Message Board Archives

Trinidad is redrawing its coat of arms to remove Columbus' three famous ships

Officials in Trinidad and Tobago are redrawing the island’s coat of arms for the first time since its creation in 1962 to remove references to European colonization in a move that many are celebrating. Officials in Trinidad and Tobago are redrawing the island’s coat of arms for the first time since its creation in 1962 to remove references to European colonization in a move that many are celebrating.

Christopher Columbus’ three ships — the Pinta, the Niña and the Santa María — will be replaced with the steelpan, a popular percussion instrument that originated in the eastern Caribbean island. Prime Minister Keith Rowley made the announcement on Sunday to a standing ovation, saying the coat of arms would be reconfigured before late September. “That should signal that we are on our way to removing the colonial vestiges that we have in our constitution,” he said. The current coat of arms also features hummingbirds, a palm tree and a scarlet ibis, Trinidad's national bird. Rowley’s announcement comes roughly a week before Trinidad and Tobago is scheduled to hold a public hearing on whether certain statues, signs and monuments should be removed.

The upcoming change is part of a worldwide movement that aims to eradicate symbols of the colonial era, with statues of Columbus removed or toppled across the U.S. in recent years.
Columbus arrived in Trinidad and Tobago in 1498.

Redesign coat of arms from scratch


The coat of arms is an official emblem, a mark of identifica­tion, and a symbol of the authority of the government of a nation or state. In effect, it is really the seal of state of the government, and arguably the most important of the national emblems. It is at the top of all government documents. A decision to alter the coat of arms should not have been made by the political directorate at its party convention, taking into account the implications for such a change—which is not the responsibility of any political party but a responsibility of the State.

So what is the history behind the design of the existing coat of arms? The Trinidad and Tobago coat of arms was designed by a 1962 committee which selected symbols to represent T&T’s people. The committee inclu­ded noted artist the late Carlisle Chang and Carnival designer the late George Bailey. Motifs representing T&T’s indigenous features were selected and formally agreed to be used as the T&T coat of arms in 1962, in a design approved by the College of Arms.

For instance, most Tobagonians see the Cocrico bird as a noisy pest. Additionally, what were the other images intended to reflect? A change in the design of the existing coat of arms should not only be about attempting to erase part of our history relating to the role played by Columbus and the colonizers. It should be about creating and designing a new coat of arms to reflect what we stand for as a cosmopolitan people.

Chalkdust, Mighty Trini back change to Coat of Arms


The plan to replace Columbus’ three ships with the steelpan on T&T’s Coat of Arms has ignited a vigorous discussion about national identity. Adding his voice to the debate, calypsonian and cultural historian Dr Hollis “Chalkdust” Liverpool agreed with the proposed change, arguing that while colonial symbols are historically significant, they perpetuate a legacy that undermines national pride. Liverpool advocates for the steelpan as a symbol that truly represents T&T’s cultural heritage. He stressed the need for history education that fosters a sense of national identity and accurately reflects contemporary values, suggesting that retaining colonial symbols can detract from this goal. Fellow calypsonian Robert “D Mighty Trini” Elias meanwhile said the steelpan, calypso and limbo are core to T&T’s cultural identity and should be promoted globally to enhance tourism and national pride, adding the focus should shift away from outdated colonial symbols.

However, historian Shamshu Deen warned against altering the Coat of Arms and argued that frequent changes could lead to a fragmented national identity, with various groups competing to add their symbols.
While he acknowledged the complex influence of colonial history, Deen believes those symbols are integral to the nation’s diverse heritage and should not be discarded lightly.
Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley has defended his proposal to change the Coast of Arms and asserts that the steelpan, as the only instrument indigenous to T&T, deserves a central place on the national emblem.
Rowley also rejected suggestions from historian Dr Jerome Teelucksingh to include the tassa drum, caling such ideas “wicked” and “ignorant.”

He highlighted notable East Indian figures in the steelpan community, including Bobby Mohammed and Jit Samaroo, to counter claims that this change might marginalise any ethnic group. Rowley also criticized university lecturers for spreading misinformation and questioned their competence, asserting that constitutional discussions have been open and inclusive, contrary to claims they are merely a pre-election tactic.

Great moves to create a more representative identity for the country

Just be careful with any rackets that will spring up like rebranding all state offices: signage, letter heads, plaques

What is the name of the capital of trinidad again?

In reply to velo

In reply to velo

Very good question,I was about to ask if Rowley want to change all the French and Spanish names of places in Trinidad,I was born in San Fernando,change that and Port of Spain
European history is why he skunt born in Tobago,plus his ancestors so to the rest of us.

In reply to sgtdjones

Plebiscite/referendum anyone? I say we Anglophone Caribbeans should be looking at all these names. But get the plurality of our masses opting in before we proceed. That way the nay sayers and reactionaries can have an input as well.

Needless to say, I support the move.

--Æ.

Looks like the Tits want to make the Yardies jealous and go remove the Columbus statue from Discovery Bay.

Who knows, them Yardies might even go as far as to change the name of the place to Invasion Bay.

