BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE most recent reminder of the June 10, 1967 events was through the staging of a march by the youth arm of the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party, and it has given rise to a call for the nation to forget those “unsavory” episodes of its history and chart a course for the future.
The call was made by popular social commentator Washington ‘Washie’ Archibald in an exclusive interview with SKNVibes following the march held on Wednesday last.
The St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party (SKNLP) said that agents of the People’s Action Movement (PAM) had attempted to overthrow the Robert L. Bradshaw-led government on June 10, 1967. However, cases brought against those agents were withdrawn.
Archibald, in his usual candid style, said hosting such a march “was an idiotic thing to do”, noting that “the people who led them on that escapade ought to be ashamed of themselves”.
The historian provided extensive elucidation for his sentiments, which included his interpretation and understanding of the June 10, 1967 events.
“What happened on the 10th of June 1967 is that some Anguillans jumped on a boat and came to St. Kitts, ostensibly to overthrow the government in St. Kitts; to force the government to give them their freedom because they did not want to continue their association with St. Kitts on the grouse that they had been long neglected. Economic development in Anguilla was almost negligible and they were arguing that if they could get away from the St. Kitts government they would be able to develop themselves, to have their own administration and to chart their own destiny. That’s how the people of Anguilla felt.
“…It was a very foolish thing they did if that was their intention, because without doing that they still got their independence from St. Kitts.”
Archibald explained that in 1967-1968, cases were brought against members of the People’s Action Movement but those were withdrawn by Robert Bradshaw, “who was supposed to be the main target of this escapade”.
“After he withdrew the case, he became very reconciled to the leaders of the People’s Action Movement. Before he died, he had an operation in the hospital and Kennedy Simmonds was his anesthetist. What does this tell you about Robert Bradshaw? He didn’t have any animosity in him over the 10th of June stupidness, because, perhaps, he understood more than anybody else that there were other tangents involved in the 10th of June in addition to a couple of stupid Anguillans coming here to carry out a stupid adventure which was doomed to fail from the beginning. Dr. Simmonds was the man who was his anesthetist in his last operation before he died, so Bradshaw died reconciled to the people in PAM.”
If Robert Bradshaw, who was the supposed target of the alleged coup d'état, was able to reconcile himself to those individuals who were accused of attempting to overthrow his government, Archibald questions, how is it that blame for the 1967 tale still hangs over the PAM after 42 years?
“How could they march against 1967? None of the people who were alleged to have been involved in 1967 is taking part in politics today. Dr. Simmonds is out there in retirement. People like Michael Powell, Sidney Morris and Richards Caines, all have retired from politics. The youngsters in politics now are all in their 40s and, if they are in their 40s now, it means that in 1967 they were pre-teenagers. The oldest of them would’ve been a pre-teenager in 1967. So how could you implicate them? That’s stupid, and we have to question the sanity of the people. Labour is in power, so why do they have to fall back on a stupidity like the 10th of June to try to see if they could win and election? They are in power! Who are they trying to unseat?”
He accused the Labour government of using the 1967 saga as a “political prank”, but warned that he doesn’t see how this gambit would see success as history has shown that this does not aid in garnering political mileage.
“I can see that the Labour people are desperate in their attempt and methodical in their effort to make 1967 a campaign issue, and I am wondering how on earth that could ever happen…We have forgotten 1993! We don’t debate 1993. In 1993, the Labour Party launched an attack on the PAM government which was then in power. Just like in 1967, PAM allegedly tried to overthrow the Labour government, that’s how Denzil Douglas tried to get Labour young people to overthrow and harass the government which was in power in 1993. …If it is necessary for us to remember 1967, why can’t we remember 1993? Because 1993 was real violence which we could see happening. It went on for days and weeks and months. Places were burnt down; total unrest happened between 1993 and 1995! …Well, why is 1967 so important and there is no mention about 1993 when Labour did essentially the same thing that they accused the PAM people of doing in 1967?
“The Labour Party must explain to the young people what happened in 1993, and what they are going to explain to the people is, although they were implicated in violence in 1993, the people still elected them to office in 1995 which means that the people didn’t care about the violence. Just like how the people in Kennedy Simmonds’ day did not care about what was said of what PAM was doing and they voted PAM into office. So those in 1995, totally uncaring about what Labour was supposed to have done violently, they voted the Labour Party into office. Why can’t we just forget those unhappy, unsavory and unfortunate episodes and get on with the future of our country?”
Archibald opined that the youths’ time would be far-better spent should they march for current issues including violence and crime as well as land ownership.
