by Grenada Monarchist League
Recent calls by Dr Angus Martin and Dr Candia Mitchell Hall to remove the Maces of the House of Representatives and the Senate are misguided, nonsensical, and emblematic of a deep problem with how we approach our history and heritage.
Dr Martin and Dr Mitchell Hall both posit that the 1780s Mace of the House of Representatives and the 1967 Mace of the Senate, should be thrown out of our Parliament in the name of “decolonisation.” The argument goes that, since the Mace of the House, which has represented our legislature for 250 years, bears an image of enslaved Grenadians, it must be removed. Likewise, because the Mace of the Senate bears an image of Columbus’ ship, it too must be thrown on the dust heap of history. These symbols, they say, are offensive and emblematic of “mental slavery.”
Removing these historic symbols from our Parliament, which they have represented for centuries, would be foolish and indeed counter-productive to ideas of national pride and independence. These maces have immense historic significance and importance. They are a manifestation of our constitutional democracy, whatever their images, and throwing them out would be tantamount to implicitly rejecting the legitimacy of our Parliament as presently established. Let us not even mention the enormous economic costs of procuring new maces.
But it is rather the very foundation of Dr Martin’s and Dr Mitchell Hall’s argument, that the symbolism on the maces is offensive and thus warrants removal, that is the most self-defeating. Is it not far more powerful, far more of a recognition of our strength and resilience as a people, to reclaim these symbols for ourselves, as we now have done?
The Mace of the House bears an image of enslaved Grenadians. Does not keeping it in the House send a powerful message of remembrance of our enslaved ancestors? It starkly symbolises our evolution from an enslaved society, to one where the descendants of those very same enslaved sit in triumph in the halls of Parliament. A symbol of subjugation has been transformed, reclaimed, and turned into a symbol of our sovereign democracy. Is that not powerful?
Removing the maces from their rightful place in Parliament and instead putting them in the National Museum is an erasure of our history and a capitulation to the injustices of the past. That which in the past symbolised oppression, and was subsequently reclaimed to symbolise liberation and democracy, would be allowed to once more represent oppression. It would be an admission that we cannot accept or come to terms with our past, and that we feel a need to erase it rather than truly acknowledge and face it. That would imply a societal weakness which is not reflective of Grenadian society.
The symbolism of casting our enslaved ancestors out of the most sacred chamber of our democracy can hardly be lost on anyone. The maces, as historic relics and vital symbols of Parliament, should be retained in their rightful home. Exiling them to the National Museum would be a travesty. It would erase our history, our heritage, and, not least, destroy the powerful symbolism of symbols of oppression being reclaimed. That reclamation is a testament to our national self-confidence and pride in who we are.
I am very much opposed to the idea of removing the MACES. I have observed that these gentlemen, when they reach they want to disrupt the system by making GRENADIANS lose their identity and heritage. May the ANCESTORS deal wìth them!
I don’t think they are suggesting that we erase our history; the current mace should be displayed in a museum. In truth, the entire Caribbean shares a common identity and heritage, especially among the OECS islands. The only things that truly separate us are the different flags.
I appreciate your perspective, but I find myself struggling to grasp the essence of your argument. We made the decision to change the flag; would you consider that choice to be misguided or lacking in reason?