Posts

, , ,

Acknowledgement of Wrongdoing Needed in Commonwealth Charter

Monday was Commonwealth Day, observed by countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Americas, the Pacific, and Europe, and it was the start of a week-long schedule of events. The theme for Commonwealth Day 2023 was “Forging a sustainable and peaceful common future”.

This year, it marked the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Commonwealth Charter. The Commonwealth Charter is meant to be a document that unites Member States through a set of shared values. It “expresses the commitment of member states to the development of free and democratic societies and the promotion of peace and prosperity to improve the lives of all the people of the Commonwealth” and “acknowledges the role of civil society in supporting the goals and values of the Commonwealth”.

The sixteen values and principles of the Charter are democracy, human rights, international peace and security, tolerance, respect and understanding, freedom of expression, separation of powers, rule of law, good governance, sustainable development, protecting the environment, access to health, education, food and shelter, gender equality, importance of young people in the Commonwealth, recognition of the needs of small States, recognition of the needs of vulnerable states, and the role of civil society.

The Commonwealth Charter does not address the history of the Commonwealth or what most of the Member States actually have in common and made them a part of this group. It does not address slavery and colonisation, nor does it acknowledge the continued impact of both slavery and colonization on Member States and, more specifically, the people in situations of vulnerability within those Member States. This cannot be separated from the stated values.

photo

We can take rule of law as an example. The Charter says: “We believe in the rule of law as an essential protection for the people of the Commonwealth and as an assurance of limited and accountable government. In particular we support an independent, impartial, honest and competent judiciary and recognise that an independent, effective and competent legal system is integral to upholding the rule of law, engendering public confidence and dispensing justice.”

Member States that were colonised by the British were left with laws that discriminate against women, girls, and LGBTQI+ people.

Even with independence, the laws remained the same, and many Member States have the same, or strikingly similar, constitutions. Since colonization, Britain has amended many of its laws toward equality and non-discrimination in various areas, including gender.

Meanwhile, Member States like The Bahamas are still stuck with discriminatory laws. This impacts gender equality which is another value in the Commonwealth Charter.

It is easy to say that Member States should accept responsibility for their state of affairs and amend their laws. It is not, however, realistic. It must be acknowledged that discriminatory laws were imposed by colonising countries.

They are responsible for the harm caused and the violence that continues to be inflicted upon the people living in Member States, namely women, girls, LGBTQI+ people, black people, indigenous people, and people with disabilities.

Constitutional reform, as we have seen through our own experience since 2002, is not as simple a process as it ought to be because it is not a matter of drafting and passing a bill, or even getting the public to vote in it. It requires education that includes unlearning.

Older generations grew up with a set of ideologies that many of us have learned are untrue, unfair, unjust, and unacceptable. They are convinced that there is no way for the world, or for this country, to be without distinctions that rank us and set some of us up to be considered and treated as subhuman.

Undoing the violence and subjugation that led to the firm belief in discriminatory laws and practices is not possible, but reparatory justice is possible.

The process of unlearning is not easy, it is not short-term work, and it is not receiving the investment that is required. There is, first of all, no political will, and that is partly because of the religion that was forced upon our countries through slavery and colonization, becoming the dominant religion with ease.

People now believe they have a moral authority to discriminate and be violent toward certain groups of people because of the fundamentalist teaching of religious leaders who do not hide that they pull the string of Members of Parliament and political parties that are obviously more committed to the longevity of their political careers than they are to sustainability, peace, or the equality and wellbeing of people — the same people they depend on to vote for them every ten years (since we know our dissatisfaction leads us to change parties every five years).

We have an ineffective system of governance. We have two almost indistinguishable political parties that takes turns being the majority in the House of Assembly. We have Members of Parliament who are expected to both make laws and attend to issues within their constituencies, so they are set up to fail, especially when combined with the expectation that they maintain party loyalty, regardless of what it means for the people they represent.

We have a largely disengaged electorate that is kept busy with multiple jobs, limited by non-living wages, and exhausted by the losses and demands -from hours of wasted time in traffic to unpaid and completely unsupported labour of caring for people with specific needs – that come with living and working in a place that is designed for the wealthy and the foreign to thrive at the expense of everyone else.

Rule of a law, as a value, cannot take us very far. The law is severely lacking in many areas. There is no protection from discrimination for women and girls. There is no protection from discrimination for LGBTQI+ people.

