Poll: Majority of Jamaicans believe they should have remained a British colony.

Poll: Majority of Jamaicans believe they should have remained a British colony.

jamaica-gleaner.com

With Jamaica getting ready to celebrate 50 years of political independence from the United Kingdom next year, most Jamaicans are of the view that the country would have been better off had it remained a colony of Britain.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a very interesting article. One that raises many points.

1) If they dident want independence then why did they even bother pushing for it in 1962? Nobody told them they had to become independence, they selected it and now they cry foul?

2) If only 35% of Jamaicans want a republic then why is the PM pushing for it? Don't the views of the 44% who want to retain the monarchy count? Mr. Golding needs to check his math, it seems his views are not supported by the majority.

It is rather obvious that the 14 remaining British overseas territories are leaps and bounds ahead of the islands that went independent but there are multiple factors behind this including smaller populations, greater involvement of the local population as opposed to direct rule, and so forth.

Anyone have anything to add?

jamaica-gleaner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by ChrisF231


I doubt they would say that it they banned pot mon lol.

Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
reply to post by ChrisF231

 

I doubt they would say that it they banned pot mon lol.

lol..um..yeah under what conditions was this poll taken, i mean was before or after the Jamaican weekly harvest.

Fact of the matter is many former colonies would have been better off if they didn’t get their independence prematurely. Most of the British third world colonies didn’t have a highly developed enough economy, well enough educated population, or most importantly, strong democratic institutions to handle independence. Colonies like Kenya and Nigeria might well be first world developed nations had they waited a few decades for their independence.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
1) If they dident want independence then why did they even bother pushing for it in 1962? Nobody told them they had to become independence, they selected it and now they cry foul?

It's only natural that people who share some kind of geographical, cultural, ethnic or religious commonality will seek self-determination and full autonomy.

History is littered with examples of nations - often violently - throwing off the shackles of colonial control, despite the fact that they may ultimately be less well off, financially and/or socially, if they do so.

If, hypothetically, the USSR had won the Cold War, and had ended up controlling the US - wouldn't you want to regain independence and self-determination, regardless of whether your country would be in a better or worse state 50 years down the line ?

Even so, by all accounts, the relationship between Britain and Jamaica in the 1960s was largely amicable, the Jamaican people have a huge sense of national pride, and you can hardly blame them for wanting to fully take control of their island's affairs.


Jamaica currently has a lot of social turmoil, with drug gangs and violence blighting the lives of many of the people. They have to send the army into some neighbourhoods in Kingston. I'm sure that, in 1962, these problems weren't nearly as severe or as out of control as they are nowadays.

The results of this poll are probably just a case of people thinking ''the grass is always greener on the other side''. A lot of Jamaicans will be unhappy at the current state of affairs in their country, so many of them will pine wistfully about an unrealistic and inaccurate image of what the country would be like under British control nowadays.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
2) If only 35% of Jamaicans want a republic then why is the PM pushing for it? Don't the views of the 44% who want to retain the monarchy count? Mr. Golding needs to check his math, it seems his views are not supported by the majority.

Since when has a politician in a position of power based their actions on what the people want ?

Originally posted by ChrisF231
It is rather obvious that the 14 remaining British overseas territories are leaps and bounds ahead of the islands that went independent but there are multiple factors behind this including smaller populations, greater involvement of the local population as opposed to direct rule, and so forth.

It's true that the territories in the Caribbean which are still governed by Britain, such as the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, tend to be better off than those which gained independence, but, as you say, a lot of that is down to the smaller populations in these territories.

Jamaica is, by some distance, the most populous ex-British colony in the Caribbean, so it was always going to be the most likely to endure large-scale social and economic problems.

I doubt any other former colony in the Caribbean would seriously wish to return back to living under British rule.

Some of the smaller countries which gained independence from Britain, like Dominica, St. Lucia, Antigua etc. are doing alright post-independence, especially with the tourism trade.

reply to post by ChrisF231


I've been seriously thinking a bout this question of what kind of government is best. If one could find a system that is not prone to corruption, that would be so wonderful. From what I've seen of the American model, it can easily be abused at the expense of the population.

