The Tribune

By Dr Ian Bethell-Bennett

bethellbennett@gmail.com

We seem to be defining the way our society works through a series of inequalities that mean that people, especially young people, are totally excluded from the possibility of success. This kind of social exclusion and inequality is built around class, gender, sexual preference and ethnicity. Ironically, it is deeply embedded around class and gender, as the poorest in our society are caught in a bind where their gender is used to confine them to roles in society and so determine their success. Young men, for example are defined by their ability to wield power which often goes with sexual prowess and bling, which is the same for young, working-class women. However, young men caught in this dilemma will often use sexual violence to assert their otherwise ignored, overlooked or 'marginalised' masculinity.

As a society, we have so segregated ourselves that it seems almost impossible to move beyond this social exclusion that is causing huge societal violence and unrest. Though distinct from the kind we see in big cities, the potential for that same kind of violence is growing steadily because we have chosen to ignore the real and serious inequalities we are encouraging to exist. When we refuse to educate people based on their socio-economic class and their ethnicity, we are creating a deeper social rift.

The last few weeks have revealed serious social problems in major places. London, for example, has experienced a devastating demonstration of violence against democracy and civility. The city also witnessed deadly inequality that some are calling corporate murder or manslaughter through negligence and greed. This brings back memories of the riots that took London by storm a number of years ago when poor or working class youth were reported to have caused great unrest. The 2011 riots were said to have been sparked by 'policing', what we could refer to as the state's criminalising of the poor. A specific sub-group received the brunt of the focus - young, black youth. They were the focus of much of the disturbance and blame was heaped on their antisocial behaviour. The state came out punching, and these youth were the worst thing ever since the beginning of time.

However, when such violence erupts, we must remember that it has been caused by something. The violence was in part a result of the cutting of all resources to the youth, especially the working class youth who were the brunt of this blame. At the same time, in Nassau, the politicians were decrying the destructive behaviour of the youth, the same group being criminalised in England. This was underscored in an article in The Guardian back then, the irony of a black country claiming that black, working class youth were destabalising the nation. Yes, most youth are black, but that successive administrations, and especially prime ministers, could use the language of the (former) colonial power to describe their own citizens was and remains alarming. One note often missing from most of the debate is the violence shown to young, working class males. It is also important to underscore that when in England, the complexion of the threat changes markedly, and has a huge historical debt. In the 1980s, as a young person walking around some areas of London could be risky because of 'Paki bashing', a pastime with young working class white thugs who sought out young non-white youth to beat up on. Today, this reality has not changed, we just no longer call it the same thing.

What is obviously missing from the discussion again is the violence the state visits on these 'uncivilised' youth. They are 'uncivilised' for a reason. We have socially excluded 'them' from mainstream society either through intent or negligence, often times both. We seem to forget that they are actually us. We live within close proximity to one another on an island 21 by 7. The idea of a 'native quarter' and another more civilised area has also once again arisen. We have pulled all the resources from the 'native quarter'. (Let's hope that Travis Robinson in his new role as politician can bring some change to his constituency). When pushed into the margins of society, youth conform to the behaviour expected of them, especially when they respond to their social exclusion through violence and rejection. Sadly, in rejection the same uncivilised behaviour is exhibited.

Linking London and the Bahamas in 2017

As the fire in Kensington shows, the poor, or better put, the working classes who can also be called the working broke, are usually the scapegoats of society and they are also often those who can least afford to escape the violence visited on them by the structural violence they experience. Close to 80 people died in a fire that was easily avoidable, had resources been distributed in a more equitable manner.

When people wish to hide away what they see as the refuse, nothing good comes from this. Much like we hide people in the middle of the island or in low-lying areas that are seen as high crime 'ghettos', then send the young men to Fox Hill for any minor infraction, call it what you may, it's a prison that is often worse than a dungeon complete with slop buckets, though ironically 'cleaned up'. 'Corrections' do not happen in prisons like this. When shanty towns burn, some people sit back and gloat about the loss of eyesores and the personal suffering of those who 'illegally' inhabit these places. The paradox is that many shanty town 'dwellers' are there paying rent to private persons who are benefiting from their misfortune. Further, they are not all illegal immigrants, nor are they all Haitian, as we as a state are want to believe. Many are actually Bahamians cast out by social exclusion and a rapidly and uncontrolled rising price of living. Similar to the residents who inhabited the destroyed tower in Kensington, these are people many wish to exploit but not to see. 'Invisibilising' the problem does not make it go away. In fact, refusing to see the problem adds fuel to the fires of inequality, anger, frustration and reaction and makes everyone suffer more.

The response to the blaze in London has been swift and thoughtful, except by the government. Much like the former governing party that often responded in lukewarm terms to any matter that really did not concern them but deeply impacted those who lived on the edge of society. Those who are working, fully employed, earning minimal wage and paying their taxes, but cannot make ends meet, are more rapidly being pushed further into the abyss by social policies (or the lack thereof) and cronyism, spiralling youth unemployment, insane youth under-employability and unemployability.

We are reaping the benefits of a poorly organised educational system that has closed it eyes to the working class, unless they demonstrate some incredible talent which would warrant them being picked up by a 'talent scout' and manicured into 'someone' through the private system. Our bias is often too obvious and it is utterly blinding. The responses to youth violence and crime in Nassau have been about policing similar to the situation in London in 2010/11, and worsening today. Poorly thought through plans and even more poorly implemented and incredibly under-funded social programmes to restore our inner cities fail because the money is sucked out of them or they never really get implemented in a structural way that could lead to success.

Focusing on local social change

We often boast that teenage pregnancy is down, but what does that really mean? How possible is it to succeed if one is born into the working class Bahamas in the 21st century? Is it less than or better than it was in the early or mid 20th century? In a country, where masculinity is linked to class and working class masculinity is linked to material manifestations of success, babies, bling, cash, alcohol, women and 'power' the trappings of this are the road to hell. We know this well, yet we encourage youth to follow this road because we point them down it without another option. We tell them that they are failures and so they become the words we use to define them. Much the same can be said for femininity, or working class femininity, where success is confined to reproduction and to having a man. The kind of man that will usually beat, rape, humiliate, and impregnate then leave, is often the most attractive kind of man for many young women who have grown up in homes where this is the norm. Cycles cannot be broken without an absolute change of direction. At the same time, as a nation we choose to ignore all the transactional sex that allows young, working-class high-school girls to have hair, nails, and everything else, from their older daddies, we actually make it grow.

The Immigration Act as recently amended 2013/2014/2015 seeks to empower government to exclude migrant groups and those born in the Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents, particularly if they are Haitian, from education and healthcare, we are ostensibly saving the country money today by creating deeper social chaos and more spending later on. The power to exclude and to create deepening inequalities and increased violence, inter-personal as much as cultural, will cost the nation dearly in the longer term. The lack of functional education already causes huge and crippling inequalities and threatens social stability. However, we choose to ignore this. The invisible or ignored problems will soon lead to a similar kind of situation as witnessed in London, the full impact of which has not yet been seen. Can this current government work to bring back some social equality or will it continue to use the same policies to exclude?

• bethellbennett@gmail.com