1. 1
Keynote Address- Launch of the Commentaries Journal
Many academic scholars have been chastised for resting on their laurels and sitting in their
ivory towers without being able to connect to or relate to realities instead of theories. As we reflect
on the thought of whether this claim is well justified, it is simultaneously important to consider not
only what would have given rise to this trend of thought but also what can be done to reverse it.
Traditionally, academics have responded to these claims in aggression, in a defensive, highfalutin
manner, thereby becoming even more abstract and making it even more impossible for non-
academics to embrace and accept the contribution that academics have to offer. I would love to be
able to stand here and tell you that tireless efforts have been made to erode conventional academic
boundaries by embracing the general population and inviting them to share in a common space.
However, quite the contrary has happened and instead, many academics often find themselves
working tirelessly to maintain their ill-perceived clout.
That being said, I view Commentaries as a particularly apt and timely response to knowledge
hoarders, to the arrogance that is inherent in academia and to the individuals and groups which use
knowledge as a means of oppressing and marginalizing others. With its multimedia, multilingual and
multidisciplinary trajectory, Commentaries compels us to reconsider the places, spaces and niches we
have carved out for ourselves that have given way to some of us becoming overly protective and
territorial about academic boundaries. The portrayal of film, art, poetry and creative writing,
represents a refreshing departure away from our obsession with material that is theoretically,
empirically and methodologically sound. It is a manifestation of one’s freedom to think, act and
express one’s self without having to validate one’s innermost thoughts with the thoughts of other
academic gurus and stalwarts.
Internalized oppression is the first thematic area to be explored in the journal. For me this
theme adequately captures the myopia and dystopia that has been characteristic of stories told of the
Caribbean, often times by people who have not lived and experienced our region and our reality in

2. 2
the ways that we have. The offerings range from examining how subjective notions of superiority
and inferiority continue to impact upon our social fabric, to exploring the myth of equal partnership
in the Kingdom. Just last week I read a newspaper article and was taken aback by the irreverence
with which one Member of Parliament in the Netherlands spoke about St. Maarten, referring to the
island as a banana republic. He made his position very clear on how he felt about the autonomous
islands that are part of the Kingdom saying he would “rather say goodbye to the islands today than
tomorrow and liberate the Netherlands from these islands”. Had St. Maarten and other islands in the
region been in a position to collectively resist initial colonial pursuits we would have much preferred
to say goodbye to them a long time now!
It is important for us to always be mindful of how we fit into and see ourselves in relation to
structures of oppression that have endured since the colonial era. It is important for us to resist the
constructed stereotypes that continue to be used to classify us. Resistance in this context ought not be
erroneously conflated with rebelliousness. When I speak of resistance to structural oppression, this
necessarily involves educated, informed and creative responses that result in re-learning and re-
acculturation based on a story we write for ourselves, rather than one that is written for us, without
any input by us. As one of our authors have written, it has become increasingly important for us to
“construct our own frameworks from which to engage in new discourses”; but to construct something
fresh and new for which we can claim ownership, we must first be willing and able to actively
deconstruct the contents of dominant discourses.
On one hand we must remain cognizant of the dual complexity of vulnerability and resilience
that is characteristic of the region. On the other hand however, we must never be content with solely
underscoring our vulnerabilities because this can be used against us and again as a means to
perpetuate internalized oppression and to validate the frequency of external interference in internal
affairs. The questions of who we are, what we are and where we are, are important considerations
and when we think about these questions we must be careful not to contradict ourselves in our

3. 3
actions and our expressions of self. For instance, who are we fooling when we discourage the use of
dialect but encourage and insist upon the use of proper English, proper Spanish, proper French and
proper Dutch? How do we talk about the preservation of our identity and our culture when we frown
upon the use of our own vernaculars and dialects? Is this not part of our identity? Is it not something
that we want to teach our children to understand and appreciate?
How do we begin to engage persons on the topic of decolonized education when we continue
to have our best and brightest in the region shipped off to varying metropoles for a proper European
or American education? Whose lens do we expect them to view the world through when this
happens? Why are we surprised when they return to the region with an ego boost, ready to project
themselves as a nation’s saving grace, eager to impose and impart Western-centric norms?
Decolonization stands out as one of the pervasive motifs which propels the wheels of action in the
current issue of this journal, hence the reason why I want to end by reflecting on this notion. There’s
a quotation in one of the journal articles which states “Decolonization is far from over!” I want to
add to this to say that decolonization is far from over, not least because of the physical manifestations
of a number of sub-national and Non-independent Island jurisdictions spread across the region. It is
far from over, as long as it continues to be viewed as a process that has implications primarily for
conditions of statehood and sovereignty.