In Canada we are modeled on the British system and our senators are neither appreciated nor wanted. The senate's role is to debate and give final approval on new legislation. However everyone sees it as a cushy cronyism handout.

While many in Canada repect and admire the queen, I really feel that upon her passing there will be hot debate over her successor. I do hope we vote to abolish those ties before we have to call Charles and Camilla majesties. Somehow, they denigrate that title, IMO.

reply to post by aboutface

While many in Canada repect and admire the queen, I really feel that upon her passing there will be hot debate over her successor. I do hope we vote to abolish those ties before we have to call Charles and Camilla majesties. Somehow, they denigrate that title, IMO.

Why do the canadians even admire the queen and now William and kate? just what have they done for the poor or for the people?

reply to post by aboutface

Well I don't like Prince Charles either I do however tremendously respect Queen Elizabeth II, I sometimes wonder if Charlie has learned anything from his mother. It's interesting that you bring up the monarchy. There was a poll done last week where the majority of Canadians polled (52%) said that they wanted to retain the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth II.
www.vancouversun.com...

Next post will be back to the thread matter. Sorry for the derail here.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
just what have they done for the poor or for the people?

Are you saying the poor aren't people?

One word - WELFARE - the gravy ship set sail and hind sight is 20/20...

reply to post by pityocamptes


I saw the title of this thread and immediately thought the same thing.

They missed their opportunity for a good ol' government hand-holding, now they're kicking themselves in the butt because now they actually have to work for a living.

reply to post by SirMike

I recall reading somewhere that the British had developed plans regarding a gradual movement towards independence under which the first African colonies would have gained independence starting in the late 1970s/early 1980s, and the Caribbean colonies starting in the 1990s.

I agree entirely that many colonies became independent way too early and in some cases should never have become independent. In many cases the British dident even hold a referendum; the British governor just made a deal with some political party or leader, took down the Union Jack and took the next flight back to London. Let the people decide, not the politicians.

Originally posted by Adyta
They missed their opportunity for a good ol' government hand-holding, now they're kicking themselves in the butt because now they actually have to work for a living.

What are you on about ?

Like just about every former British colony, Jamaica has a welfare system which is modeled on Britain's. So if your ludicrous comments were to be taken seriously, then why would a supposed work-shy populace care whether they received Jamaican or British government handouts ?

Anyway, what makes you think that Jamaicans are lazy ?

The unemployment rate in 2010 was 12.9%, which isn't that much worse than the US ( 9.7% ) or the UK ( 7.9% ) in the same year.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


It's quite simple. People of the third world countries are seeing how us civilized nations are living, and they want a piece of the pie. Jamaica is on the fast track to failure, and they want Britain there to pick up the slack when they finally collapse.

Unemployment rate has nothing to do with it. I wonder how many of those "employed" Jamaicans are actually making a respectable salary.

Take ANY third world dump and ask them if they wanna join the Unites States or Britain, and every single one of them will be screaming "YES!!! SAVE US!!!".

Originally posted by SirMike
Fact of the matter is many former colonies would have been better off if they didn’t get their independence prematurely. Most of the British third world colonies didn’t have a highly developed enough economy, well enough educated population, or most importantly, strong democratic institutions to handle independence. Colonies like Kenya and Nigeria might well be first world developed nations had they waited a few decades for their independence.

im sorry but that is utter nonsense. The poll of 1000 people in a country of 2m doesnt speak for even 1% of the population. but nonetheless, former western colonies never do well as long as they still hold on to the colonial political seeds of disaster planted when the colonial countries left.

