Talk:P. J. Patterson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

I have always heard and seen his name as "P. J. Patterson"...and Google seems to back me up on this being the common usage. Is anyone from Jamaica who can say what Jamaicans normally call him? A page move might be good here. Everyking 00:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep, P.J. Patterson is the way he is normally refered to, at least in Trinidad. Could verify it by checking out the J'can newspapers (e.g., the Jamaica Gleaner), but I have no doubt that P.J. Patterson is the more common usage. I would support the move. Guettarda 14:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hugh Shearer was prime minister in the sixties (but was never elected). He inherited the post - being deputy prime minister at the time of the death of the then prime minister Donald Sangster. He served out the remainder of Mr. Sangster's term, until the election in 1972 which he lost to Michael Manley.

"Patterson is said to be Jamaica's first elected black Prime Minister, and campaigned on a message of returning the country to the hands of its racial majority. Most of Jamaica's past Prime Ministers have been from mixed racial backgrounds, though often appeared physically Caucasian." Hugh Shearer doesn't look Caucasian! —Seselwa 21:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that too. But I also seem to remember coming across the idea that PJ Patterson was the first black PM. The Manleys and Bustamante were "high colour", while Seaga is Arab. Not sure about Shearer though - if people just forgot about him? Guettarda 02:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the PNP is seen as more representative of the black population than the JLP, Shearer's party (which certainly seems to be my impression, but I am not an expert on Jamaica). —Seselwa 02:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I've changed "Lebanese" as the descriptor Edward Seaga's ethnic origin to "Levantine Arab." While "Syrian" and "Lebanese" are used indiscriminately of Jamaica's population of Middle Eastern origin (there's a synonym!), many of them are of Jordanian, Palestinian, or Egyptian origin. Using a regional descriptor, like Levantine, seems fairer than applying a national origin attribution that may not be correct (I seem to recall, though I may be wrong, that Seaga's family originated in Palestine). fledgist 01:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


"Patterson is said to be Jamaica's first black Prime Minister..." This focus on "complexion" as a basis for distinguishing people is ignorant at best and malicious at worst. The fact of one's physical appearance should require no further consideration nor commentary; at least not in an elevated forum such as Wikipedia.Would it not be more respectful to examine his ancestry with as much care as you did in the case of Mr. Seaga? Consider the respect that comes from thoughtfully classifying Mr. Seaga in cultural terms: "Lebanese" ; or his ethnic origin as "Levantine Arab." Would you care to research Patterson's roots, say from a combination of Ghana and Ireland? Would it not be more dignified and thorough than to dismiss him as a stereotypical 'black' whose human individuality requires no further examination.

A "Blackman" is not a person but a mere statistic! But as someone once said of statistics "its like a pair of bikinis, what it reveals is usually interesting, but what it conceals is absolutely vital".

The key words in the sentence are "is said to be". Wikipedia in many cases reports what people generally think, regardless of whether a more measured analysis might be more accurate. —Seselwa 20:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "Is said to be" is as cowardly as the one that journalists often repair to:"unnanmed sources". What does it really mean? Who will stand up and take responsibility for "having said" that? So Wikipedia should never quote such vague sources. In any case, what people really think is seldom voluntary, but usually based on a lifetime of brainwashing.

Let me back Sesel here. Regardless of what race is (and I'd say it is as much, if not more, a political as a social construct), we need to note how it is defined in different places, that's important in maintaining a NPOV. In Jamaica, as elsewhere in the non-Hispanic Caribbean, the dominant ethno-cultural group, the Creoles, is internally stratified by 'race' into 'white', 'brown', and 'black'. However little biological support this stratification might have, it is a fact of the social order. fledgist 19:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What comes first? The social order or the language? Obviously it is the language which gives rise to the perception of 'difference'. By you perpetuating the use of this "race paradigm" the social order is reinforced. You must take responsibility for your choice of language and not hide behind the statement that you are passively reporting the status quo.

By the way, upon further examination of the article, Mr Patterson himself once used the slogan "young, gifted, and black" to describe himself. —Seselwa 20:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It matters not that the speaker was Mr. Patterson himself. He is merely a victim of subtle conditioning. Patterson chose to and DECLARED himself not firstly as a man, but as a BLACKMAN. This gives clue to an inferiority complex; which is understandable, given his millieu. But, as a man thinketh, so is he. This is what I mean by someone "who had a choice". On the other hand, for instance, you CHOSE not to call or consider yourself "black" but took care to describe yourself in the rather euphemistic term "non-white. Why? Because "black" is a painfully emotional label and everyone seeks to avoid pain. Only a masochist volunteers to be considered "black". So remember the Golden Rule. You may be baffled at Mr. Shearer's transparency. Perhaps because he did not choose to define himself in "racial" terms he flew beneath the radar of color prejudice. Contrast that with Mr. Patterson's attitude

