Bahamian culture was heavily influenced by the British

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was undeniably one of the constant figures in the world during her 70-year reign. Regardless of your political beliefs or thoughts of the British monarchy, for many, she embodied a constant leadership figure as the Head of State of the United Kingdom and many countries and territories, head of the Commonwealth and head of the Church of England.

Throughout her reign, she has taken on the responsibilities of the crown and has led her country with an apolitical hand and without overstepping her constitutional capabilities, thus allowing for the advancement of the UK to become one of the stronger democracies in the world with one of the leading economies.

For context of the impact that the British have had on the world, it is worth noting that the British culture, way of life, governmental systems and economic models have been spread throughout the world, primarily through colonialism and their massive empire.

In the case of The Bahamas, the native Lucayan people were enslaved and killed to extinction by Christopher Columbus and other Spaniards, thus leaving the islands vacant for more than a century until the British puritans from Bermuda first resettled. The Bahamas was granted the Lord Proprietors of the Carolinas in 1670 by King Charles II, thus beginning the official British rule of The Bahamas, which would transform into a Crown Colony in 1718 and remain as such until Independence in 1973.

So, the British Crown has been considered the Head of State since its resettlement in the 15th century. In recent years, many Commonwealth nations have considered the removal of the British crown as their Head of State, with Barbados becoming the most recent country to do so in November 2021.

In the case of The Bahamas, the conversation of converting from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic has been somewhat sparked after Barbados’s move to republicanism and after the death of our most recent former Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II, and the ascension of her son, the much less popular King Charles III. However, I was always somewhat apprehensive to the idea of my country becoming a republic. I have always been a student of history and prided myself on that.

So, when learning about the history of the Caribbean and the different colonial powers in the region, I always found The Bahamas to stand out in their colonial history. As previously mentioned, The Bahamas’ native Lucayan people were driven to extinction by the Spaniards long before the arrival of the British, and as a result, there are no living descendants of the indigenous people of The Bahamas there now. What that also means is that the general Bahamian population are descendants of African slaves and British colonists and settlers. Therefore, we became a very British society because they were the ones who essentially built the social structure.

Now, the African slaves in the colony and their ancestors did mix, over time, with British colonists and settlers, and their cultures mixed in unique ways to create a Bahamian culture. But it was heavily influenced by both major groups of people with no indigenous influence, unlike many of the other Caribbean islands that would become a defining aspect of their culture. But what does this history lesson have to do with The late Queen and the current relationship The Bahamas has with the crown?

The Bahamas was a country that has been British in its societal structure from its creation. The people who lived there were British subjects who moved there, and the government, laws and culture that was established was very much so British. As a result, we retained the British institutions, cultural practices and values that were established (despite the vast majority of the population being of African descent) with adding the traditions and values of the Africans slaves that were there.

Consequentially, British culture and institutions, along with a mixture of other cultures, is in fact also Bahamian culture and institutions and should be treated as such. The idea of saying things like “we speak the Queen’s English” and “For God, Queen and Country,” the Bahamian obsession with tea or even down to our accents and the way we dress are a part of our culture simply because we have retained the ways of the British.

This is simply the culture that our country was founded with just as any other country that was founded around a specific culture. Now, in the case of the British colonists and their involvement in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade that did bring African slaves to The Bahamas, I agree it was a horrendous atrocity, millions of lives were lost and generational trauma ensued at the hands of colonists and slave traders.

I also agree that her late majesty did not commit these atrocities, and that, in her role as sovereign, she must be apolitical for the preservation of a free and fair democracy. Where I disagree is where the line of her limits as sovereign are drawn. Many assume that because she is the Head of State and that the government is formed in her name that she can direct the government to do whatever she thinks is right. This is not the case.

The sovereign, being in line with a modern democracy, must ensure that the will of the people is being done through their elected representatives and therefore cannot intervene in the affairs of Parliament. To ensure that she did not receive a fate similar to that of her ancestor King Charles I with the monarchy being overthrown, she had to, in fact, simply advise and not mandate her government.

Therefore, when having conversations of who is to blame and taking responsibility for the oppression and atrocities, we need to point toward the successive democratically elected British parliamentary governments that allowed for these things to happen and had direct stake in them. Therefore, when talking about reparations, acknowledgement and accountability for these events, I do not think it is fair to completely blame the specific sovereign that was not a part of it. Rather, blame the elected body that is Parliament that codified, partook and defended colonialism as an economic model for hundreds of years.

I am in no way, shape or form saying that the British crown had nothing to do with the colonialism, nor am I denying that they benefited from it. I am saying that the legislative body should take the brunt of the responsibility like the legislative bodies of the United States and many other countries that have committed atrocities are expected to do.

As a Bahamian, I understand that our history is one that is complex. But our history, society and culture is one that, no matter how much we deny it, was initially formed and influenced heavily by that of the British.

As a country, we have a lot of introspection to do as we try to dissect ourselves in a deeper understanding of who we are as a people, where our society, culture and government come from, how it has evolved in some respects and how it has stayed the same in others.