Response to a letter to the editor by Mr. Haviser as published in the print edition of The Daily Herald, St. Maarten, of Tuesday November 23, 2021, p. 31
Dear Editor,
Mr. Haviser responds to another writer who wrote an article, earlier, on November, 12th. It is very strange that Mr. Haviser does not want to mention the name of Mr. Cuvalay. An attitude you do not expect from an adult person.
The suggestive title and how Mr. Haviser formulates his opinions are so severely manipulative and offensive to many people, that a reaction must be made.
What I find deplorable, dishonorable and absolutely not necessary in a discussion is trying to damage the opponent by suggesting or accusing him having some relation to a known violent organization like Q-Anon, which of course does not exits! He also tries to damage the image of his opponent in public by calling him an extremist. Calling names without proof is so very childish!
His letter contains many fallacies, meaning that he uses not-real opinions as arguments. He should know better. This is so transparent and visible to anyone who knows something about debating techniques, that you get the image of a scientist with no real arguments. Instead he tries to influence readers with not-true statements. Whether this also points to his methods of conducting science, I leave to others to judge.
Why address an opponent as “politician” as if this is dirty, wicked and not good? I remember that only 4 years ago, Mr. Haviser and others, using the Orange Foundation, tried to make the Dutch Antilles a 13th province of the Netherlands.
Mr. Haviser thinks that always works: telling that you respect freedom of speech, but then calling the opinion of an opponent: “emotionally-charged”, “blatant misinformation”, and instructing the reader that only the middle-of-the-road opinions are good, and others are extremist.
Mr. Haviser writes about the term “tokenism”. But he forgets to tell that tokenism now generally is seen as bad, and manipulative. The use of tokenism started in the US, where white scientists (asked by the government) investigated means to lure minorities by giving them a sole representative in the societal game. This was called the token. Later Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela and many others translated this token-game of the white governments as misleading, discriminating and preventing real equality. In social sciences, this term was widely used after WW2 and especially in the 1960-ties. A ladder was often used to show the grade of participation. Starting at the bottom with no participation at all; to a form where there was no participation of the entire group, only of one-by-the-power-elite-well-chosen-representative, the token; to some small forms of participation; culminating in full participation with decision-making powers. When we look at the history of participation of non-white people in several white-power societies, there were always attempts to lure the non-white people with special arrangements which had the intention to give apartheid or race discrimination an acceptable face. So the ones in power thought.
Concerning is that while a quick internet search reveals many discussions within and about the archeology world regarding incorporated racism, Mr. Haviser does not want to know about this and sweeps the discussion like dandruff off his shoulders. He continues with telling in one sentence that in the early day’s science was “not so good”, but now everything is inclusive, etc. This is an over-simplification of a much greater, still existing problem: If you cover your eyes, you don’t see the problem!
But what about the original article? The writer, Mr. Cuvalay of Statia, compared in his article the misplaced excitement and efforts of the (white) archeologists who plan to desecrate the remains of the murdered enslaved people on the Dutch slave ship Leusden to the way white archeologists did loot the graves of the enslaved ancestors of the Statian people. He also talked about the collaborating kind of scientists that legitimize these white appalling research methods: the non-white token. It is as if these archeologists say: “But we now have a black scientist on board, so it is okay!”
When a WW-2 ship sank with many victims, all nations declared such a wreck, a grave monument. Meaning that nobody should enter this monument, steal remains, artefacts, or whatever. But as soon as the remains are of non-white people, Western white scientists have no problem with opening up graves, cutting bones, removing body parts, or placing skulls in their offices as modern-age Indiana Jones look-a-likes. It seem as if all so-called scientists have no moral at all in plundering graves.
Let’s turn it around, only in sayings of course. What if people would look for the graves of the ancestors of Haviser or his colleagues Gillmore, Stelten, Fricke, etc. and dig them up, cut them in pieces with the purpose to do laboratory research. “Yes, we want to tell you where they came from”. The white world would protest against such attempts.
Well, descendants of former enslaved people, often do know from which part of Afrika their ancestors were kidnapped. And, to a large extent it is also possible to tell who is buried on which plantation on Statia. The archeologists on Statia did not do any ancestry research to the people who were enslaved on the Golden Rock plantation. And they didn’t do so out of fear for the reactions. People won’t let the graves of their (great-) grandparents be wrecked by so-called scientists. And also not to disturb their profitable business.
To put all in the right context, Mr. Haviser is director of the St. Martin organization of archeology, one of the six island archeology profit centers, organized by Leiden University. In these centers heritage is monopolized by the mainly Dutch scientists. These people write archeology reports, even about enslaved people from the perspective of the white people. Here you can read things like: slavery wasn’t that bad on Statia compared to other islands, or when talking about growing prosperity, it is always about the growing wealth of the enslavers. Read for yourself! All these reports have the same old-school colonial perspective. And just the use of the word “enslaved” instead of “slaved” does not change that!
After the many protests against the desecration of the graves of enslaved people at Golden Rock Plantation, Statia Government paused the looting and installed a commission, the Statia Heritage Research Commission. Intended to let the people cool down and stick a new concept of fake community-based research through the people’s throat. Even the wife of the former Government Commissioner stole community money for grave robbers PR. And all with the intention to continue digging as if nothing happened.
If you have read well, you have seen that Mr. Haviser emphasizes “middle-of-the-road-opinions”. This is just planning ahead of what could be expected from these so-called experts: degrees of participation with no freedom for own decision-making or directional powers. Otherwise said: no real participation, only forms of consulting, informing, and sometimes assisting the “very expert” white scientists.
Never forget that for Leiden University these excavations are important for learning experiences, paying digging visitors and other businesses. They are indeed the Golden Rock!
Now you see why Mr. Haviser does not want to understand people who think otherwise, or even people who were born on the island. This is of no importance to western-centric thinking. The tone of his article seems the result of being stung by a wasp. Also an acronym that possibly could be applied to himself? Look it up!
Unfortunately, archeology is used on Statia, not to discover and preserve information from the past, but as the legitimation for heritage destruction in the name of spatial development and economic progress (for foreign companies and the installed elite).
Jack Theuns
Related letters
November 16, 2021 - Archaeologist Jay B. Haviser responds to the letter: Dutch politician beats emotional drum for votes
November 23, 2021 - UCF Caribbean coordinator and anthropologist, Derrick Simmons, responds to Jay B. Haviser's letter: Response to letter from Dr. Jay B. Haviser
November 24, 2021 - UCF Caribbean chairman, Kenneth Cuvalay, responds to the letter of Haviser: Archaeologist Dr. Haviser not fit as chair Statia Heritage and Research Commission
No comments:
Post a Comment