Women do not have the right to automatically pass on citizenship to their children, regardless of who they marry or where they give birth. Legal reform requires an engaged civil society and rights-minded lawmakers. We lack both.

The Commonwealth Charter, then, is missing one major component that could actually give it momentum and increase buy-in. That component is the acknowledgement of wrongdoing, specifically naming the violence against Member States, along with reparations.

CARICOM has developed a 10-point plan for reparatory justice that is a good place to start, and The Bahamas National Reparations Committee is prepared to lead the conversation in The Bahamas.

With 2023 being the Year of Youth, Commonwealth Foundation hosted “A Decade of the Commonwealth Charter: Young Leaders’ Dialogue” which was a virtual event live-streamed to Facebook. At the beginning of the event, Commonwealth Foundation posed questions to the audience. Where do we want the Commonwealth to be in ten years’ time? How can the Charter inform and help get us there? How do we promote greater awareness of the Commonwealth Charter amongst the people of the Commonwealth?

The young people speaking at the event including Larissa Crawford (she/ her) from Future Ancestors Services and based in Canada, Christine Samwaroo (she/her) from The Breadfruit Collective in Guyana, Riddhi Dastidar (they/them) based in Delhi, Deanna Lyncook from The History Hotline podcast, based in the UK.

The discussion was especially interesting because the participants were not there to be polite or deferential to anyone or any ideals. They pushed back against a number of ideas including that young people are responsible for fixing the problems they did not create, that the values in the Commonwealth Charter are inherently good or easily translated and applicable to every Member State, and that there is nothing to be done about the past.

They named communities that have been violated and that need to be specifically supported. They called for action to make use of their recommendations and those that have been shared in other spaces. It was clear that they did not want to be a part of a conversation that ended when the virtual meeting link expired, but one that contributed to better outcomes.

You can find the recording on the Commonwealth Foundation’s Facebook page, and connect with the speakers through the links provided in the comments.

These are all topics that ought to be at the front of our minds as we approach fiftieth anniversary of independence of The Bahamas.

We should be thinking about what was taken from this country, what is owed to it, and what we owe to ourselves. We should be seeking clarity on our values. We should be making assessments on how far — or not so far — we have come since 1973, and what needs to happen in the next five, 10, 25, and 50 years for the people in this country to thrive.

Fifty plus years of survival mode is not good enough. We need justice. We need peace. We need equality. We deserve to be on another level.

Published in The Tribune on March 15, 2023

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

People and Human Rights Need To Be Honoured Over Votes and Power

International Women’s Day is two weeks away, and the celebration of The Bahamas’ 50th year of independence is 20 weeks away. Whenever there is talk about independence, I think about women’s rights.

I look for the progress that has been made and all that we still need to do, for the people of The Bahamas and, in particular, women.

It is sobering to think about the meaning of independence, the effects of colonisation, and the continued refusal to free ourselves of the discriminatory and violent laws – largely inflicted upon us by Britain – that continue to limit us in many ways.

Colonisation has long-lasting effects. In The Bahamas, we can see the influence it has had on every facet of life.

We drive on the left side of the road. Ideas about professional attire are inappropriate for our climate. There is still considerable distance between the government and the people, and little opportunity for people to actively engage in governance. Christianity is the dominant religion, whether or not the people who claim it actually practice it. The economy is prioritized over people. Racism and colorism are rampant, and people are still afraid to name them. Laws discriminate against women. Human rights are not valued. Positive changes, to increase access to human rights, are debated and few people are interested in, much less equipped to, advocate in the face of an opposition that has gained power through colonial means.

The criminalisation of marital rape has been discussed for years. In 2018, the then government drafted a bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act to criminalise marital rape without acknowledging it as rape. There were many unacceptable flaws in that bill, and it was rejected.

It was not until 2022 that we saw another amendment bill – the one that is currently being discussed to what seems to be no end. The government refuses to do what it knows must be done, pandering to the loud and wrong voices of church leaders who are, frankly, misogynists.

The church leaders who support the criminalisation of marital rape are not nearly as vocal or consistent as those who oppose the rights of women.

The Minister of Social Services and Urban Development, who has responsibility for the Department of Gender and Family Affairs, has said, without shame, that the government is waiting to hear for a meeting date from a particular church.

What? The bill is being held up because one church wants to have its say and has yet to even propose a meeting date? And this is after the government held a “symposium” that was specifically for church leaders?

