The Terms "West Indian" and "Caribbean" and the colonial problematizing of identity.

Authors Avatar
QUESTION 7:

The Terms "West Indian" and "Caribbean" and the colonial problematizing of identity

A little bit of everything makes my world an interesting place

and while we're on the subject of diversity

WE ARE NOT ONE BIG RACE!

and there's no country called "the islands"

and no, I'm not from there.

From "Crossfire" by Staceyann Chin

What are we? Who are we? Where are we going? These are the questions that plague us. Christopher Columbus' error in geography left us with the term "West Indies". He decided that since he was planning on going to India anyway he would just give wherever he landed that name anyway in an effort to cover up his navigational miscalculation. The very name is a contradiction since "Indies" means "East" ergo the Indies cannot be in the West! Moreover it creates confusion for those whose ancestry is in India and have the confusing designator of "East Indians who are from the West Indies"! The word "Caribbean" is no better since it is a derivative of the name that Columbus gave to his implacable Amerindian foes. The name "Carib" is from the Spanish caribes meaning "cannibals". This slander can also be attributed to Columbus. So as it stands we have two terms, one of which is geographically contradictory while the other is derived from a demeaning myth. Knowing this, how then do we define ourselves?

For convenience in this discourse I will refer to the "Caribbean" to speak about the region. The Caribbean as a unified region conferring some sense of collective citizenship and community is a figment of the imagination. 'The Caribbean" is a geographical expression often associated with a site, a sea and several islands. Many tourists will tell you that they have been to the Caribbean and that it is a real place. They have seen Caribbean people and can attest to a Caribbean reality. There are also many who ascribe to the idea of people having a unique "Caribbeanness". This is insulting seeing as for many the idea of somewhere "Caribbean" is embedded in western fantasy involving sun, sand and sea and frolicking natives. The truth is that Caribbean even as a geographical expression is extremely imprecise. Some experts include Florida, Belize, Honduras, Columbia, Venezuela and the Yucatan along with Guyana and the islands of the archipelago, while others omit them. The Caribbean as a definite place is not only imaginational but arbitrary since no country carries the word "Caribbean" in any part in its name so the region stops and starts wherever we choose to assign borders. Beyond geography the immense diversity of the peoples residing there creates further complications. There are Africans, Europeans, Asian Indians, Chinese, Aboriginal Indians, Syrians, Lebanese and then the many mixes - mestizos, mulattos and "douglas" and so on ad infinitum. All these people speak a multitude of languages - English, Spanish, French, Dutch, Papiamento, sranan tongo, kromanti, kreyol, Hindustani, Bhojpuri etc. We are inescapably heterogeneous and co-exist in societies that are multi-lingual, multi-stratified and multi-racial. Therefore the construction of our identity is caught up in contradictions. Many of us are "nowhereians"1 - blends so complex that we do not fit into any of the accepted categories.
Join now!


It used to be fashionable to try to pin a collective identity on the people of the Caribbean. Now we have to accept the reality of the many different cultural identities co-existing and that an identity by means of integration could be a dangerous. This is what the broad names of "Caribbean" and "West Indian" do. They lump everyone together into an amalgamous group with no distinctions between people and it precisely this type of terminology that lends itself to the forming of regional stereotypes.

This lofty ideal of an "integrative identity" begs the question of integration ...

This is a preview of the whole essay