commonwealth be taking in member states international and national politics?
It doesnt really have the capacity to do much other than comment?
September 24th, 2009 at 9:05 am
No one will like this reply but i think perhaps it needs to be said. Maybe it does need an army. The European Union has a “Defence force” and the United Nations has its peacekeepers. With a multi-national army and Commonwealth ambassadors, perhaps people would start to listen to its comments.
For national politics it would need to focus on issues that affect each individual country, natural disasters, human rights issues, racism etc, but again with some teeth perhaps national governments would take more notice of its demands.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I hope both english and jamacian can achive a forgivness and better relationship