The struggle by black migrants against racism in the United States resulted in a group of Jamaicans living in Harlem, New York, led by Walter Adolphe Roberts, founding the Jamaica Progressive League on September 1, 1936.

Their physical separation from the homeland did not thwart their commitment to the notion of influencing change there. They engaged themselves in conversations and actions geared towards effecting change in Jamaica. The motive of the league was to “secure better financial, economic, social and educational advantages for Jamaicans in Jamaica”.

One of Roberts’s concerns was the inability of professional educated Jamaicans to attain high-level positions in the civil service. Those jobs were reserved for British expatriate civil servants. However, despite the best intentions of the Jamaica Progressive League for the island, the league recognised that the inefficiencies and limitations of the colonial political structure would be inimical to such efforts. The most logical path, they believed, to achieving all of this was self-government and so the organisation was built around this objective as demonstrated in their oath:

‘Firmly believing that any people that has seen its generations come and go on the same soil for centuries is, in fact, a nation, we pledge ourselves to work for the attainment of self-government for Jamaica so that the country may take its rightful place as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.’

The notion of self-government posited by the league was not revolutionary as what they “advocated [was] no more nor less than a dominion of Jamaica, within the empire”. It was, according to Trevor Monroe, a call for “political change, not social revolution”. At the time, however, the league certainly felt that this was radical enough to be so considered. In fact, one of their flyers for a mass meeting in New York on January 23, 1938 read, “Revolution in Jamaica — a real revolution in the actions of the people which will result in an early and marked improvement in the condition of the labourers of the island, and a better Jamaica for all classes of Jamaicans.”

Self-government, indeed, was a considerable shift from the system of government that obtained at the time and from any that was then being contemplated. Marcus Garvey’s People’s Political Party — Jamaica’s first modern party — formed in 1929 came close, but what it envisioned was dominion status within the ambit of a West Indies Federation. There was a prevailing feeling that a break with the colonial empire existed only in the realm of imagination as was evident from the words of one of Hugh Buchanan’s many letters to Public Opinion:

“I would enter the struggle now and oppose the Englishman tooth and nail for the freedom of my country, Jamaica! Of course, I know this is far-fetched. Jamaicans are afraid, of course, even thinking about it, to say nothing of making a start.”

In this context, the league may certainly have been right to consider their stance as revolutionary.

Where did they get this idea of self-government? It was not, at the time, being pursued by other colonies that were a part of the British Caribbean. However, given the experience in Harlem where the black community, though not self-governing, were prospering mostly through the efforts of their own creativeness, it was in fact possible for these migrants to envision a country not dependent on Britain in a way that most home-based Jamaicans were unable to.

There was also the knowledge that other countries had achieved it. Ireland, for instance, which once suffered under British colonial rule, successfully managed to gain self-government in 1921 with the creation of the Irish Free State. This became a shining example for the Jamaica Progressive League, whose name bears much resemblance to that of the Irish Progressive League.

This theory of the Jamaica Progressive League grounding their inspiration in the achievement of the Irish is further substantiated by the fact that a relationship was developed between the two, so much so that members of the Irish Progressive League, such as the politically active Irish actress Eileen Curran, made an appearance at a meeting organised by the Jamaica Progressive League to speak about the Irish experience.

Such a change in the system of government, however, depended on the implementation of a combination of legislative measures and social intervention programmes. These were things that the Jamaica Progressive League were well aware of and, as such, they called for universal adult suffrage and the removal of property qualifications of candidates for public offices, the right of labour unions to function legally, inter-Caribbean trade and commerce, and the encouragement of the study of the history, geography, and literature of Jamaica.

They, unlike Marcus Garvey, were not interested in a compromise. They advocated immediate self-government and the removal of British rule. The message resonated with some Jamaicans at home who had their pulse on what was happening among the black community in the United States and elsewhere. One such person was WG McFarlane who, in 1937, with the blessings of the Jamaica Progressive League in New York City, formed a local branch of the league.

In establishing the branch, McFarlane noted that although the Jamaica Progressive League of New York had attained great success, he considered it “highly essential that an active association be maintained here in Jamaica … embracing as far as possible the programme of the New York League”. The local branch of the Jamaica Progressive League that McFarlane formed articulated it further:

‘Whereas it has been found necessary to inaugurate an association in Jamaica based on similar principles to the Jamaica Progressive League of New York, USA, and whereas the said Jamaica Progressive League of New York is working fearlessly and conscientiously for the national, economic and educational advancement of Jamaica, it has now become highly essential that a similar league should be in operation here (in the homeland, Jamaica) to act as a central body for any organisation operating overseas.’

In addition to supporting the aims and objectives of the programmes of the Jamaica Progressive League, New York, the Jamaica chapter outlined other interests:

1) To develop a closer contact between Jamaicans who have travelled and returned home to take up residence.

2) To protect homecoming and outgoing Jamaicans from any unscrupulous acts by persons who make it a practice to prey upon unsuspecting travellers.

3) To maintain a certain standard of sentiment and advanced opinion peculiar to persons with foreign experience.

4) To create a medium through which representations shall be made (when necessary) on matters affecting Jamaicans at home and abroad.

5) To work in conjunction with other constitutional organisations, for example, citizens’ associations, literary associations, and labour unions which are working constitutionally for the good and welfare of Jamaica.