Would the government wait to get a meeting date from a non-governmental organisation that promotes women’s rights? Would it stall on legislation regarding finance when the International Monetary Fund or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development are making their demands? Who could delay its decision-making on such issues, and by calling for a meeting and offering no date?

The truth is that the position of the church should not matter when it comes to human rights and governance.

The church may be important to its members. It may be a useful network through which to reach people. It may be a guide for the people in it. It is not, however, the government and should not control the government. We, of course, know that the church wields its power regularly and is able to do this because political parties depend on them for votes. It is no secret that religious leaders use their pulpits politically, and in partisan ways.

This is the only reason the government panders to it while undervaluing and, in many cases, ignoring the positions of and evidence provided by people who represent – not control – people, especially those in situations of vulnerability.

The government has allowed the church to cement the narrative, easily disproven by reading the constitution, that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation”, that this was the intent of the framers of the constitution, and that this is the way it must be.

Among our tasks, 50 years into independence, is to gain a clear understanding of the constitution.

It has been, for far too long, a mysterious document whose actual contents are deemed irrelevant or unimportant. It has been treated as though it can only be read and understood by a particular class of people.

One of the only things most people ever hear about the constitution is a lie — that it states that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation”.

Let’s be clear. The Bahamas is not a Christian nation. Not constitutionally, and certainly not in practice. The violence and corruption that people actively participate in every day is evidence of that this is not a Christian nation, unless Christianity is violent and supports corruption.

First, we need to know that the part of the constitution that people reference when they declare that The Bahamas is a “Christian nation” is the preamble.

The prefix “pre” means before, or prior to. The root word “amble” means to walk at a slow pace. A preamble “walks before”. It leads to something else. It is an introductory statement that precedes, or comes before, a law. The preamble, then, is not the constitution.

The preamble, which is not an Article of the constitution, says, “founded on Spiritual Values”. It does not say “Christian nation.” It states “the preservation of [our] Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law.”

Interestingly, when the preamble is brought up, reference is not often made to the rule of law, despite its proximity to the misquoted term “Christian values.” The rule of law means that everyone is accountable under the law, that the law which ensures human rights, is applied evenly, that laws are adopted and administered in a fair process, and that adequate resources allow for timely access to justice.

This, obviously needs more attention. We know that the rule of law is severely lacking in The Bahamas. Say “human rights” and see what happens. Look at the way laws are written and who is protected by them. Pay attention to the ways laws are passed, and which laws are put to the public for “discussion” which may as well call what it really is – delay. Read and watch the news to find out how the court system (dys) functions.

The preamble states that the nation is “founded on Spiritual Values” and “spiritual” is not specific to any religion. The constitution itself, in fact, entitles every person to freedom of religion and to “propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” It even states no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance[…].” Why, then, would our laws be based upon any religion?

Individuals have freedom of religion in The Bahamas. Declaring it to be a Christian nation would be incongruent with that right, so this did not happen in the constitution. The Bahamas is not bound to any religious text or interpretations thereof. It is a secular nation.

Chapter three of the constitution is titled “Protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Importantly, Article 15 entitles everyone, regardless of race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, or sex, to a set of freedoms including life, liberty, security of person, protection of the law, and freedom of expression.

How has the right to security of person been made accessible to women? How has the right to protection of the law been made accessible to women? In what ways have these rights been denied?

We can start, of course, with gender-based violence against women which includes marital rape. If the definition of rape in the Sexual Offences Act excludes spouses, what does that mean for women who are raped by their husbands? They are denied, by Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act, the right to security of person which includes the right to be free from all forms of violence.

They are also denied the right to protection of the law. The Sexual Offences Act does not protect married women from sexual violence inflicted by their spouses. It must be amended. Marital rape must be criminalised.

We need to understand our laws and how they impact people. We need to know what the constitution actually says, and not rely on what people say about the constitution. We need civic education, and not limited to school-age children.

Far too many of us left school with little or no knowledge about the role of the government, the constitution and legislation, and citizens of the country. A public civic education campaign is desperately needed in this country. Without it, independence means very little.

We can have a flag and other symbols, sing a national anthem, and put the faces of Bahamians on the national currency, but none of that makes us free. None of that secures our rights. None of that makes this country a better place.

Independence ought to be about the people – our rights and freedoms, our ability to set and progress toward national goals, and our realisation of this place as a home that we would and could actively choose for ourselves.

Independence has little meaning for most of us, not because we do not understand it, but because we do not feel it or access the freedom and pride it promises. We will not get there without gender equality.

