February 05, 2005

Airbrushing the past

Posted by Chris

Every so often the Guardian brings me up short. Today, for example, when I read the following :

Thirty years ago a book by a Grenadian writer about the number of black British children being sent to schools for the educationally subnormal caused outrage in the community. Here author Bernard Coard describes how the ‘ESN book’ came to be written and its relevance to today’s black children.

Now, whilst it is strictly irrelevant to the merits and demerits of his book, it seems to me to be remarkable that the Guardian fails to mention that this is the same Bernard Coard who led a Stalinist coup-d’etat against the Maurice Bishop, charismatic leader of the New Jewel Movement. Bishop and several other people were arrested on Coard’s orders and shot. This gave Ronald Reagan an excuse to invade the island. Coard was subsequently sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life imprisonment, and Coard is still in gaol. A “Grenadian writer” ….

Posted on February 5, 2005 02:04 PM UTC
Comments

They did mention this in an article published last week’s Educational Guardian. Despite the writer’s relation to various dodgy goings on in Grenada, the points he made in relation to black kids being classed educationally subnormal were entirely valid. Weird though, I’d agree.

Posted by David Deans · February 5, 2005 04:00 PM

hey, it’s The Graudian you know… can’t be too surprised here.

Posted by Erwan Begoc · February 5, 2005 04:54 PM

Every so often..???

Posted by Peter Briffa · February 5, 2005 09:16 PM

They should have coolly put it in the italicized bio. I’d love to have seen that in print.

Bernard Coard led a Stalinist coup-d’etat against Maurice Bishop, which gave Ronald Reagan an excuse to invade the island. He is currently serving a life sentence in goal.

Posted by Mill · February 6, 2005 12:44 AM

They should have coolly put it in the italicized bio. I’d love to have seen that in print.

Bernard Coard led a Stalinist coup-d’etat against Maurice Bishop, which gave Ronald Reagan an excuse to invade the island. He is currently serving a life sentence in gaol.

(sorry if this turns out to be a double post, I have a sneaking suspicion..)

Posted by Mill · February 6, 2005 12:45 AM

They should have coolly put it in the italicized bio. I’d love to have seen that in print.

Bernard Coard led a Stalinist coup-d’etat against Maurice Bishop, which gave Ronald Reagan an excuse to invade the island. He is currently serving a life sentence in gaol.

(sorry if this turns out to be a double post, I have a sneaking suspicion..)

Posted by Mill · February 6, 2005 12:48 AM

Where’s the triple post apology, mill?

Posted by Cryptic Ned · February 6, 2005 03:55 PM

Excuse”??? Maybe even a “reason”, perchance…

Posted by Brett Bellmore · February 6, 2005 05:51 PM

A life sentence in goal is even better.

Posted by John Isbell · February 6, 2005 07:22 PM

Bishop and several other people were arrested on Coard’s orders and shot.

Amnesty International is not as sure as you are. This is from October, 23 2003 article:
Amnesty International classifies the Grenada 17 as political prisoners and as such called for them to be granted a prompt, fair and impartial trial.



The decision was wholly political in context and tone. It included no consideration of facts and law…[making] the entire proceeding illegal, false in its finding of fact and a corruption of justice.

-Statement of Ramsey Clark, trial observer
and former US Attorney General.


Posted by abb1 · February 6, 2005 08:14 PM

This is another ‘Charlie Brooker moment’. The paper version of the Guardian has context; the web version doesn’t. In the paper, Coard’s (very sensible) article occupied a truncated slot on two columns which are normally devoted to just one article. The rest of the slot gave a bit of context about him - although it didn’t repeat what he is actually inside for, which IIRC is ‘killing Maurice Bishop’. I could be wrong.

Coard’s point that it’s class as well as race that needs to be taken into consideration is worth repeating, whoever makes it.

Posted by Chris Williams · February 7, 2005 03:51 PM

I’d say that Ramsay Clark’s statement that the trial was “illegal, false in its finding of fact and a corruption of justice” creates a strong presumption of exactly the opposite.

Posted by Anthony · February 10, 2005 10:10 PM
Followups

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.