6) To deal with any other matter pertaining to the development of our national existence.

In their resolve to further the cause of spreading the message of self-government, they closely aligned themselves to the New York body and received support not only in words, but financially, and through the appearance of members of the New York League at mass meetings.

Adolphe Roberts, for example, made a number of visits to Jamaica where he made presentations on behalf of the league. The Amsterdam News in New York reported in its December 2, 1938 issue that Roberts conducted a six-week tour of Jamaica. While on this tour, he made a number of presentations, including speaking at a meeting in Port Maria.

The Jamaica Progressive League and the 1938 Riots

The influence of the Jamaica Progressive League, New York on local affairs thus bore fruit in 1937 with the opening of the first branch in Kingston. A year later, the growing discontent among working-class Jamaicans, which reached a boiling point by then, helped to reshape the agenda of the league to some extent. The Frome Riots was the catalyst for the islandwide rebellions that took place, and the league played a pivotal role in lending aid in the formation of unions. Such involvement was carefully considered, occasioning constant dialogue between the local and New York league before action was taken. Approval was granted in a letter dated July 13, 1938 from the Reverend Ethelred Brown:

‘The five unions…[met] with their [directors] approval, namely Maritime, Transport Workers, Factory Workers, Municipal Workers, and General Workers. You may lend your aid in the formation of such unions.’

The support was given to the labour unions as they were found to be effective tools in other countries in providing redress to workers. As such, support continued, at first for the Alexander Bustamante-led union and later to the union formed by the People’s National Party. The respect they gained from these bodies is reflected in the letter to the league from the Builders and Allied Trade Union:

‘Regarding the decisions arrived at with regards to the discussions on the proposed constitution for the island, I am instructed to inform the league … this union heartily endorses your conclusions and asks me to convey to your body the heartfelt thankfulness to you as being the pioneers in the cause for a wider scope in political freedom for the colony.’

It is clear, however, that the initial reason for the cautiousness was out of concern that the local chapter, if embroiled in the labour dispute, might lose sight of the principal objective of the organisation.

Brown wrote to McFarlane in September:

‘Without attempting to dictate to your league, the directors would ask that great care be taken that, while cooperating with other organisations, the distinctive programme of the league should be clearly kept in mind so that our peculiar goal of self-government should not be snowed under in any joint programme. In other words, the directors would advise in the following words, ‘Cooperate, but preserve your identity’.’

Their commitment to Jamaica’s attainment of self-government was paramount and thus there was little room for distraction. However, while they were resolute about pursuing self-government, there was a recognition that the events of 1938 would have served to derail their plans. The situation was one that could not be ignored. With the aid of money lender Bustamante, the league was instrumental in assisting people who were placed behind bars under suspicion of being involved in the riots. This part played by the league was quite manifest in WG McFarlane’s report to the league in New York:

‘We called a conference and a deputation visited the office of Mr Alexander Bustamante who is raising funds for the purpose of securing legal aid… He joined us and we visited the office of Mr ERD Evans, solicitor who is now gone to Sav-la-Mar to defend those who are without legal aid to date…We also retained a barrister, Mr O GX Henriques who will join Mr Evans if postponements can be secured…We are doing all in our power to show the worth of the league seeing the golden opportunity to do so … ‘

Their involvement also extended to making presentations before the West India Royal Commission (1938-1939). This was viewed as an opportunity to not just present a case for the workers, but for tackling other issues. They formed the Jamaica Deputation Committee on August 2, 1938 for the purpose of preparing evidence for the West India Royal Commission. The organisation comprised members of the Jamaica Progressive League, the Kingston and St Andrew Federation of Citizens Association (comprising 12 civic bodies), the Women’s Liberal Club (which started the Save the Children Fund), the Jamaica Union of Teachers (of which Amy Bailey was a part), the Permanent Committee of the Mayor’s All-Island Economic, and Industrial Conference of 1938 (this only lasted for three years).

McPherson, vice-president of the league, spoke about trade and tariff regulation. It fell to Brown to advocate self-government. It is uncertain from the records of the Jamaica Progressive League whether any other member of the delegation also got a chance to appear before the commission, but what is clear is that the group was displeased with the manner in which the chairman of the commission peremptorily ordered the clearance of the House at the conclusion of their evidence.

They protested against this treatment and against the decision of the commission to hear the custodies in private session at a meeting held at the Kingston Race Course on November 12, 1938. Later, Brown reflected on the matter and concluded that the exercise was not in futility. In a letter to McFarlane he noted:

‘I was pleased that, in spite of the fact that things in regard to my appearance before the commission did not go off as we expected, everybody seem to have fully grasped the situation and were satisfied. Personally, I do not feel that my visit was in vain. We surely left something with the commission even in regard to self-government and Mr McPherson surely did splendid work as chairman of the deputation.’

The part played in the 1938 riots, including the appearance before the Royal Commission, helped to create a different image of the league among Jamaicans. McFarlane was right on point. It managed ‘to show the worth of the league’, just as he had envisioned. The involvement of the league in a matter that touched the lives of the masses helped to bolster support for the fledgling organisation. They were able to connect with the masses and make themselves relevant to a wider cross-section of Jamaicans.

TOMORROW: (Final Instalment): The Jamaica Progressive League and the PNP

— Kesia Weise is a researcher at the African Caribbean Institute of Jamaica/Jamaica Memory Bank