Our Readers' Opinions
September 25, 2009
Sir James and his plot from the dressing room


Editor: Sir James Mitchell represents the occupier. When he is at the crease he scores no runs; serving the interest of his foreign masters, and jeopardizing the West Indies team. Scoring ‘constitution’ runs would take us too close to victory. How dare we challenge the self-proclaimed founders of cricket?{{more}} The former Prime Minister questions our right to win. He works to deliver victory to the empire; he would entertain no other result. A traitor is in the camp and restless.

Mitchell was exposed by his own words. Recall, or research, the circumstances of his notorious statement – “bat but don’t score”. He was shamelessly advocating promiscuity, and then sterility and barrenness to cover up immorality, before a Vincentian crowd that included schoolchildren; a core philosophy was revealed. What a man!

Mitchell’s fitness fails and he has never been a skilful cricketer. He played the worst innings imaginable, but wants to bat again. He envies the progress that has been made since he retired hurt.

Shortly after Mitchell’s retirement, the new batsman was bowled and reluctantly left the field. “It must have been a no-ball!” he declared, while replays show that it was a legal delivery. Then, a good partnership began, perhaps slowly. Mr. P. R. Campbell Q. C. and Prime Minister Gonsalves are in excellent form.

There is a plot in the dressing room. “Maybe we could turn the crowd against them”, Mitchell seems to ponder, “that might help break the partnership and allow me to return to the crease.”

Vincentians, let’s be careful with desperate men, as they try to set our hearts against genuine West Indian cricketers. Mitchell suggests, rather foolishly, that to reform the constitution is to disregard lessons from the history of British Civilization. Actually, it is to say that we incorporate lessons from elsewhere; there is a place for homegrown ideas. Mitchell’s suggestion is fully discredited since the reform exercise is being conducted according to the current constitutional provisions.

Sir James’ state of mind is clear: we must remain fastened to the Queen so that we preserve a share of the common wealth; we would never be able to generate wealth on our own. By his judgment, Caribbean people are mediocre, inferior and incompetent, and the CCJ is thereby discredited.

We know better; let’s reject Mitchell’s message and rally ‘round the West Indies.

R. T. Luke V. Browne
[email protected]