Beware my “brother” Hilary
Below is a copy of an email I sent to University of the West Indies (UWI) Chairman Sir Paul Altman on December 8th 2017.
A “small beginning” of what I hope evolves into a mutually respectful, relationship rehabilitating conversation between UWI and me, the email expresses my concerns about self destructive, social cohesion depreciating elements of Vice Chancellor Sir Hilary Beckles’ Pan Africanist pedagogy, especially his reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery rhetoric.
My email explains how since at least 2001, when Barbados controversially put slavery reparations on the United Nations agenda, at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance (WCAR), Sir Hilary has been consciously or unconsciously pushing a parasitic, simplistic and socially poisonous “good blacks vs evil whites” reparations narrative.
I turned to Sir Paul, a prominent Jewish Barbadian real estate entrepreneur because previous, more informal efforts to get my concerns addressed by approaching Sir Hilary himself, including through calls to his office at UWI’s Mona Campus in Jamaica, and through his colleagues Dr Alan Cobley, Dr Eudene Barriteau and others at UWI’s Barbados and Trinidad (St Augustine) campuses have so far proven ineffective.
Having not received a response from Sir Paul to-date, I am publishing my letter to him here in the spirit that the Guyanese politician Jesse Burnham published her 1964 pamphlet “Beware My Brother Forbes”, prophetically warning her compatriots of the grave threat she believed he posed to Guyana’s democratic prospects.
It seems clear to me that whatever their intentions, good or ill, professor Beckles, politician-lawyer David Comissiong, ethicist Anna Kasafi Perkins, education analysts Verene Sheperd and “Sista Docta” Sandra Richards, feminist activist Margaret Gill and others working for or close to UWI are channeling the worst of the now long deceased democracy degrading, even disemboweling, Guyanese dictator Forbes Burnham’s legacy.
(I will address the good that the sagacious Burnham did, in spite of his own and others’ limitations, in due course.)
And I am clear that by opposing Beckles’ ivory tower broadcasting of Burnham’s divisive spirit, I am risking a fate like Walter Rodney’s.
Rodney was the manipulative Marxist Burnham’s most prominent critic until he was assassinated, on Burnham’s instruction, allegedly, with British and American governmental complicity.
Like Maurice Bishop of Grenada, he was a Caribbean casualty of the Cold War conflict.
Moreover, having suffered a degree of character assassination and commercial sabotage at the hands of Aaron “Buddy” Larrier and other Beckles spiritual allies or thought twins in 2001, in the lead-up to and following the WCAR, I am also mindful of Beckle’s links to the volatile, violence rationalizing Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrkhan.
Indeed, Farrakhan’s divisive denunciation in 2014 of Kofi Anan, Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma and others as “Uncle Toms”, “sell outs”, and “collaborators” on the basis of the bellicose Beckles’ interpretation of their conduct during WCAR 2001, is chillingly reminiscent of how Larrier, Comissiong, Rastafarian academic Ikael Tafari and others attacked me in 2001 ahead of the WCAR because of my insistence that the role of Africans as traders in the slave trade, not just tradees needed to be adequately addressed in our pre-conference deliberations.
Moreover, readers should note that in a 1993 speech the characteristically tantrum tongued, hot headed, Farrakhan defiantly asserted the NOI’s right to “deal with traitors and cutthroats and turncoats” as they saw fit.
Note too that at that time the fiery tongued, black people homogenizing Farrakhan was defiantly responding to decades old allegations that the NOI was responsible for the assassination of Malcolm Little, better known as Malcolm X, but most respectfully, arguably, as Malcolm Shabazz.
And I note “Shabazz’s name changes here because they document a spiritual journey that the secular, mainstream, popular media seems to have done much to devalue and distort, consciously or unconsciously.
There certainly seems to be a tendency for some human ecology misreading, word-to-flesh mismanaging editorial entities, like BBC Norfolk’s Mike Liggins, to treat Rodneyesque and Shabazz-like rebels the way Elijah Muhammed apparently treated his once highly prized, most prominent disciple: that is, like privately owned property to be disposed of as the NOI supremo saw fit.
It certainly seems that Muhammed, with Farrakhan’s acquiescence, and some say a CIA wink, treated Malcolm like a slave, really, when you think of it.
Like Liggins, who called me a “crank”, Charmaine “Nailah Imojah” Gill who called me a liar and failure, and others who project their Burnhamesque, binary and bi-polar labels onto my and others social capital and wider intellectual property proprietorially, Muhammed apparently presumed to dictate Shabazz’s narrative: to self-servingly stereotype and define his former disciple’s story.
Unsurprising then that two days before he was murdered, Malcolm, having freed himself of Muhammad’s 12 years of ideological domination, described his former devotion to the NOI as inducing a kind of brain death.
Shabazz said he had been hypnotized by the NOI and made a zombie.
Of course, while valid to some degree, this assessment should be taken with a pinch of salt as it ignores Shabazz’s personal responsibility for what he believed.
This blame-shifting capacity is part of the attraction of the race demonizing, “wicked white people” and “bestial blacks” gospels that race racketeers like Beckles, Burnham, Farrakhan, Nigel Farrage, VS Naipaul, Surinder Kandola, Robert Mugabe, Steve Bannon, Kelly-Ann Conway, Reverends Sally Muggereidge and Joanne Farman propagate consciously and unconsciously.
I fear a similar personal responsibility side-stepping, bow-to-Beckles-compelling zombification is happening at UWI.
University of Warwick lecturer Michael Nibblett and Jamaican religious history authority Doreen Morrison can attest to this on the basis of comments made by Dr Aaron Kamuguisha, a high profile UWI academic, when I challenged his ideological bowing to Becklesque, Burnham-recalling racial bigotry during a talk he delivered at UoW in 2016.
And a note of caution to those apparently infatuated by British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn may be beneficial here, given the openly threatening and otherwise intimidating tactics that Corbyn’s Thomas-Mair-like, Militant friends and supporters are alleged to have repeatedly been engaging in.
Certainly, like Burnham and his socialist ideology preaching, then state-capture-and-state-capitalism practicing adherents, some of Corbyn’s and his comrade and militant founder John Lansman’s Caribbean Black nationalist counterparts tend to treat rebellious “Rodneys” like me that challenge their authority like wild animals that need to be destroyed or at least discredited.
As I noted in an article addressing the counter-productively politicized, bi-polar, “binary notation” of the fundamentalist feminist activist Gill, our compatriot writer George Lamming alluded to this proprietorial state-based, human potential wasting politically motivated destruction in 2015, treating it as the defining trait of Caribbean political party traditions.
He said “It is my view that the political party, as it operates, is the source of public corruption. It is the source of a waste of human capital. It is the major obstacle to any rational and serious debate about politics.”
Intriguingly, the prominent Barbadian thinker Lamming, best known for his novel “In The Castle Of My Skin”, offered this assessment during the 5th annual Assembly Of Caribbean People, held at UWI Cave Hill.
From my vantage point, under Sir Hilary’s Vice Chancellorship, all of UWI but especially Cave Hill, where he served as principal for a number of years, is at risk of becoming a Burnham blight transmitting, Farrakhanesque flame-thrower rhetoric replicating factory.
More on that in part 2 of this discourse, by which time I hope to have heard from Sir Paul and can report that my concerns about UWI’s future are being taken seriously.
In the meantime, readers may want to consider signing a petition I published on January 25 to support this and related Caribbean reparations rhetoric rehabilitating goals.
My letter to Sir Paul Altman
Dear Sir Paul Altman
My name is Junior (Jay) Campbell and I am an England-based Barbadian holistic communications and education specialist, trading as Intelek International.
Under the Intelek label I pursue a variety of personal development and social cohesion building activities.
And where possible I work with various public and private sector and similarly ostensibly opposing interests (for example, Christians and Muslims) to build the kind of value consensus that Barbadian sociologist Richard Carter has identified as one of our country’s most urgent needs.
Typically, following Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s, Mahatma Ghandi’s and other peaceful protester’s example, I do this by emphasizing principles of interdependence and the consequent need for programs of action rooted in systems that facilitate mutual respect and accountability.
It is in this regard that I have been prompted to contact you, in your capacity as Chairman of the Council of the University of the West Indies’ Cave Hill Campus.
I am deeply concerned about the “divide and rule” course of Cave Hill’s and the wider UWI body’s pedagogy.
