“But it is in his final conclusion that Fraser introduces a specifically Vincentian dimension to the debate. At a time when we are trying to unearth our own heroes, we should be prepared to bury the colonial ones that were thrust on us. The real significance and heroism  real significance and heroism of Chatoyer rest in his fight against the legacy of Columbus. And the European domination that was part of it. You cannot claim Chatoyer while clinging on to Columbus. So goodbye Columbus.

This reclamation of Chatoyer as a national hero of St Vincent contra Columbus as “discoverer” is of particular significance. The figure of Chatoyer had been transformed from the leader of a nation of “brigands” into a hero, not merely of the Black Caribs of Greggs or the Caribs of Sandy Bay, but of St. Vincent as a whole. His dual characteristics of being both representative of the minority indigenous population and the Afro-Caribbean majority and his death in battle after a lifetime of struggle made him an ideal figure. Specifically, though, Fraser offers Vincentians a choice: between accepting a historiography imposed from above and with it a specific set of cultural values that when internalized would result in a stilted underdeveloped self-identity or, through a radical critique of traditional history, the formation of a new culturally specific interpretation of their past which would form the basis of a new, robust sense of self-worth.

Reflecting on the year 1992 in the same newspaper, Fraser noted that the quincentenary had been one of the two issues that had caused most controversy. As a result of his stand on the matter, he had been the subject of considerable criticism and in one instance verbal abuse. He explained the depth of feeling regarding the quincentenary precisely in terms of the process of internalization of values.

What stands out in all this is the strength of the colonial education system that put a strong emphasis on producing loyal colonial subjects. The war against the Black Caribs under Chatoyer had been known in Britain as the Brigands War, specifically in order to prevent it being viewed by a skeptical British public as an indigenous struggle against avaricious West Indian sugar planters who wished to displace them from the most fertile district of the island. Hopefully, with the rapidity of changes in every aspect of life, including our understanding of the generation of knowledge, graduates from our schools and other institutions of learning will realise that there is very little that is carved in stone and that we must be prepared to change our assumptions and views as new facts and ways of looking at things, come to light (Fraser 1992). The colonial education system is seen therefore in almost Althusserian terms as the creator of individual subjects of the colonial state (Althusser 1971). This subjectification manifested itself in a strident response to criticism of traditional received wisdom. What was at stake was more than the worth of an individual’s education but the position of the subject qua subject. The institutions that produced a specific view of history were the self-same institutions that produced concrete historical subjects. To call the validity of one into question was to do the same for the other. That Columbus had discovered the New World was obvious; his discovery of St Vincent was equally obvious, otherwise it would still be called Iouloumain. It is this obviousness that militates against the possibility of rewriting history. It is not that the obvious cannot be reinterpreted; it is simply a needless and ultimately futile exercise since what is obvious will manifest itself as a matter of course, obviously. The strength of this process goes far beyond the formal structures of the colonial education system but emanates from the praxis of Vincentian everyday life. In a sense the very name St. Vincent constantly corroborated the obviousness of Columbus’ historical significance. To overcome this obviousness was no easy task, although by now it has been largely completed, since the historical research necessary for it lies outside of St. Vincent What made the transition from Columbus as central to Vincentian identity to becoming a peripheral figure so rapid was the fact that Fraser was himself Vincentian. The antithesis, therefore, that he suggested, itself was ultimately the product of that same colonial education system. Had such a proposition been formulated by a European or American academic it would have taken far longer to gain acceptance within Vincentian society at large. Fraser is viewed as “one of us”. He is one of “We Vincie” and as such his research constitutes an auto-critique of the past It is part of the soul searching for a sense of national identity that is common particularly to ex-colonial nations although it is not restricted to them.

Furthermore, the defensive attitude upon which Fraser remarked frequently manifests a pronounced xenophobic component. The production of knowledge must therefore be seen within the terms of the international division of labour. In those terms Fraser occupies the position of an organic intellectual, as Gramsci would put it, in relation to the class relations that existed between St. Vincent and the outside world, or at least outside the Caribbean. Within Vincentian society this position does not hold; as a full-time academic and regular writer in the press he holds an institutional position…the Vincentian intelligentsia and this duality of institutional and organic allows the possibility, on his part, of a radical critique of the vestiges of colonialism within Vincentian society. That is not to say that Fraser is in any way unique; there are certainly other members of the Vincentian intelligentsia such as Kenneth John and Paul Lewis, who are similarly influential on the views of average Vincentians. It is rather that, in terms of historical consciousness, Fraser is paradigmatic in the role that he assumes. The development of local history and the search for roots.

• Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian