Besson’s Cruel Accusations

By Dr. Selwyn R. Cudjoe
July 23, 2010

Part I

Abu BakrGerard Besson’s The Cult of the Will seeks to challenge the historical orthodoxy that undergirds Dr. Eric Williams’s analysis of the causes of the abolition of slavery and the slave trade and the cruelty he perpetuated against the entire society although whites seems to come out worse in the bargain. According to Besson, Williams sought “to facilitate the stigmatization of Caribbean people of European descent, or those who appear so, through the projection of negative concepts of ‘slave master’ or ‘colonial master,’ to modern-day individuals for political and ideological purposes.”

In spite of its scholarly pretensions and Besson’s thoroughly misunderstood historical concepts and dubious psychological theories, The Cult of the Will turns out to be nothing more than an attempt to defend European (and more specifically, his family’s) privilege by debunking Dr. Williams’s academic and political work. In the process he asks us to accept the British representation of themselves as being concerned only with justice, humanity, and fairness toward enslaved Africans when they ended slavery and the slave trade.

To achieve this end, Besson makes extraordinary claims and fantastical mental leaps. His first claim is that Dr. Williams, a scion of the Besson family, acted as he did because he was cheated of a legacy that was rightfully his and hence Williams’s indulgence in what the author calls “inherited victimhood.” He argues that “the political personality of Dr. Williams was shaped by the 18th century Afro-French Creole plantation experience and the manner in which this was lived in and expressed in the 19th century by the coloured middle class of which he and his extended family were a part.”

Not content with this dubious proposition, he goes on to argue that Dr. Williams “may have been influenced, perhaps even manipulated, by C. L. R. James and other ideologues, who may have had knowledge of his personal circumstances and psychological weaknesses,” the supposition being that James and the other ideologues knew what Besson discovered only recently about Williams’s family history. Besson believes that James and Williams inflicted this tortured legacy upon an unwitting population of political nincompoops.

The book is short on evidence and long on speculation. In fact, it is inundated with so many “mays” and “maybes,” “may have been,” and “may have developed” that one is forced to conclude that speculation is substituted for evidence; bastard psychologizing replaces the logical causation of phenomena; and a jig-saw putting together of historical episodes stands in place of a solid methodological procedure. Such speculative thinking allows Besson to argue that Williams “may have developed the mulatto’s or red man’s complex: the so called ‘chip on the shoulder,’ a sense of racial inferiority; social as well as other inhibitions; and maybe he developed a pathologically suspicious and cynical attitude with regard to Europeans and even perhaps a strong animosity, a rage, against the French Creole community, the colonial establishment of his day, along with a distrust of the legal system that had not supported the family at redress” (my italics).

In the first place, it seems highly irregular that a political personality, or any personality, can be shaped and/or defined by a century prior to the one in which he lived. And while it is true that men’s actions are determined by the weight of the past, they do not make history in any way they choose. So that while Williams’s political activities were determined by 19th century Trinidad (it couldn’t be otherwise), it is difficult to see how his personality was shaped by a previous century in which the social and cultural imperatives were so different.

Such a preamble brings me to the central thrust of Besson’s argument against Williams’s contention that the primary cause for the demise of slavery and the slave trade was economic rather than humanitarian. Whatever one gives primacy to, economic or humanitarian forces, as the ultimately determining factor in history, one cannot ascribe purely subjective motives to Williams’s argument, something that Besson does throughout his book. Dr. Williams could not have written Capitalism and Slavery (1944) without the pioneering work that James did in Black Jacobins (1938), as James could not have written his work without the pioneering effort of Leon Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution (1930). None of these works could have been written before the advent of Marxist dialectics or a materialist conception of history.