Ending gender-based violence against women and girls must be a national priority, and one that is aggressively actioned, even in the face of opposition.

People and their human rights have to be more important than votes, concentrated power, and the lure of money from corruption and collusion.

The colonisers did not see it that way before 1973. Does the government of today?

Published in The Tribune on February 22, 2023

/0 Comments/by
,

Culture Clash: Fashion Parade and Dress Code Police

Dress codes, to some people, are necessary. To others, they are restrictive. The way they are received depends heavily on the reason they are introduced, the effectiveness in addressing that cause, enforcement, and the consequences, both intended and unintended, of their existence. It often seems as though we like dress codes. It isn’t that we particularly enjoy being constrained, but watching other people fail to meet the standard appears to be a favourite pastime.

Last week, the opening of Parliament took place and, as usual, it was a POPPY SHOW. People watched closely to see who was wearing what and, in many cases, who was wearing whom. This is an exciting element of the affair — seeing the work of Bahamian designers and celebrating their talent. Many would say it was a time to “show up and show out.” The invitation to the invite specified lounge suits and short dresses with hats and gloves. Some adhered to this, some used it as a starting point, and others seemed to simply do their own thing.

Throughout the event, photos and videos circulated. The main focus, of course, was fashion. Predictably, the vast majority of the comments were about the women in attendance. From proclaiming love for a particular hat to projecting a deep meaning onto what others see a simple choice in colour, the participants in these conversations were determined to assess every article.

It was interesting to see people defend the dress code and attempt to be gatekeepers from their mobile devices. If a woman was photographed with gloves, it could not go without comment. “These people ain’ read the invitation,” or some variation appeared in the comments on many photos.

Even more telling were the comments on features that were not stipulated in the dress code. It was almost as though people took personal offence to the choices women made regarding their own clothing and on their own dime. They labeled dress lengths “wrong,” disturbed by the visibility of women’s knees. They were equally scandalized by the exposure of shoulders, insisting that sleeves are required for such events. Some even references the queen, saying that these women would not have been allowed to meet her dressed as they were. This is, by the way, completely incorrect. You can definitely meet the queen with exposed shoulders, arms, knees, backs, cleavage, and even bellies. She does not seem to care what anyone else wears. That aside, why the focus on what the queen might want to see at the opening of Parliament in The Bahamas, independent since 1973?

Dress codes and uniforms are often seen as almost interchangeable. One key difference, however, is that uniforms tend to unify, at least in appearance, a group of people by eliminating opportunities for their differences — especially in disposable income — to be visible. For schools, uniforms are said to reduce distractions and give students less to compare. As we know, they simply focus on shoes, belts, and backpacks. Who can afford which brand? Who gets new ones after the Christmas break?

For workplaces, uniforms are said to make it easier to identify staff. Many people prefer uniforms because it is easier to get ready for work. I know someone who makes it her mission to convert staff wherever she works to her position on uniforms. Some businesses even leave room for staff to add personal flair by allowing them to make articles with a particular fabric and issuing scarfs that can be worn in different ways.

Dress codes do not do the same thing. There may be more room for personal flair, but constraints are still there. One of the biggest constraints is financial. What is the woman with a very limited amount of money to spend supposed to do? In addition to a beautiful dress, she now needs to purchase a hat and gloves. In many cases, dress codes are also discriminatory. It is now widely accepted that women wear pants, so why would women be required to wear dresses for an event? Further, gender is a spectrum and people express their genders in various ways, so it should not be surprising that some women and nonbinary people would prefer to wear something than what is prescribed.

The other thing about dress codes, which also applies to many uniforms, is that they are completely unsuited to The Bahamas. Gloves are a ridiculous requirement, only adding to the cost of attending an event. Even what we consider business attire is absurd. Men are wearing suits and ties, office air conditioning is set to a low temperature to compensate, and the women learn to keep a thick sweater or warm jacket in the office and drink tea all day to warm up. “Professional” dress is an import and a result of colonialism. We need to let it go. It is costing us money, in more ways than one, and results in discomfort. With all of the Bahamian designers who show us what they’ve got when people wear their designs in pageants, at balls, and spectacles like the opening of Parliament, we can certainly come up with our own business attire. Countries in the Pacific have done it, making business attire well suited to the weather, culture, and the pocket.

