Enacting Power: The Criminalization of Obeah in the Anglophone Caribbean, 1760-2012 by Jerome S. Handler and Kenneth M. Bilby (review)

This book was written by two outstanding scholars whose works on Caribbean culture and social history are well known. The title already promises a very interesting study based on an approach to Caribbean social history which uses the enactment of laws as primary data. Nevertheless, this review finds it necessary to comment on the title. The term “Anglophone” is used in the title to circumscribe the geographical setting of the study. It could seem that the term is quite convenient and appropriate, understood by all, although the precise meaning of “phone” is somewhat vague. Technically, it means “sound” or “voice,” but in “Anglophone,” it has expanded its etymological meaning and now expresses “(native) speaker of.”

The matter becomes unambiguously critical in the opening paragraph of the book where the authors remove any vagueness left in the term “Anglophone” by using “English-speaking” instead. However, neither “Anglophone” nor “English-speaking” is accurate. It may be that the authors wish to uplift the image of these Caribbean countries by attributing to them the ability to speak English; or simply that the convenience of the terms outweighs any inaccuracy in their use. Whatever is the case, it is time that scholars show more understanding and thoroughness of knowledge of the cultural products of the region. Post-colonial adjustments have helped to improve the status of regional religions (e.g. the Spiritual Baptists of Trinidad and Tobago), regional music (e.g. reggae, dance-hall of Jamaica), regional medicine (see Payne-Jackson and Alleyne 2000 and the nutriceutical products of Dr. Henry Lowe based on local herbs and roots). Post-colonial discourse must also see to it that the naming of these products makes it clear that they are legitimate expressions of human creativity and production, distinct and different from but equal to any and all of their counterparts across the globe, and that we remove any lingering demeaning denotative or connotative features. In the same way that the religion(s), the music, the foods etc. that emerged in the islands are not the same as their European counterparts, so are their languages. To say that Jamaicans are English-speaking or Anglophone is faulty at best and totally unhelpful to a strict understanding of the people and their language(s). To say that the people of St. Lucia and Dominica are “anglophone (i.e. that English is their native language) is hopelessly wrong. The people of St.Lucia and Jamaica do not in their vast majority have English as their native language. The way to enhance the self-image of the people is not to try to embellish them by using inaccurate even though flattering terms to refer to their cultural products, but to honor these products by first using proper accurate, even though not prestigious, terms.

There are other inverse cases (though also very instructive) having to do with religion where scholars continue to use inaccurate names and do not take time to find more correct and proper terms. The Haitian religion is still spelled by some scholars as “voodoo.” The use of the double “oo” links this word with “boo-boo” (deciphered as “black magic”) and “moomoo” etc., and contributes to the negative meaning (denotative and connotative) of this Haitian religion. Consistently using the proper name “Vaudoun” will go a long way in cementing the integrity and legitimacy of the religion. The Jamaican religion which is often called “pocomania” (deciphered by some as “little madness”) has a proper authentic name pukumina which should be regaled and honored. Similarly, for example, we must try to cement the use of the term “Haitian” or “le haitien” to refer to the language spoken by Haitians and reject completely the use of exotic irrelevant meaningless terms such as “creole” and “patois” which belong to an earlier time when the prerogative...