It is also of interest to note that Williams dedicated Capitalism and Slavery to Lowell Joseph Ragatz, the author of The Fall of the Planter Class in the British Caribbean, 1763-1833 (1928), a pioneering study that traced the social and economic forces that shaped the Caribbean during that period. Ragatz was the first person Williams wanted to meet when he arrived at Howard University in 1939. Both James and Williams saw The Fall of the Planter Class as a model of scholarship. Ragatz, white and racist, made the following observations in his book: “The West Indian negro had all the characteristics of his race. He stole, he lied, he was simple, suspicious, inefficient, irresponsible, lazy, superstitious, and loose in his sex relations.” In spite of this, Williams could say that Ragatz’s “monumental labours in this field may be amplified and developed but can never be superseded.” This must have been quite a feat for racist Williams, his anti-white views, and his French Creole antipathies.

Besson has a different story to tell. According to his reading of history, Williams and James spoke in forked tongue that misled the natives. The world would have been such a better place if only we had dismissed James’s and Williams’s wrong-headed notions and accepted that the British had spoken “the truth in their rendering of history.” If we had done so, we would not have become the “victims of a conspiracy that withheld the truth about the abolition of slavery and the slave trade” that made us “suffer from colonial injustice and racial prejudice.”

How could Williams and James be so cruel to us?

***

Single-Mindedly Williams Transformed Our Lives

By Dr. Selwyn R Cudjoe
July 24, 2010

Part II

It is Besson’s contention that Williams and James lied to us about the role Africans played in the slave trade. Besson feels that it is only when one understands the magnitude of black (read African) culpability in the slave trade that one can understand how all the blame for the evil system of slavery should not be placed on European shoulders alone.

The Africans were just as guilty as the Europeans. Such realities lead Besson to conclude that Dr Williams’s “revisionist narrative pilloried the European population in Trinidad and Tobago as not only descended from slave-owners, but also inheriting their guilt, while ignoring the complicity of the Africans who sold their fellow Africans in exchange for trade goods.” Such an omission did not happen by chance. It was a part of Williams’s “cynical outlook” that was meant to enhance his “shrewd use of black nationalism” which forced his followers to “reject the existence of any truth in the moral impulse of the late 18th century English people, as expressed in ideas such as ‘justice and humanity.'”

It was the humanity that Rev James Phillippo, residing in Jamaica from 1823 to 1843, saw at first glance when he reported that the entire history of the colonies was “one revolting scene of infamy, bloodshed, and unmitigated woe, of insecure peace and open disturbance, of the abuse of power, and of the reaction of misery against oppression…slavery has been the curse of the West Indies.” (From James Phillippo Jamaica: Its past and present state, published in 1843.)

Moreover, if we accept Besson’s contention about British concern for justice and humanity, it forces us to reiterate the quizzical observation that James made of Sir Reginald Coupland, Oxford scholar and the chief proponent of the humanitarian thesis about the abolition of slavery, “Those who see in abolition the gradual awakening conscience of mankind should spend a few minutes asking themselves why it is man’s conscience, which had slept peacefully for so many centuries, should awake just at the time that men began to see the unprofitableness of slavery as a method of production in the West Indian colonies.” (From the 1938 edition of The Black Jacobins by CLR James). But things get worse. Williams, he says, misled the public because he “may [again the may] have harboured a deeply felt sense of injustice and deprivation due to his family’s unique circumstances.” This condition led Williams to indulge in “obsessive behaviour and phobias, deprivation and victimhood,” a condition so strong that “it may have become an obsession, perhaps a form of mental disorder, impairing contact to some degree with external reality, which is the definition of neurosis”.

This is Besson’s most audacious charge. Dr Williams was a mad man whose contact with external reality was skewed. No substantive evidence is provided; none is needed. All it takes is a sufficient repetition of “maybes” and “perhaps” and he is on the road to proving his case. All that is left to be said is that those of us (myself included) who followed Williams shared in his madness and his neurotic behaviour. It was in the political vineyard of T&T that Williams found his ignoble measure. Williams, he tells us, was one of the “vote manipulators” of the Third World who “may have originated racist attitudes and the scapegoating of present-day Trinidadians of European and particularly French descent” when he wrote History of the People of Trinidad and Tobago in which he “exile[d] half of the island’s population [the East Indians] from his narrative.”