In reply to velo

The essence is to be able to use our agency to decide which ones we keep and which ones are relegated to the shameful dustbin of history

I understand there’d be opposition but let’s have the national debate freely

In reply to Drapsey

The real name is Puerto Seco.

Columbus so called "discovered" Jamaica at a spot farther to the east in St. Ann which is closer to Runaway Bay and Ocho Rios.

....

The proposal by the T&T Prime Minister to change the country’s coat of arms by removing the symbol of the three ships associated with Christopher Columbus's third voyage raises several important points.
The decision made by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago has got folks talking.
They want to change what's on the national coat of arms. Right now it shows three ships.

Those ships carried the explorer Christopher Columbus on his third voyage.
But some people want that part taken off.
 
Firstly, the ships traditionally named—Santa Maria, Nina, and Pinta—are not the correct vessels; the actual ships were the Santa Maria de Gui, Vaqueros, and Correo.
Seems funny that such an important detail of history is mixed up, don't it?
You'd think leaders would want the facts right, but I guess not always.

This discrepancy highlights a significant historical inaccuracy that should concern both historians and educators.
Secondly, the removal of these ships from the coat of arms symbolizes an attempt to reshape national identity and historical narrative.
While it may aim to promote a more accurate representation of the country's history, it also raises questions about the implications of altering historical symbols.

This decision could be seen as an effort to reconcile with the past, but it may also provoke debates about how history is remembered and represented in national symbols.
Balancing the desire for a more inclusive narrative with the need to acknowledge historical facts is a complex challenge that demands careful consideration.

By taking the ships off the coat of arms, it looks like they want to change what happened in the past.
Even though history is history, for better or worse.
You can't change what already happened no matter how much you wish things were different.
It's important we all know the truth of things, so we can learn from both the good and bad.

The proposal to change the coat of arms of Trinidad and Tobago by removing the three ships that symbolize Christopher Columbus's voyage is a poignant example of historical revisionism in action.
This decision reflects a broader trend of reevaluating historical narratives that are perceived as offensive or outdated.

Sarge

In reply to Trex

Columbus lie

In reply to Trex

Columbus's first stop was at Port Maria , St.Mary which the Spaniards named ..they sourced water there and
continued east to the Parish of St. Ann where they landed and established their settlement at Seville
which became the first capital.

Nothing wrong about changing Coat of Arms to bring relevance...but along with tumbling statues, won't change
history. It is written and all generations have and will continue to live it one way or the other even as one
uses the rubber at the end of a pencil.
Take note of history but work towards a wonderful tomorrow for the future generations.

In reply to sgtdjones

Seems as if Rowley is eradicating the ability to get Foreign exchange too as that has colonial faces on those bills. Hard to get Quid, Canadian, Euro and US these days. Hopefully now they can use TT dollars internationally

In reply to Prako

Rowley have much greater problems than the Coat of Arms...

In reply to sgtdjones

Exactly…, after they change coat of arms will the murder and kidnapping cease?

In reply to nickoutr

Can we walk and chew gum at the same time?

Who coined the term land of the humming bird

In reply to sgtdjones

While allyuh at it, maybe allyuh should stop playing those Eurocentric sports cricket and soccer as well!

In reply to Trex

Boss, even that is still the Spaniards' term; it means "dry port" in their language. Perhaps we could find a record of the original Arawaks' name for the area.

--Æ.

In reply to JayMor

Do we also rename Ocho Rios, Rio Bueno, Rio Grande, Spanish Town, Kingston, St. Mary, St. Andrew , and just about any English, Spanish and all other names from the colonizers?


Just asking.

In reply to Trex

Interesting question....???



We are now in a period called "historical revisionism"

How could I forget???

We should abolish the use of "Jamaica" since this was a Spanish bastardization of the Taino name "Xaymaca"?

In reply to velo

Its time we done with this stupid English language as well

In reply to steveo

Welcome back

In reply to Trex

Where is Spuds with "nuanced" when you need him? As a matter of fact, it's less of being 'nuanced' than about simply following a convo. A thread is started about T&T "redrawing its coat of arms to remove Columbus' three famous ships", and later the notion of Jamaica's "Discovery Bay" name comes up for question-- rightly so, to my thinking since it ain't no damn "discovery"! The Arawaks, etc. pre-dated the Spaniards there.

Trex then remarked...
So I responded suggesting we do even better and go for the indigenous name instead.

Yet, you come up with forcing an association to me of renaming all non-Arawak names on the island, or at least wanting to! Gwaan stretch, rasta, even elastic woulda done buss arreddy to rass.

Truthfully, some names need changing, Lady Musgrave Road for instance, but only a fool would want all such names gone. Colonialism too is a part of our history-- a major part even!

--Æ.

In reply to nick2020

thanks bro

In reply to JayMor

Where is Spuds with "nuanced" when you need him?

You need to read more history about the Tainos.

"Arawaks" was not what the indigenous persons called themselves. The Spanish called peaceful peoples "Arawaks" and then referred to the aggressive ones as the "Caribs".

