Defining Bahamian Identity through Migration Narratives

Abstract

Sample Comparative Analysis Essay “Roots and Routes” by Nicolette Bethel and “Migrations” by Patricia Glinton-Meicholas: Examining Migration to Uncover National Identity When one hears of The Bahamas, often the images that come to mind are those that have been force-fed not only to the international public but the natives as well. Images of sparkling, cerulean seas and fresh conch salad and palm trees and white, sugary sand and smiling, friendly dark faces and of course, sweet Junkanoo, instantaneously flash across the mind. It is no surprise considering that successive Bahamian governments have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and countless years into ensuring that is exactly what occurs. One does not immediately think of the rich cultural diversity that exists in The Bahamas and how it materialized. However, one should. Both the geographical location and geological makeup of The Bahamas have impacted the country in many ways. One important and constant aspect is migration, both emigration and immigration. The movement of people from one town, city, island, state, country, or continent is nothing new, and it is something that Bahamians are indeed familiar with. Whether it is Bahamians emigrating to a different country or a different island within The Bahamas, or immigrants entering The Bahamas, migration is a recurrent theme in the country’s history. In the quest to define a national identity, many Bahamian authors have taken it upon themselves to examine migration and its effects on the Bahamian identity and culture. In “Roots and Routes” by Nicolette Bethel, the claims that The Bahamas has no true national identity are examined and debunked. Though Bethel agrees that it can be difficult to define what is considered Bahamian in the absence of fixed symbols of our nationalism, she argues that the migratory history of Bahamians (among the islands of The Bahamas pigeonhole Bahamian identity. Patricia Glinton-Meicholas shares this sentiment in “Migrations.” While Bethel asserts and examines the fluidity of the Bahamian identity, challenging Bahamians to reimagine (or imagine) an identity closer to self, Glinton-Meicholas assesses the effects that emigration and immigration have had on both Bahamian culture and Bahamian identity. Her aim is to inform readers of the various ways in which migration has impacted The Bahamas in order to transform their views on migration and how that transformation is key in conceptualizing a national identity. Both articles examine tangible national symbols, or the lack thereof, incorporate historical facts and carry the overarching message that migration plays a significant role in the formation of a national identity. National symbols enable a country to represent itself to the world as a national community. Bahamian national symbols are supposed to be intrinsic to the heritage and identity of every Bahamian across all demographic backgrounds. In “Roots and Routes,” Bethel assesses the lack of appropriate national symbols for The Bahamas, especially the lack of a national literary output. Using Benedict Anderson’s framework for defining nationalism, (census, the map and the museum), Bethel delineates how these categories apply to The Bahamas and how migration has affected each (75). Most importantly, Bethel questions the plausibility of the notion of a human landscape, especially since she notes that examining The Bahamas within this context may provide skewed results: “If one were to ‘read’ these artifacts in the manner suggested. . .as representative of the Bahamians think about nationhood, one would. . .conclude that Bahamian national identity is a poor thing. The overall effect is that of an ex-colony still tied to its imperial past” (77). If these historical symbols (the statue of Queen Victoria, the bust of Sir Milo Butler, public squares etc.) are indicators of a national identity then it must be concluded that The Bahamas’ national identity is one still wrapped up in its colonial past. While Bethel does not personally share this conclusion, Glinton-Meicholas does to a significant extent, and examines the effects our imperial past has had on us and how they are still manifested in present day. Unlike Bethel who examines the national symbols that The Bahamas does have, Glinton-Meicholas focuses on the lack of national symbols (tangible or otherwise) that illustrate a country still under heavy colonial influence. She argues that the lack of physical national symbols such as museums and theaters are a result of the heavily British influenced administrations that “had no real interest in developing society in The Bahamas” (17). Furthermore, when public edifices were constructed, they were erected to maintain the social system that had Black Bahamians in positions of servitude rather than positions of leadership. For example, what is currently the Dundas Centre for the Performing Arts was once the Dundas Civic Centre which trained Black Bahamians in domestic duties. After years of being the dominant narrative, it is difficult for The Bahamas to break free from this cultural stronghold which does not allow for a more permanent physical manifestation of a Bahamian identity, as opposed to seasonal occurrences such as festivals. What is interesting is that...