“Massa Day Done” is Besson’s cause célèbre. He argues that in this 1961 address Williams expressed “the dislike and deep-seated prejudices felt by most Afro-Creoles towards Indians.” The “bitter words” in “Massa Day Done” indicated the “pathological changes associated with a neurosis” and that changed T&T’s racial history and inaugurated what he called racial stereotypes and scapegoats. One wished that Besson had read Yogendra Malik’s East Indians in Trinidad and VS Naipaul’s Middle Passage critically. He would have come away with a different view. But herein lies “the smoking gun” that Besson has been working toward to nail Williams to the psychological cross of deprivation and loss. It is revealed in two words, “frustration and inhibitions.” They are the keys that unlock Williams’s “frustrated black French Creole” identity; the link that takes him back to his displaced family relationships. It is these delusions that lead Williams to inflict his poisonous insecurities upon his people, a point that Ramesh Deosaran endorses in his blurb on the black cover of the book and in his correspondences with the author.

When I reviewed Deosaran’s Eric Williams, His Ideas and His Politics in 1981, I pointed out that his study would have yielded better results if he had used the tools of psychoanalysis rather than psychology when he tried to explain the complex drives that informed Dr Williams’s life and work. While it is true that a man liberates himself through his speech (or more specifically his discourses), Besson does not probe deeply into the gaps and lacunae of Williams’s texts to explore the contradictions in Williams’s behaviour. It is only through rigorous rethinking of Williams’s texts and what Antoine Vergote, a French scholar in psychoanalysis, calls “analytic listening,” that one can arrive at the psychic complexities that drive Williams.

In spite of the derogatory comments that Besson makes about Williams, he is not likely to erode Williams seminal role in the shaping of T&T’s politics in the second half of the 20th century and his magisterial contribution to the study of slavery and the slave trade. Many more studies will be done about Williams, but for the time being I prefer to rely on Arnold Rampersad’s judgment about Williams’s impact on T&T when he said: “Single-handedly and single-mindedly, Eric Williams transformed our lives. He swept away the old and inaugurated the new. He made us proud to be who we were, and optimistic as never before about what we were going to be, or could be. ‘Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,’ and nothing that has transpired since in Trinidad can negate Williams’s gift to his people, or his triumph of intellect and spirit.”

In the years to come, someone will write the history of blacks in Trinidad. It might prove to be a worthy refutation of the half-truths that Besson propagated in this work, particularly in the last chapter, “The Afro-French Creole Narrative.” In the meantime, black people stand convicted by the slanderous twisting of their social and political activities during the last fifty years of their existence. May God have mercy on their souls as they continue to live in a state of delusion and perpetual victimhood.

5 Responses to “Besson’s Cruel Accusations”


  • Eric Williams was an enigma. It is difficult to categorise him. On the one hand he did many good things for T&T and yet on the other hand he did many bad things. The bad things (1) Cause more racial divisions but tempered it with Errol and Kamal support. (2) Gave billions of T&T dollars away supporting despots with oil such as Burnham, (3) Fix the election boundaries to ensure a PNM win all the time. (4) State enterprise became PNM enterprise (probably not his fault) hiring only PNMites. (5) Turned a blind eye to corruption that saw billions stolen from the treasury. (5) Allowed PNMites to terrorise and behave badly at election time. (again probably not his fault).
    The good things (1) Introduced secondary school education, to which I just made it,to which I am thankful, (2) Encouraged a culture of learning in T&T, (3) Used Boroughs to make the country safe, in fact when he was in charge everyone felt safe.(4) Developed industrial estate in central despite internal opposition. (5) Proved good roads, clean drains and water supply to rural areas (something Manning avoided), (6) Built houses for the poor PNMites

    If someone said he was a good Prime Minister they would not be wrong. If someone said he was a bad Prime Minister they would not be wrong. However taking into consideration the era in which these things unfold I think most would say he was a good Prime Minister. Because when he was in charge everyone benefitted in some way. I still remember my little cousin running up the road and shouting “Erikillian dead” to which my father said that blind, deaf (blinkity bling) gone. I would disagree with my father, I think he was enigmatic. To which I say the Eric Williams years was far, far better than the Manning years. People felt safe when Eric was in charge, something older Trinis would recall and that was perhaps the best feeling at times.

