By Amina Blackwood Meeks, Contributor 
Blackwood Meeks
I HAVE a pre-occupation with artists who seem unconcerned about, ignorant of, the history of their particular art-form, including the people who came before them and their contributions to the development of that art form. Sometimes, like when they are good at what they do, I tend to be a little forgiving. It's a kind of ambivalence really. Is it okay for them to be ignorant when they are making a positive contribution but not okay if it is adjudged that their contribution is at best dubious? Recently, I was handed a flyer advertising a show by a group of young Jamaican poets, calling themselves No-Maddz. In fact it was given to me by one of the poets in question. A very beautiful, well-laid out poster that attempted to market the show on the strength of its being the first ?scripted? poetry show in Jamaica. I asked the young man whether he was aware of the poetry groups and poetry shows that were significant features of the 1970s and 80s. The response was a very surprised stare. I asked him how he came by the idea that his was the first show of its kind in Jamaica. No answer was forthcoming. I asked whether he knew that a trip to the National Library and a look at their archives of programmes might reveal something quite contrary to that which he was promoting, and it was clear that he had never been to the National Library or thought about it as a place for that kind of research. And this is one of our more informed, at least more schooled, performing artists. Blame the school system for not teaching more about research methodology.
So I got to thinking about culture, in terms of patterns of thought that influence patterns of behaviour and the combination of thought and behaviour as influencing how we create and share and how we build on that which has been created. That is, I got to thinking about the value of our knowing and our remembering.
BUILDING ON HISTORY
In Norse mythology, Odin, king of the gods had two black ravens. This time I kinda loved the idea that they were black, black ravens are not usually good symbols in myths and legends. In this one, however, the raven Huginn was 'Thought' and the other, Muninn, was 'Memory'. Their mission was to fly out daily and return with news of events from all over the world. This must have required them to think about what was worth collecting and having made that decision they then had to remember what they had collected. Later, of course, Odin would retire to Valhalla to decide how to use the information. So there it is in Mythology, thinking as a basis for planning for, predicting the future based on its connection to the past and present.
So what is the effect of artists proclaiming without investigation that they are the first to do this or that, that they invented this or that phrase or that they can trace exactly the beginning of a cultural phenomenon? I think part of the effect is that it renders the process of cultural development a very difficult one. What a burden for one deggeh smaddy. I rather suspect that it makes the 'first and only' very lonely people indeed. Where do they go for guidance, reassurance, when they falter? And did Marcus Garvey not say something about a nation without history of its past and its inability to proceed to the future without repeating mistakes from said history?
Military strategists, business moguls, economic planners, political leaders, disaster mitigation experts, all use the past as a basis of their forecasting. Sometimes they are wrong, of course and in our case, sometimes they seem not to learn a thing from the past and continue to be wrong, but at least there are others who can stand on the sidelines and yell, haven't you learned anything from the past? Shouldn't artists be a little more inclined to find some reference point from which to chart a future, some basis for a gathering, a movement, which takes their contribution out of the realm of being a little peculiar eccentricity into the arena of a mighty sustained voice to be reckoned with, especially when they claim to be speaking on behalf of the 'people', and especially in an age when the 'people', alienated from systems and structures which have disappointed and betrayed them, turn to the artists to guide their own thinking and to provide some information about the way forward?
ME-FIRST MENTALITY
The problem is an age-old one, admittedly. Egos are huge in the artistic showground. It is complicated by the fact that everyone wants to be the next Bob Marley or the next Miss Lou or whoever we hold up as the one of a kind icon, much to our detriment. One of a kind is a fluke! One of a kind is separated, maybe deliberately, from the lives and issues of the 'people' who made that kind possible. When one-of-kind is threatening to the establishment, it makes sure that another of the kind does not come through the gate.
Those who market the concept of One-of-a-kind and those who accept it uncritically, make it easier to engineer disconnections in the forward movement of the people for a better life, a better way of life, a culture that is developmental and sustainable. So what do we achieve, whose agenda is advanced by this persistent, me-first, me-only mentality of those who cast themselves as poet-warriors, musician-messengers, cultural activists on behalf of the people? More complications are to be found in the larger disconnect in the society in general and in the disconnect, notional or real of the youth from a complex of issues historical and contemporary, that they need for personal let alone, artistic development. The media is, generally speaking, not very helpful.
GIVE THANKS
There is more of Beyoncé, Usher and the like in your face than there is of Ziggy Marley. Give thanks to ReTV we see Peter Tosh, Judy Mowatt and Marcia Griffiths every so often, and to CPTC/CTV that we can see Miss Lou or a recreated Ring Ding or learn about a tea meeting, see Olive Lewin, Oku Onoura and it's not even Black History Month or Christmas, or any of the special occasions that we dust off some pepper lights and plug them in for a brief while.
The net result is that too many of our artists, young and old, new and ancient, end up thinking that they are creating the wheel, rather than utilising it to get to the next point. This is one way in which, as a people we keep spinning around, waking up in the same day. So what is the value of just thinking that maybe it not so important to be the first, to be the only, but more critical to be a unique part of a special whole, to grab the baton in a great tradition and don't drop it? Maybe before we can think outside of the box, we have to become aware that we are in a box, we have to recognise the kind of thinking that keeps us boxed in, boxed about, marking time but out of time, out of step with the totality of who we are and the vast potential that being connected holds.