I think you have a rather odd view of "blackness". You say "since no one who had a choice would choose to be considered "Black"" - I am baffled by this. Are you saying that everyone wants to be white? I could pass, but I choose to assert my identity as non-white. It has nothing to do with self-loathing. Guettarda 05:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I am heartened by your recognition that I have an odd view of "blackness". With respect to my observation that "no one who had a choice ..." I mean to say that "no one who knew he had a choice" since,in reality everyone has a choice in the matter" . Men such as Shearer and Colin Powell illustrate the path to a real freedom that is taken for granted by most people in other societies, namely, the freedom to simply be taken at face value without the need to be qualified by their physical appearance. A society based on "race" is a tragedy: both victim and victimizer are equally dehumanized in a sado masochistic symbiosis. The result is a culture of negritude based on the sandy soil of an illusion.
Being classified as 'black'is not an objective descriptor since many who are considered black are actually fair skinned, and many who are not considered black such as many Hindi are very darkskinned. So if it is not objective it must be subjective.
The term, "Non-white" is used by persons who are intimidated from legitimately posing as conquistadors but at the same time they wish to avoid the stigma of being "tainted". Such people avoid even calling themselves "coloured" as this implies "slightly soiled".
Consider the rationale for "passing". When you say you could "pass", you really meant that you look acceptably "clean", but at the same time you don't want to make the unsupportable statement that you are a member of the conquistador group.
I am going to end this discussion unless you can convince me that all this is somehow profoundly relevant to the information presented in the article on P.J. Patterson. There are plenty of more appropriate outlets to elaborate your views on race, society, and psychology. —Seselwa 08:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have said enough on the matter.Hopefully, you are not ending the discussion because I may have hit a vulnerable point with you. In any event, those who have ears should hear.


Again, I stress "he is >>SAID(!!!!)<< to be …" —Seselwa 21:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patterson's Racial Heritage

It is untrue to suggest that Patterson is Jamaica's first black prime minister.Hugh Shearer, a black man was Prime minister several years before ,him and served for 5 years.The rumour of Patterson being Jamaica's first black prime minister is a lie circulated by his supporters to woo the Jamaican black population into voting for him based on his negroid characteristics.To get the people to vote, not on his performance as a public servant, and despite the fact that he was implicated in several scandals.Wikipedia as a source of information for the global web community should not even suggest that he could be Jmaica's first black prime minister.On top of this,the colour of patterson's skin does not prove that he is 100% negro,and not of mixed racial heritage like much of Jamaica's population.I am a black jamaican man with curly hair and I have african ,scottish,and possibly also german ancestors.There are Jamaican's with names like Chin and Lee who have very strong negro characteristics.In short the phrase "said to be Jamaica's first black prime minister" should be removed.To leave those words in the article borders on spreading propaganda.If people do not take the time to click on the link to Hugh Shearer's article,they will leave believing at the very least that Patterson could be Jamiaca's first black Prime Minister,some will believe that he is. dug

Yet again, I stress "he is >>SAID(!!!!)<< to be" Jamaica's first black prime minister! If people want to learn about this "controversy", they should read Shearer's article, a link to which is provided right next to the relevant phrase! —Seselwa 16:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't really appropriate for us to editorialise here. I always heard that Patterson was the first black PM of J'ca. I was rather surprised to realise that Shearer had been PM (or Sangster - never even heard of him) - I thought it had just been Manley-Busta-Manley-Seaga back and forth. The press in Trinidad never called him on it, never reported him being challenged on it. It's hard to say why and how they can ignore Shearer's term, but it isn't our place to editorialise about it. Of course, once again, I can't say how Shearer identified himself. Did he identify himself as black or mixed? I can look at a picture of him and call him black, but it really depends on how he self-identified. You can be mixed without being "high-colour". I just know terribly little about Shearer.
Maybe stronger language than "but see..." is in order. But it can't come from us, or it is original research. I can look at J'ca's past PMs and say that Shearer and Patterson and black, and the rest are white or red. An American would call Michael Manley black as well, and having read his autobiography, might call Norman Manley black too (if they were Americans they would fall within the range of "African-American", if they lived in the South during the Jim Crow days they would definitely be black). My point is, if you can find a reputable source that calls Patterson on that statement or that records someone calling him on it, it would be reasonable to put it in the article. If not, it would fall under original research, and that is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Guettarda 17:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately wikipedia is hell bent on being an instrument of propaganda,potentially immortalising the fallacious notion that Patterson is or could ever have been Jamaica's first black Prime Minister,even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 DUG
There's nothing about being "hell-bent" on anything. Our job is just to neutrally report. Patterson campaigned on that, it's widely stated... it would be unaccpetable for us to call him a liar. It is acceptable to provide a link to Shearer...just barely acceptable. It isn't our job to separate truth from falsehood - all we can do is report on what people have said. If you want to provide a sourced criticism of this - feel free. Otherwise we can just point people to Shearer and let them make up their own minds. Guettarda 21:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is now impossible for people to make up their minds about hugh shearer's racial heritage ,and to see his obvious blackness (ie of race) now,that his image has conveniently disappeared from his wikipedia page;interestingly there is absolutely no mention of his blackness in writing on this page either.so again you are misleading the public,you are in effect by design or default re-writing history,in spite of evidence that your information is wrong.Indeed you have removed the evidence which would prove that PJ Patterson could not have been jamaica's first black prime minister ( at least not by American Standards I guarantee that Shearer was much more than 1/32 Negro).The premise that the word of a politician,and widely held opinion must be accepted as fact is truly preposterous.Agreeing by consensus that the world is flat does not make it so.If you are an honest,logical being with sound reasoning ability,you will correct that reference to Patterson as jamaica's first black prime minister,it is untrue.

  Dug
Please drop the issue. It is entirely unimportant and your comments are disruptive, polarizing, and unhelpful. —Sesel 02:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for unprotecting the page. I had forgotten about it. —Sesel 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)