    • I agree with your premise, and your objectivity in establishing it that Dr. Williams was an egnima. While I disagree with some of your conclusions, I still find them honest in approach and for that you have my appreciation.

      Even in his own time, and when I was a boy, I recall attacks made on his integrity regarding why he ran for political office; that he had been fired ffrom the US controlled Caribbean Commission.

      I recall that he didn’t respond with pique but with masterful picong, no fault there. It is one of the escape valves by which T&T has avoided the civil conflicts which have split other countries.

      Dr. Williams died, not wealthy, something some ministers like O’Halloran couldn’t say. Nor many today. He would be shocked at the extent to which his maxim for good governance: Morality In Public Affairs, has been abused and undermined … and by members, too, in the PNM.

      He was not only a politician but was also a scholar and a statesman, Machievillan, no doubt, but successful in bringing about the substance of his visions.

      Also, in the same way Mandela should have paid more public tribute to the great conbtributions made by Biko in ending of Apartheid in South Africa, so, too could Williams have acknowledged the seminal role played by Butler in gaining independence for T&T.

      On another issue, unfortunately, in this country, so many opportunities for doing and being better are destroyed because of the racial prisms through which we automatically view our opponents.

      Could Williams have done better in his day on this? Yes, I think so, as could also have Capildeo and others.

      Can we, with the experience of the local history we have and which they then didn’t have do any better in ours? SWe had better, given the possible consequences for good and for ill.

      Finally, until we do, who among us is the first to cast stones?

      Again, my appreciation for your handling of this issue and topic. It prompted me despite urgent timelines to respond as I do. Regards.

  • It would be a disservice to view Eric Williams era in simple terms of race (African/Indian)because there were so many aspects of discrimination, the African/Indian context pales in comparison to the racism practised by the colonial masters, with whom Eric had to negotiate our independence and freedom. It would serve well for those of you who cry ‘race’ in everything to remember that almost all middle and upper managers came from England, Canada, South Africa or Netherlands. The opinions of the worker or ‘colored’ citizens did not matter whether it be Indian, African, Chinese and yes sometimes even French Creole. The Colonial master’s point of view was what mattered. Even in the locals there was division in class and skin complexion and yes it mattered greatly because those of the darker hue could not be found working in a bank or corporate office. Yes all of this was before and after the year 1962. Much of what we believe we experience today had it’s foundations in the practices of our colonial masters who passed their ‘prejudices’ to the succeeding generations of locals who believe that ‘making it’ means that they had to practice the inherited traits of those who controlled our behaviour, thoughts, values and yes psyche. Today, there is an overly sensitisation with the word
    ‘discrimination’ because what may appear to be practised by a member of let’s say the African race against an Indian may also be practised against fellow Africans because that is how the ‘African’ has learnt to exhibit his powers. There are complexities in our behaviour that the great Eric Williams had to deal with and that is why he did not know how to deal with the ‘black power’ uprising when it occurred because the vestiges of our colonial past was so much a part of daily lives that something drastic had to happen to start the transformation to local control.

  • Maybe we can get a Bio on Mr. Besson.. I seem to be getting a ‘limited’ Bio.. I don’t want to think that he would gather such attention with such ‘limited’ education. Ah mean tuh say, would any ‘little black boy’ accomplish so much in T&T’s academic circles without a ‘Dr.’ in front of his name?

    But anyway, I stand corrected..

  • Gerard A. Besson (Jerry) was born in 1942 in Belmont, Port of Spain, Trinidad, West Indies. He was educated at Tranquillity Boys’ School and St. Thomas High School, Principal R.A. Young, in Port of Spain.
    He worked with Selmore Display Company (headed by designer Wayne Berkeley, whose slogan was “Sell more by display”); Trinidad and Tobago Television; Norman, Craig and Kummel Advertising; as advertising manager for Habib’s Stores and Spartan Garments; and at Kenyan & Eckhart, Coleman, Prentice and Varley advertising agency in Trinidad.

    http://caribbeanhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2007/12/about-gerard-besson.html

Comments are currently closed.