In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

FOUR Transnational Social Relations and the Politics of National Identity An Eastern Caribbean Case Study Linda Basch Over the past eighteen years I have continued to attend—and be dazzled by—vibrant political meetings in Brooklyn at which political leaders from the small, eastern Caribbean nation-states of St. Vincent and Grenada, visiting New York, meet with immigrants from their countries.1 The political leaders generally inform the migrants in detail of affairs “at home” and identify numerous ways migrants can—and need to—remain involved “at home” by participating in elections, investing in local undertakings, sponsoring projects for the good of “the nation,” and informing their relatives of world affairs. The most dramatic meeting, despite its uncharacteristically somber demeanor , occurred in April 1984. As described in my field notes, Herbert Blaize, a former colonial chief minister of Grenada, was addressing a crowd of approximately six hundred Grenadians of varying ages and seemingly different classes. The venue was a well-appointed catering hall owned by a Grenadian immigrant. It was only a few months after the assassination of the Grenadian prime minister, Maurice Bishop. Blaize, who had declared himself a contender for the prime ministership, had come to New York to seek the financial support and influence of the immigrant community. The meeting had been organized by a support group for Blaize located in New York. The group was headed by Lamuel Stanislaus, a highly respected political leader in the Grenadian immigrant community and a long-time friend and former political ally of Blaize. The audience raised many questions and expressed apprehension about the direction in which Blaize would take Grenada if elected. Bishop’s assassination had been followed by the military occupation of Grenada by U.S. forces. Bishop, in his attempts to lessen Grenada’s dependence on the United States and steer a more autonomous course, had established close ties with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Although some Grenadians had applauded this seemingly  independent course, others were worried that Grenada’s new alliances would enable the spread of communism in the Caribbean. Some in the middle classes who owned property in Grenada were concerned that their property might have been confiscated by the Bishop government and redistributed to the peasantry. They asked what safeguards Blaize would create to protect property owned by immigrants abroad. Others wondered whether there would be overseas voting registration so that immigrants could vote in the upcoming election. Blaize underscored his party’s respect for personal property, at the same time drawing on a rhetoric of autonomy to assert that “anyone who gives aid must come with clean hands, with no strings attached.” This included all outside interests —Soviet, Cuban, and American. He also emphasized the importance of the immigrant constituency to Grenada, pointing out that, while there were 90,000 Grenadians living in Grenada, only 32,000 of whom were adults, there were 60,000 adult Grenadians living in North America, many of whom owned property at home. This vignette illustrates the many ways Grenadian and Vincentian immigrants remain involved with their home countries. Several of the immigrants attending this meeting owned land and houses in Grenada, and some had business interests and investments there, such as hotels, farms, and transportation companies. Others were involved in activities spanning Grenada and New York, such as small shipping companies. Still others, like Stanislaus and the other organizers of the meeting, were involved in politics at home— campaigning for candidates during elections or returning to Grenada to run for political office themselves. These involvements continue, even though many of the same immigrants also own homes and businesses in Brooklyn— the very catering hall in which the meeting was held was immigrantowned —and are U.S. citizens. Lamuel Stanislaus, for example, left Grenada in the mid 1940s to attend dental school at Howard University, is a prominent dentist in Brooklyn, where he owns his home, is a U.S. citizen, and has been involved in various ways in New York politics, including heading the Caribbeans for Koch Committee. These simultaneous involvements in the United States and in the countries that the immigrants still call home, constitute transnational social practices .2 Transnational practices are the processes by which migrants forge and sustain simultaneous multistranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement. These relations occur along the lines of family, economic, and political relations. As in the case of many of the Grenadian immigrants attending this meeting, immigrants, through their transnational practices...

Share