RHON­DOR DOWLAT

Se­nior Re­porter

rhon­dor.dowlat@guardian.co.tt

The plan to re­place Colum­bus’ three ships with the steel­pan on T&T’s Coat of Arms has ig­nit­ed a vig­or­ous dis­cus­sion about na­tion­al iden­ti­ty.

Adding his voice to the de­bate, ca­lyp­son­ian and cul­tur­al his­to­ri­an Dr Hol­lis “Chalk­dust” Liv­er­pool agreed with the pro­posed change, ar­gu­ing that while colo­nial sym­bols are his­tor­i­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant, they per­pet­u­ate a lega­cy that un­der­mines na­tion­al pride.

Liv­er­pool ad­vo­cates for the steel­pan as a sym­bol that tru­ly rep­re­sents T&T’s cul­tur­al her­itage. He stressed the need for his­to­ry ed­u­ca­tion that fos­ters a sense of na­tion­al iden­ti­ty and ac­cu­rate­ly re­flects con­tem­po­rary val­ues, sug­gest­ing that re­tain­ing colo­nial sym­bols can de­tract from this goal.

Fel­low ca­lyp­son­ian Robert “D Mighty Tri­ni” Elias mean­while said the steel­pan, ca­lyp­so and lim­bo are core to T&T’s cul­tur­al iden­ti­ty and should be pro­mot­ed glob­al­ly to en­hance tourism and na­tion­al pride, adding the fo­cus should shift away from out­dat­ed colo­nial sym­bols.

How­ev­er, his­to­ri­an Shamshu Deen warned against al­ter­ing the Coat of Arms and ar­gued that fre­quent changes could lead to a frag­ment­ed na­tion­al iden­ti­ty, with var­i­ous groups com­pet­ing to add their sym­bols.

While he ac­knowl­edged the com­plex in­flu­ence of colo­nial his­to­ry, Deen be­lieves those sym­bols are in­te­gral to the na­tion’s di­verse her­itage and should not be dis­card­ed light­ly.

Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley has de­fend­ed his pro­pos­al to change the Coast of Arms and as­serts that the steel­pan, as the on­ly in­stru­ment in­dige­nous to T&T, de­serves a cen­tral place on the na­tion­al em­blem.

Row­ley al­so re­ject­ed sug­ges­tions from his­to­ri­an Dr Jerome Teelucks­ingh to in­clude the tas­sa drum, cal­ing such ideas “wicked” and “ig­no­rant.”

He high­light­ed no­table East In­di­an fig­ures in the steel­pan com­mu­ni­ty, in­clud­ing Bob­by Mo­hammed and Jit Sama­roo, to counter claims that this change might mar­gin­alise any eth­nic group.

Row­ley al­so crit­i­cised uni­ver­si­ty lec­tur­ers for spread­ing mis­in­for­ma­tion and ques­tioned their com­pe­tence, as­sert­ing that con­sti­tu­tion­al dis­cus­sions have been open and in­clu­sive, con­trary to claims they are mere­ly a pre-elec­tion tac­tic.