This mind poisoning pedagogy is being propagated by Vice Chancellor professor Sir Hillary Beckles, Dr Sandra Richards, lecturers Margaret Gill and other UWI personnel, consciously or unconsciously.
I am particularly concerned about Sir Hilary’s, Gill’s and Richards’ deeply divisive, shallowly scholastic and fundamentally undemocratic, capricious and dictatorial reparations advocacy.
In 2001, as a consultant to the Barbados Government Commission for Pan African Affairs, I worked with politician David Comissiong, Rastafarian community leader Iral Jabari Talma, trade unionist Ricky Parris and other Afrocentric human rights advocates who with professor Beckles led Barbados’ “successful” (I use the term advisedly) 2001 bid to have reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery put on the United Nations agenda.
Then and since, I have been astounded at the capacity of professor Beckles and other leaders of Barbados’ reparations lobby to dismiss or trivialize the issue of Africans’ and African-descended Barbadians complicity in the trans-Atlantic trade as slave traders and owners.
From my perspective, this reduces Barbadian reparations advocacy to a kind of opportunistic, race racketeering demagoguery and undermines Barbadians’ capacity to engage with the very emotive, volatile issues around past, present and future race relations in our country constructively.
From my perspective, Beckles, Comissiong, Vincentian prime minister Keith Mitchell, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and other Caribbean, American, British, Canadian and other reparations advocates are not so much knowledge workers as political propagandists.
Their reparations advocacy is characterized by a dangerous deficiency of self criticism, rooted in a consciously or unconsciously cowardly commitment to discreditable self interest.
From my perspective, Beckles’ “success” at garnering Mitchell’s, other Caribbean, American, British and Canadian political and academic leaders’ support for his short-sighted, radically retrogressive, scholastically anemic and intellectually malnourished, “obese English” reparations bid is more indebted to systemic weaknesses in Barbados’ and these country’s governance systems than any thing else.
I can attest first hand to the failure of Barbados’ politically compromised and morally adrift media establishment to hold Sir Hilary, Comissiong, Dr Sandra Richards and other fundamentalist feminist and Marxist opportunist reparations advocates accountable for defects in their one-sided, reverse racist values consensus undermining reparations reasoning.
The complicity of Rev Gerald Seale, Rev Harcourt Blackett and other Barbadian, American and other clerics through arguably well-intended but characteristically “ecclesiastical”, indulgent and excessive interventions must also to be noted and lamented.
Like the media these and other cleric’s and lay people’s contributions to the debate have often consisted of ethically flawed, generalization and stereo-type based ideas.
What is needed, at least, is a more mathematical, radical scrutinizing and weighing of African descended Caribbean slave traders and owners motives.
For example, the questionable personal and political concessions made by Toussaint Louverture, Nanny of the Maroons, Marcus Garvey, Bob Marley and other well meaning but nonetheless fallible Caribbean freedom fighters need to be examined with equal amounts of objectivity and empathy.
I note that each of these leaders at least attempted to use authority earned through revolutionary rhetoric and/or struggle to negotiate accommodations that ultimately replaced one set of dictators with another.
CLR James identified the essential dynamic behind this race glossed phenomenon in the context of the Russian revolution, denouncing it as “state capitalism”.
Such penetrative analysis seems sadly missing in the reparations discourse that Sir Hilary propagates.
What is happening instead, essentially, is that scientific analysis and argumentation are being sacrificed on the altar of political, racial and religious sentimentality: cults of personality and opportunism have been pushing principled, historically grounded argumentation to the periphery of the reparations debate.
And I cannot over-stress the extremely harmful part being played by unprincipled, short-sighted elements in Barbados’ mainstream news media and their co-conspirators in international news and publishing interests, especially some academic publishers.
The West-Indian-politician-Westminster-choir-boy ploys and trickery that Barbadian calypsonian Anthony “Mighty Gabby” Carter deplores in one of his well-known songs are being taken up by Beckles and others whose scholastic authority and power to persuade derive not so much from the content of their arguments as from their proximity to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale UCLA and other British, American and similar “first world” educational institutions.
(And I have copied Harvard University’s Laird Bell professor of History Sven Beckert into this email and would welcome his thoughts on that point.)
