Dear Editor,
On Friday, June 1, I read with great interest the article entitled ‘Neglect and backlog’ in Statia, Knops tells MPs, in your esteemed paper. Knops stated, and I quote, “The situation is serious, the neglect and backlog even more extensive than previously thought and visible and noticeable in virtually all areas”. Knops also said the situation in Statia is of such a nature that “it will take a long time to realize tangible effects for residents”.
In a 1975 report, written by Abraham van der Mark, it emerged that many reports have been written about challenges that exist(ed) in St. Eustatius over the years. In one instance, it was pointed out that in 1971, Croes and Tijssen, Netherlands Antillean Minister of Social and Economic Affairs and Director of the Department of Social and Economic Affairs respectively, visited Statia for a day and painted the following picture: “St. Eustatius presents a picture of an impoverished island, which has been entirely left to its own fate”.
In a ’74 editorial in Statia, it was stated “Presently there isn’t much going on today than what has been going on a couple of weeks ago. One could easily change a couple of weeks into a couple of decades….”
Abraham van de Mark made mention of the fact that all the reports written about Statia talked about the same things, namely: the lack of a good administration, problems of communication, poverty and economics. He went on to say that one should save him/ herself energy by simply copying one of the reports written in earlier years. With this knowledge in mind, I therefore struggle to understand why one believes that the Dutch take-over of the island has led to ‘new discoveries’!
I will not deny that Statia has been faced with many challenges over the years, but negative perceptions by the well-intended researcher have added fuel to the fire. Van der Mark talked about this in his 1975 report: “The negative descriptions in the many reports (mostly written with good intentions) have contributed to a negative image of St. Eustatius and to stereotypes about its population. This image and these stereotypes are dangerous because if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”.
In the many reports written about Statia, the recommendations given were always provided by the authors of the reports, external consultants who visited Statia for short periods of time. One should therefore ask the following question: Who are the ones responsible for seeking solutions for the structural problems that exist in Statia, problems made worse by the findings of the well-intended foreigner?
Xiomara Balentina