We need to think about what we consider “right”, “good”, and “proper”, and how we came to these ways of thinking. We need to be prepared to learn and do better or, at the very least, accept that others will move beyond these old, tired ways of thinking and there is no reason to be offended by their growth. There is a difference between holding the opinion that women should wear dresses that cover their knees and saying that women who wear shorter dresses do not know what is or is not appropriate. You believe one thing, and someone else has acted on their own position, liking with thinking about or knowing you, or having any loyalty to your fashion (in)sensibilities.

When we start to assign moral value to people’s attire, we leave room for much greater errors. People are blamed for acts of sexual violence against them. Women are turned away from voter registration because their shoulders are visible. Women fashion skirts out of shopping bags in the parking lot because the Department of Immigration deems that more appropriate than their uniform which includes shorts (which are longer than the shopping bag skirt). Students miss class because their skirts do not touch the floor when they kneel. We can and must do better than this.

Dress codes are, in most cases, unnecessary. They are used to exclude people. They are a tool of gatekeepers. They are usually rooted in sexism, racism, and/or classism. Dress codes are not about cohesion and do not have anything to do with the quality of an event. They are an excuse for people to say that certain people do not belong. To gain access, you must be able to afford a dress, hat, and gloves, and you must at least appear to believe that the shoulders and knees of women are an embarrassment that must be concealed in the hopes that everyone else forgets they exist. Dress codes are an arbitrary set of rules that some follow with ease and others struggle to meet in order to be accepted by a person or set of people who consider themselves worthy of other people’s deference, thereby validating those setting the rules and their positions, even if their intent was simply to insert themselves into a particular class of people. It is quite the tool, powerful enough that people on the outside — with no invitation — help with enforcement, announcing those who slip in with minor infarctions, dedicated to making their failures known. Keeping these old rules only encourages this kind of behaviour and does nothing to elevate any of us. Again, we can and must do better than this.

Recommendations

1. Monday’s Not Coming by Tiffany D Jackson. After spending the summer with her grandmother, Claudia returns home to find that her best friend Monday is not there. She was already confused by the lack of response to her letters, but when Monday doesn’t show up at school, especially on her favorite day of the week, Claudia gets more concerned. It seems like no one else is particularly interested in looking for Monday, so Claudia is on her own to look, ask, and recruit adults to help her. The premise of this story seems quite simple, but the two timelines — before and after — create more investment in the friendship and finding out what really happened. It gets more complicated when an unexpected piece of information about Claudia is shared with the reader. From the beginning, we know Monday isn’t coming, but finding out what happened to her is quite the ride.

2. Grow your own food. Last year, many people got excited about starting kitchen gardens. They posted their successes on social media and shared the bounty with family members and friends. It is now, again, time to start planting. It is already October, but still quite hot, so talk to the staff at your favorite plant nursery to find out what you can plant now. Be sure to tell them where your garden space is — for example, on the western side of your house — so they can let you know what will do best there given the amount of sunlight your plants will receive. If you don’t have much yard space, don’t count yourself out! You can grow a number of vegetables and herbs in small spaces.

Published in The Tribune on October 13, 2021.

/0 Comments/by
,

Culture Clash: Royal Wedding

Of all the movies in theaters, plays on stage, and weddings all over the world, none drew attention to match that of the royal wedding on Saturday. People set alarms and woke up early to spot celebrities, critique the wedding dress, give meaning to Queen Elizabeth II’s expressions, and see the way Prince Harry and Meghan Markle looked at each other during the ceremony at St. George’s Castle.

Markle arrived by car with her mother, Doria Ragland, and stepped out in a silk dress by British designer Clare Waight Keller for Givenchy. The palace described it as “timeless minimal elegance.” With a boat neckline, long sleeves, and no embellishments, the soft matte dress drew attention to her shoulders and waist. It stayed true to Markle’s minimalist sophistication and preference for an understated aesthetic. Her hair was styled in a low chignon bun and she wore the diamond bandeau tiara from Queen Elizabeth II’s collection. The trim of her 16-foot silk tulle veil, also designed by Waight Keller, was a composition of distinctive flora from each of the 53 Commonwealth countries, hand-embroidered in silk threads and organza. The yellow elder was representative of The Bahamas.

Celebrities in attendance included Amal Clooney, Victoria Beckham and, Serena Williams and their husbands, Oprah Winfrey, Gina Torres, and Idris Elba.

To enjoy, or not to enjoy?