But like the widely discredited but defiant British academic, Professor Dame Glynis Breakwell, professor Beckles and other reparations crusaders seem to be exploiting weaknesses in international education systems of accountability and transparency.
Yet even as the foundations of predominantly secular segments of the international academic fraternity are being shaken by seismic shifts in thinking in medicine (especially in the field of mental health), Beckles’ beloved economics and other social sciences, Beckles, Gill, Comissiong, Richards and others seem to be mechanically regurgitating fundamentals of discredited, divisive, shallowly socialist, essentially “state capitalist” Marxist ideas.
And I believe that like the Donald Trump presidency, a patent product and propagator of “fake news” reaction to the gay marriage “faith ruse” excesses and other anomalies of Barack Obama’s presidency, the consequences of binary, divisive thinking about reparations for the Barbados economy and society are apparent already.
Professor Beckles’ and his fundamentalist feminist and other allies’ combative, one-sided reparations propagandizing is sowing seeds of distrust and paranoia, undermining what little values consensus the sociologist Carter and others may have documented.
Buttressed by the malicious, mischievous machinations of Aaron Larrier, Richards and others who have consciously or unconsciously cultivated a deep antipathy for white people through misfortunes they have suffered as minorities during their sojourns in England and other predominantly white countries, Beckles like the “new negroe” Bussa before him and whom he immoderately champions, is pouring contempt on centuries of quiet, diplomatic, peaceful conflict resolution methodologies and traditions that Errol Barrow, Tom Adams and other more circumspect Barbadians have developed.
I have even heard the ideologically imbecilic suggestion by one UWI Cave Hill acolyte, that Bussa should replace Barrow as Barbados’ putative “Father of Independence”.
Arrogantly discarding biblical and other anciently attested peace building, social cohesion advancing methodologies (like Egyptian Ma’at and South African Ubuntu traditions, to which they nonetheless occasionally pay lip service) the robotic reasoning, shallowly “radical” reparations revolutionaries dispense with the unique, geo-politically crafted, temporally and spatially measured and mediated “truth-to-power-speaking” techniques that have been dictated by Barbados 166 square mile topography, as much as by anything else.
Disdaining of the “cool headed”, morally measured, conflict management and resolution skills that are Barbadians’ distinctive heritage, as Mariano Brown and other Caribbean politicians and business people have noted, the gender, race and religious racketeers that shield Beckles, Gill, Richards and others from rigorous academic and moral scrutiny are selling Barbados down the river as surely as some of our African ancestors did, and some of our African, African American and Black British contemporaries routinely do today.
Our youth are being tutored in coarse and volatile political agitation that seems more characteristic of Jamaican, Trinidadian, Guyanese and other lesser developed, more temporally and spatially challenged realms of democratic discourse, doctrine and practice.
I am asking your help to address this deeply regrettable democracy destroying trend.
It is an abuse of the Barbadian and wider Caribbean tax paying public’s contribution to the development of UWI and our other formal and informal educational institutions over successive generations.
I have tried to recruit professor Allan Cobley and other UWI personnel without success.
Similar approaches to the Inter American Commission On Human Rights, the Commonwealth Secretariat, mainstream and other news entities, like the supposedly progressive Barbados Underground blog have been sabotaged by the machinations of Comissiong, Larrier, Gill, Richards and the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Karen Mckenzie, originally of Jamaica.
I have had some success though in getting Donville Inniss and other Barbadian politicians and business people who have been undermining my work to rethink their unethical, human rights violating objectives and strategies.
And an initial conversation with Prime Minister Freundel Stuart during a visit to Barbados in October 2018 has led me to think that ill-conceived efforts to have me declared persona non grata, mainly because of my questioning of fundamentalist Christian and other excesses (documented in my book “The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled”) have been abandoned.
I have a sense that the most formidable obstacles to the good that I can do for Barbados as a peace maker have been overcome and I am keen to build on this foundation.
Moreover, I have been speaking to many Barbadians at home and abroad who share my perspective.
However, as conversations with prominent Cave Hill academics (including one who spoke in the presence of two English colleagues during a visit to England) have made clear, many of professor Beckles’ colleagues are intimidated by him and his international academic and political connections.
The aforementioned visiting academic spoke of the need to ensure that he could continue to pay his mortgage.
