THE furore over the remarks made by West Indies cricketer, Chris Gayle, has invariably resulted in a debate on the state of West Indies cricket and the Caribbean society at large. At least three of Guyana’s newspaper columnists, including our own Dr. David Hinds, have made a linkage between Gayle’s remarks and socio-cultural changes in the wider Caribbean society, which they contend have direct and indirect consequences for our cricket and cricketers. In his column, Dr. Hinds raises two important questions. First, he suggests that Gayle and our current cricketers are disconnected from the noble cricket tradition that has been nurtured and developed by successive generations of our cricketers. He suggests that this disconnection has been caused by the larger political and economic trajectory of the Caribbean over the last three decades that has introduced to the Region a culture of hyper individualism and materialism. These values, Dr. Hinds argues, are the antithesis of the independence promise of collectivism. It is this individualism that he contends is at the heart of Gayle’s recent irresponsible remarks and his general public attitude.
The second issue raised by Dr. Hinds is the culpability of the wider Caribbean society in providing an enabling environment for the individualism he detects. In that regard, he posits that the issue is not really about Chris Gayle, but about the condition of the Caribbean society and its independence. He contends, therefore, that Gayle’s remarks is a reflection that something has gone wrong with the Region’s resolve to maintain its identity shaped over centuries of resistance to domination.
Dr. Hinds’s analysis is grounded in the thesis developed by the acclaimed Caribbean thinker, CLR James, who strenuously argued, with much justification, that cricket in the Caribbean is more than just a game. For James, the Caribbean cricketer and the game represent something that is central to the Caribbean civilisation; something “beyond the boundary.” His book by that name has been a sort of bible for generations of Caribbean scholars and activists and even those beyond the Region. James made his analysis against the backdrop of the 1950s and 1960s, the period of decolonisation and early independence. It was also the period of the early ascendancy of West Indies cricket glory; a period that produced the unmatched Garry Sobers, the Three Ws, Ramadhin and Valentine, Kanhai and Hunte and Hall and Gibbs. It’s hard to avoid making the linkage between the high quality of the players, their success on the field of play and the Independence quest beyond the boundary.
But, the big question we ask is this: does James’s thesis still hold for our Caribbean? Is cricket still central to our identity, or is it now confined to “within the boundary?” Is it fair to hold Gayle and his generation to the standards of a model that may no longer have relevance to the lived realities of the contemporary Caribbean? Dr. Hinds himself draws attention to the role of Structural Adjustment in diverting the Region from its independence promise—are we past the stage of diversion? These are questions which Dr. Hinds, Sir Hilary Beckles and other members of the Jamesian school must interrogate and answer?
We raise the above questions, not in defence of Chris Gayle. To the contrary, we find it appalling that Gayle’s statements could generate the level of sympathy it seems to be getting from mainly Caribbean males, some from whom we expect better. Even if one makes the argument that Gayle should not be held to nationalist standards, he certainly should be held to standards grounded in respect for women. The movement for equal rights for women should not escape even a casual observer of the society around us. We can only conclude that Chris Gayle is out of step with this reality. We agree with Dr. Hinds that the rest of us must take stock of the society from which the Gayles are recruited. Are we still in this day and age raising our boys to see women as “sexual meat?”
Dr. Hinds also touched on the top cricketers’ preference for playing T20 Club cricket over playing for the West Indies. This is a failed criticism. The West Indies is the only cricketing nation in which this is an issue. Other countries seem to have struck a balance, whereby playing for the nation is primary with players only availing themselves for T20 tournaments when not needed for national duty. Why can’t West Indian cricketers make the same commitment? This failure on the part of our cricketers has made us the laughing stock of the world. One cannot help but hear from the Australian commentators, the unwritten and unsaid sentiment that the West Indians are incapable of doing the obvious.