On Saturday, everyone was talking about the royal wedding. Even those who claimed they did not care about it made statements to assure everyone that they, in fact, did not have any interest in the event. Some even took time to berate or subtly shame people who watched the ceremony or commented on any aspect of the event. There seemed to be two camps — the completely enthused and the utterly uninterested (who still needed to be involved in the conversations of the completely enthused). The first camp was seen as mentally enslaved, foolishly addicted to colonialism, and the reason we are not in a better position today. The second camp, through its most vocal members, became the thief of joy. Because of slavery, colonialism, and the continued effects of white supremacy, they said there should be no black person with an ounce of interest in the royal wedding.

Let’s face it. Most of us are interested in the weddings, funerals, birthday parties, baby showers, and vacations of complete strangers. No? How many days has it been since you looked through pictures of someone else’s event because someone you know (or sort of know) was tagged in one of the photos and you just kept going, because why not?

We can — and should — be angry about slavery and colonialism. We should be a part of the movement for reparations. It should bother us to see people continue to benefit from kidnapping, slavery, murdering, cultural genocide, and crimes and injustices that go unacknowledged by perpetrators and beneficiaries. This, however, does not mean we cannot seek and find joy in the pomp and pageantry of a royal wedding, the supposed discomfort of the queen, the possibility of royal children with afros, the imagination of the monarchy being taken down, or spirited arguments with friends and family members about aspects of the ceremony and its guests.

We can love Wakanda and still sip tea throughout the ceremony, celebrating every drop of blackness we find, real or imagined. We deserve that much. A little bit of joy goes a long way and, for some people, that wedding was the beginning of something else.

Since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s engagement, the discussion about the royal family and race has been endless. Many seem to expect Markle’s presence, as a biracial person in the British royal family, to revolutionize it.

What does Meghan Markle represent?

Meghan Markle is an American woman with a white father and black mother. She has worked as an actress, best known for her role as Rachel Zane in Suits. She is divorced. She is not a typical “royal.” She has had a career, public persona, and demonstrable interests. The Tig — her now defunct lifestyle blog — gave insight into her love for food, wanderlust, and engagement in sociopolitical issues. She comes across as both a dreamer and a practical person and, overall, quite low-key.

Markle has been the kind of black woman it is easiest to like. To love. To respect. To idolize. She is not only light-skinned, but has a biological proximity to whiteness. She has been what most consider to be modest. She has been likable; not controversial in her statements or actions. She is “respectable.”

To the optimistic among us, she signals the acceptance of black people and blackness by the royal family. Maybe she will breathe new life into the family, relax the formalities, and expose personalities. Maybe.

There has been a lot of talk about what Meghan Markle represents for us, but far less about what she represents for the royal family. Might they have an agenda of their own? The family has always been known as stuffy and uptight. Princess Diana brought a new energy that does not seem to have stuck around since her death. They may have realized that, at this point, a change in brand could be helpful. This is not to say that her relationship with Prince Harry is not real, but that the unexpected acceptance — or the illusion of acceptance — could be strategic.

Think about what Princess Diana brought to the family. Recall the reactions to her death. Look at the conversations taking place everywhere, everyday, about gender, race, class, and migration. Markle’s place in the family is no more the end of racism or an erasure of slavery than Obama’s presidency. It looks good, it feels good, and it encourages optimism, but it might not be all we think or dare to hope.

What can we expect from the Duchess of Sussex?

She is certainly different from what we might expect of a “royal.” On the wedding day alone, she made this clear. She was intentional about including black people such as  The Most Rev Michael Bruce Curry of the Episcopal Church, Karen Gibson and the Kingdom Choir, and cellist Sheku Kanneh-Mason. She went unescorted until the Quire where main guests were seated, accompanied by Prince Charles the rest of the way. Her Cartier earrings were worn for at least the third time on that day. Still, she entered the British royal family. She was baptized and confirmed in a private ceremony, becoming a member of the Church of England. She wore jewels from the queen’s collection. How much will she change, and how much will she be changed?

In her blog post titled “How to Be Both,” Markle explained the bridge between her two worlds — one where she was a successful actress, and another where she did humanitarian work.

“I’ve never wanted to be a lady who lunches – I’ve always wanted to be a woman who works. And this type of work is what feeds my soul, and fuels my purpose. The degree to which I can do that both on and off camera is a direct perk of my job.”

It will be interesting to see how life as a duchess will suit her, or how she will suit it. We will soon see how she balances that new life with existing interests, and whether or not she will find a way to share it with the world, similar to the way she shared her lifestyle on The Tig.

Published in The Tribune on May 23, 2018.

/0 Comments/by