And I am told that the suppression of criticism of Sir Hilary at the Mona Campus in Jamaica is at a particularly perilous stage.
I suspect that the impunity implied by the outcome of the trial of his son Rodney Beckles on that island for the alleged murder of Jamaican Khalil Campbell has had a chilling, demoralizing effect on many potential whistle blowers.
For my own part, having been labelled “a spy” and otherwise attacked by rabid reparationist Aaron “Buddy” Larrier, the late Dr Ikael Tafari and others, I am not without sympathy for those who have been silenced.
Having seen the kind of blame and flame throwing rage and other hot head, bullet blunt irrational behavior Sir Hilary’s mouth has triggered in the likes of Louis Farrakhan and others, far be it from me to call those who find silence in the face of his divide and rule offensives cowards.
But notwithstanding the hardships I have suffered at the hands of other people, especially as a result of what former prime minister Sir Lloyd Erskine Sandiford has called “academic politics” I fear only God, Sir Paul and commit my and my family’s welfare to his care.
Still, any advice you can offer on how I can get professor Beckles and other UWI personnel who have previously viewed me as a threat to their interests to work with me on a less demagogic, more democratic, measured and conciliatory reparations discourse (giving due attention to proactive, self reparation strategies particularly) would be deeply appreciated.
If it helps to view this letter as a formal complaint to the UWI Council you chair, please accept it in that context and capacity and advise me what additional steps I can take to ensure that the menace Beckles poses to himself and others is addressed appropriately.
In closing, I want to assure you that I have made no secret of my concerns about Sir Hilary’s, Comissiong’s and others’ questionable arguments and methods.
From 2001 until now, I have denounced them openly, as the article extract copied below and the full article at the link accompanying it makes clear.
I have also sought to demonstrate empathy, the very thing that I believe can facilitate consensus around reparations and similarly fraught gender, race and religion charged debates.
Despite Comissiong’s, Beckles’, Gill’s and others’ apparent complicity in the aforementioned or alluded to campaign of character assassination and economic sabotage that I have survived, I have forgiven and bear no ill will toward them.
But I cannot stand quietly by while Sir Hilary undermines the very liberty he would champion.
“Slavery was not just a system of holding people in bondage, it was holding people in bondage for a purpose, and that was to make money, to make money off of their bodies, and that’s the important realization that Americans have to come to,” said Professor Annette Gordon-Reed, speaking after a talk by Sir Hilary at Harvard.
But thanks to the selective silence and/or incompetence of journalists Kaymar Jordan, Olutolye Waldron, Julius Gittens, Harold Hoyte, Al Gilkes, David Ellis, Anthony Blackman and others, Beckles is basically allowed to treat UWI like his own slave plantation.
This and similar interventions are motivated as much by my sense of duty to the thus “enslaved” people of Barbados and the Caribbean as by concerns for my own and my family’s welfare.
I see little difference between the mind control manipulations of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the intellectual property plundering, knowledge trading machinations employed by Sir Hilary, Rupert Murdoch and some other knowledge industry owners and workers today.
Sadly, I see much of the same “body of information” snatching behavior being perpetrated by social media Goliaths Google, Facebook and Twitter, with the conscious or unconscious connivance and complicity of some members of Britain’s National Union of Journalists (of which I am a member).
And I actually feel sorry for professor Beckles and company much of the time.
As a member of Barbados’ Jewish community you may be familiar with the phrase “banality of evil”, coined by Hannah Arendt in her book covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann.
Basically, I believe professor Beckles and company have a lot in common with Eichmann and the Nazi regime that both braced and butchered (metaphorically) his heart and mind.
Their reparations advocacy, falls ominously within Arendt’s description of Eichmann, especially her belief that his inability to think for himself was exemplified by his consistent use of “stock phrases and self-invented clichés”.
According to Wikipedia, Arendt claims “The man demonstrated his unrealistic worldview and crippling lack of communication skills through reliance on ‘officialese’ (Amtssprache) and the euphemistic Sprachregelung that made implementation of Hitler’s policies ‘somehow palatable.'”
In at least one of the articles on my blog I may have compared Eichmann’s incarnation of “the banality of evil” with Beckles’ (and Trump’s, possibly) peculiar Caribbean incarnation of the “bananity of evil”.