Nigeria and Kenya you mentioned would have only been as successful as say south Africa if they still had colonial rulers i.e. all the wealth in the hands of a few white people and an even fewer chosen black elite to keep the people in check. African and Caribbean former colonies still look up to the former colonial rulers and have allowed them to continue to divide them all these years. That is where india and china are different as they did away with overbearing western influence and developed from within adopting the good things from the west worth taking but doing it THEIR way, not trying to be clones of former colonial powers.

the division of africa continues to benefit europe, thats why you have cheap sugar and coffee, and chocolate and a host of other products while you can flood africa with goods they could be making themselves. one only needs to look at the recent debacle of the Corte divoire situation to know how evil and unconcerned about Africa's groowth ANY former colonial ruler is. No european country will ever really give a toss about their former colony..and why should they? thats what the former colonies should also adopt and begin to do things for themselves rather than turning to the past all the time. i would like to ask those jamaicans who want the brits back at what cost are they willing to sacrifice their decency for decades more of legalised slavery, which is what colonialism was all about.its just slavery remixed.

The only reason europe was able to get to where it is today was as a result of 500yrs of slavery. thats what jump started euroepean and american advancement. CHina and india have shown that you dont need to invade and plunder half the world looting and uprooting to become world economic powers

reply to post by Adyta

During George W Bush's state visit to Liberia in 2008 they were holding signs on the side of the road practically begging us to occupy Liberia. Liberia has always had some desire to become part of the United States. As a side note, Liberia was settled by freed slaves from the United States in the 1820s and the country was a de-facto US colony until the early 1900s. Honestly, I really want to help them but we (the United States) simply cannot afford it at the present time ... the amount of money it would cost us to upgrade and improve their infrastructure, and not to mention their healthcare crisis with AIDS would be enormous.

This sentiment is not unusual and nor is it limited to Jamaica. It is quite common in many former colonies, especially in former British colonies. A friend of mine is American born but his parents are from Belize (British colony formerly known as British Honduras until it became independent in 1981) - his parents say that since independence crime has gotten out of control and has only gotten worse with the arrival of Mexican drug cartels, the Guatemalans refuse to recognize Belize and are always showing up in border villages, there is extreme political corruption, and poverty remains high. I suspect though that the main reason they are upset is because they lost British citizenship and the ability to travel to the UK visa free and to attend British colleges & universities at a reduced rate.

Even in the former US colony of the Philippines SIXTY FIVE (65) years after independence there is still a significant political movement to make the country part of the United States as a state. Again this has been personally expressed to me by several Filipinos. They truly honestly don't understand why we "rudely cast them away" as one Filipino put it. Apparently there was no referendum and we had simply made a deal with Manuel Quezon to leave on such and such date (in 1946) and alot of Filipinos remain unhappy about that. Was it unfair? Yes, we should have held a referendum with the option of allowing them to remain part of the United States either as a state of the union, or as a Commonwealth but the past is the past and we dident do that.

reply to post by ChrisF231


We shouldn't be helping ANY country other than our own... our territories included, of course. Do I think we should assist Puerto Rico or the Phillippines the same way we would one of our states? Of course.

What I think we should NOT do is help these random little failing countries solve their problems. They are the reason we are flying into such a massive pile of debt. If it was up to me, I would pull ALL FORMS of foreign aide out of places like Africa, South America, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

We solved our own problems in America when we fought the Brits for our independence. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other third world dumps can do the same.

Carrying other countries is NOT our responsibility. We need to worry about ourselves. Do you think that when (WHEN.... not IF!!) our economy collapses, Iraq or Kenya will be there to lend a helping hand? No they wont be. They will be saying "America, will you hel- oh America has collapsed. England, will you help us? We're hungry and refuse to learn how to grow crops!".

Third world countries are parasites, feeding off of host countries like the United States, England, China, etc. until the host has died, and then they move on to another host. It's sickening.

reply to post by Adyta

Agreed entirely, let's help our own (including the Puerto Ricans as well anyone else who is a native born US citizen) before we go worrying about the people in Somalia or Ethiopia.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Well it's difficult for me to speak for them, but here goes: She vowed at the onset to spend her entire life to the service of the people, as she puts it. While I don't think her work is that difficult, there are those who do. She never retired at 65 and now in her 90s she is still working.