You should stop using European terms to support your argument.

By the way... you are welcome...now go read some more.

Trinidad is a given name of Spanish origin that is often given in reference to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, or one God in three persons. It is currently among the most popular names for girls in Chile

according to Wikipedia.

You can take the Colombus ships off the flag...but you can't take Colombus out of your country's name.

Govt to change Trinity Cross

GOVERNMENT intends to change the Trinity Cross, the country’s highest honour.
Government has made its decision in light of a ruling by Justice Peter Jamadar that the nation’s highest award amounts to discrimination against Hindus and Muslims.

Cabinet yesterday adjudicated on the issue.
However, when asked about the matter at yesterday’s post-Cabinet news conference, Trade Minister Ken Valley would only confirm that the issue was discussed.
“Yes it was discussed.
But you know I can’t (say what decision was taken).
I still have a Prime Minister. At the appropriate time the Prime Minister will address the issue.”

The Trinity Cross was the highest National Award in the twin island Republic.
On June 5, 2008 the Trinity Cross was replaced by the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

Keith Christopher Rowley

Is he removing his middle name too?

In reply to Trex

Man proud of himself now, no? I say "Arawaks" and he says "Tainos" then goes on to tell me about whom the Spaniards called "Arawaks" vs whom they termed "Caribs". Why he introduced "Caribs" at this point, he didn'y tell me. And he, apparently, is old enough to know for sure that the Jamaican Arawaks did not call themselves Arawaks.
For your info, Trexxie, 'Arawak' and 'Taino' for us are roughly equivalent. I heard only 'Arawak' in my time in the Jamaican school system, and first learned of 'Taino' while in Puerto Rico in 1983. When I checked, I found out it was merely a 20th century re-classification, "Arawak" being given higher taxonomic rank, that's all.

Hence, I shall stick to 'Arawak', and you can stay with whatever.



You'll be welcome to your own damn self, hopefuly after you learn some more and tell yourself thanks.

--Æ.

In reply to JayMor

Again...It seems your head is too hard to learn a very simple Historical fact. The Europeans called the aggressive natives "Caribs" and the less aggressive "Arawaks". There are various theories about what the natives called themselves. Some say Cibony, Taino...others say Kalinago. Those who call themselves "Kalinago" are mainly found in the lesser antiles where the Europeans labelled them "Caribs".

Interesting fact. The British spread fake news about the "Caribs" being cannibals to create an excuse to take their territory. The British based this narrative on the account of a European priest who lived with the "Caribs" for over 10 years. (I guess the Caribs or Kalinago didn't like white meat since he wasn't eaten)



It is your choice. I will call them Taino since " Arawak" is a term given to them as the Europeans brutalized them and destroyed their settlements, families, culture and way of life.

I recently discovered through a DNA test that I am part Taino...very small %...but am happy to learn that some Taino DNA has still survived in Jamaica.

In reply to Trex

Just remembered to come checking and there you are!

Re your post, I would have left the thread alone, leaving you to be you and me to be I&I but the last sentence provided a hook. I'm definitely aware of remnants of Arawak blood remaining in Ja. The original Maroons --those from the time of the British takeover-- did join up with the prevailing natives to form communities in the mountains. It is likely that that process continued for some time after, so that some Maroons and descendants until today will display some trace percentage of indigenous DNA.
The other thing I can contribute is that I've heard it from my StETHS days in Santa Cruz (the latter 1960s) that the Pedro Plains area of St Elizabeth still had folks of partial Arawakian descendance. Then to wit, I trust you're old enough to know who boxer Lloyd Honeygan is; his late aunt is my buddy's mother. They hail from the Pedro area and do have a bit if an indigenous look. My friend's DNA test of some years ago confirmed it too.


I'm already here so...

I still fail to see how the following is relevant to the original discourse, regardless of its veracity:

The discussion pertained to the equivalence (or not) of 'Arawak' and 'Taino'. You claim (sans reference) that "Arawak" is a term given to them by the Euros, but to me the word "Arawak", just as the word "Taino", look nothing close to anything from a western European tongue. They both look Amer-Indian! So I find it hard to swallow your assertion. So glad my head is "hard".

Hope your head is not too hard to get what I've said. LOL.

--Æ.

In reply to JayMor

I have long assumed that fried fish and bammy was copied from these early settlers down on that plain.

In reply to camos

Hail up, Camos. Bammy, for sure; I learned this in school too. Not sure about fried fish, although very possible since nuff fry fish gwaan dung deh! Here's a noteworthy one: jerk pork (and 'jerk' on the whole). Wild boars roamed the mountains of Ja (they're still up there out east) and the Arawaks would treat the meat with hot peppers, pimento, etc., and then roast/bake and bury it for storage. That récipé stayed with the Maroons and supposedly first came down at Boston, Portland.

Related:- Why "Montego Bay"? The Spaniards called the harbour "Bahia de Manteca" (Bay of Lard), which the Brits corrupted. Said area was where they butchered wild boars, prepared the fat to lard, and shipped it out to Spain.

--Æ.