I am also inclined to compare their demagoguery with the “bigly” gambling of Trump, Google founder Sergey Brin and the “fear and loathing in Las Vegas” channeling mass murderer Stephen Paddock.
Arendt’s references to Eichmann’s “stock phrases” actually recalls the “bump stock”, mechanical modification that the reputedly imperious, controlling Paddock used to maximize the killing potential of his weapons.
It also recalls the “roller coaster of emotion” manipulating pressure tactics used by the now discredited Trump University, according to court materials, among them sales playbooks, describing a technique that was used to persuade students to pay for courses costing as much as $35,000 for that real estate business training institution’s “Gold Elite” program.
As both my book “The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled” and my Linguistics thesis on glossolalia (glock-solalia?) indicates, I have been engaged in a study of such “fear and loathing” cognitively and affectively fossilized and fossilizing communication phenomena for some time.
Conversation analysis specialist Dr Elizabeth Stokoe of Loughborough University, copied in here with other secular and religious education stakeholders, can also attest to this.
She knows as well as anyone of my concern that “intelligence” derived from interrogation or any other conversational encounter should be historically rounded and grounded. That it should be authentic.
Please help me save UWI and Barbadian and Caribbean educational achievement from association with counterfeit, immoral, unethical Trump University approximating machinations.
Junior (Jay) Campbell
Link to article cited
Extract from article cited
Indeed, I think it is safe to say that based on what has gone before in this series of articles, it should be clear that while I remain a committed Pan Africanist like Beckles and Comissiong, I am a radical Pan Humanist first.
It should be clear that while I see some validity in the notion of ‘whiteness’ being normative, in many Western formal and informal educational and socializing contexts, as recently argued by another Williams-like apologist, black American academic Reggie Williams, I do not subscribe to the view that “whiteness” is normative in every scenario.
In article six I recounted a Twitter exchange I had with Williams, where I challenged that racist assumption at the heart of an article entitled “Seeing whiteness”, that the Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics at McCormick Theological Seminary had published in the Christian Post.
As Mottley, leader of the Barbados Labour Party and others have noted, while it is self-evident that “whiteness” is normative in some scenarios, especially in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and Europe where white people’s numerical majority as reflected in their domination of mainstream media and academia is still significant, it is not unchallenged.
The veil of whiteness over Western society’s vision and values is rather more porous than Williams imagines.
His vision, apparently shared by Beckles and others whose scholarship seems fundamentally compromised by a neurotic negativity or ‘inadequacy syndrome’ is in fact marred by the kind of generalization or ‘bigly’ thinking that Trump and other gender, race and religious racketeers and demagogues trade on.
A persistent advocate of the wisdom of small beginnings, I subject all ‘big ideas’ to rigorous scrutiny: not least my own ‘macro economic’ notions.
So, my persistent WCAR-related questioning in 2001 of Barbadian Pan Africanists’ decision not to discuss the involvement of black people in the trans-Atlantic slave trade as traders, rather than just as slaves or slave descendants was a matter of conviction and principle.
Back then, as we prepared for that UN conference, which was hosted by South Africa, I felt that this fraught question of black-on-black abuse and violence is critical to any discussion of reparations.
My insistence that this vexing issue should be frankly discussed by Beckles, Mottley, the former Barbados Government Commission For Pan Affairs Director Comissiong and other government and NGO affiliated persons involved with me in conferences, dialogues and other preparatory activities linked to the WCAR was therefore not personal – certainly not in the petty, base sense of that word.
It was in fact an assertion of my own and other moderate black Barbadian thinkers’ personhood: the personhood of the majority of Barbadians, who choose middle-of-the-road positions not just on trans-Atlantic slavery reparations, but on a range of issues as a matter of course.
Moreover, I was asserting the personhood that every race racketeering extremist,
paedophile priest, political con artist, plagiarizing academic and selectively silent journalist attacks not just in their victims, but in themselves, ultimately.
It was an expression of my and their freedom of conscience: our right to see things differently; to disagree.
It was, in fact, an expression of my human rights, including the right to imagine or believe what I choose to imagine or believe.
My right to be me.
Again, these are precisely the kinds of human rights that Beckles and other Pan Africanists were asserting even as they harassed, undermined, intimidated and threatened me, directly and indirectly.