Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:40:39.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forgotten Workers: British West Indians and the Early Days of the Banana Industry in Costa Rica and Honduras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Elisavinda Echeverri-Gent
Elisavinda Echeverri-Gent
Affiliation:
Elisavinda Echeverri-Gent is an independent international development consultant, currently working with the Inter-American Foundation in Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Central America of books, and indeed of our imaginations, does not have very many black actors. That is not because blacks have not been present in the unfolding of Central American history. It is because their participation has been selectively ignored. During the last decade there have been a few welcome exceptions to this trend; however, a lacuna still remains. This article focuses on the role played by the first generation of black British West Indian immigrants in the development of the Costa Rican and Honduran labour movements - an area of history in which blacks have been particularly ignored.

To this day the populations of black British West Indian descent living on the Atlantic Coast of Costa Rica and Honduras have remained outside the mainstream of political and cultural life in these two countries. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have also been neglected historically.

Nowhere is this tendency more glaring than in the literature on labour history – especially that concerned with the important banana exporting sector. With few exceptions, the role of the British West Indian workers in the early period of the banana industry is dismissed. Those that acknowledge their role minimise the workers' importance by arguing that they failed to act collectively in challenging their employers. In brief, this view argues that black West Indian workers are not important to a study of labour politics in Honduras and Costa Rica.

Historical evidence renders this suggestion invalid. The British West Indian workers who came to Honduras and Costa Rica during the last century in search of employment were neither indifferent to, nor totally accepting of, their situation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 1992 , pp. 275 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For example, the work of Duncan, Quince and Meléndez, Carlos, El negro en Costa Rica (San José, 1981)Google Scholar and Bourgois, Philippe, Ethnicity at Work (Baltimore, 1989)Google Scholar; ‘The Black Diaspora in Costa Rica: Ethnic Mobility and Ethnic Discrimination’, New West Indian Guide, vol. 60, nos. 3 and 4 (1986), pp. 149–163Google Scholar; ‘Ethnic Diversity on a Corporate Plantation’, Cultural Survival, Inc. (Cambridge, MA, 1985).Google Scholar

2 This material is part of a broader comparative study of the paradox presented by the labour movements in Honduras and Costa Rica. They share certain early structural characteristics, e.g. the importance of banana workers to working class formation and the spearheading of their respective labour movements. However, each developed quite differently. The Honduran labour movement, even after long periods of military rule, enjoys a significant political role. In Costa Rica's democracy the labour movement remains politically insignificant and repressed. During the course of research it became clear that there was more to the West Indian banana workers than the passivity which most sources suggested.

3 Excellent exceptions have been cited above. Also Vladimir de la Cruz in his work on the Costa Rican labour movement and Mario Posas in his books on the Honduran labour movement have both touched upon the role played by the British West Indian workers. They have not done so, however, in any systematic or in-depth manner. Seligson, Mitchell also briefly dealt with the West Indian workers in his book Peasants in Costa Rica and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism (Madison, Wisconsin, 1980).Google Scholar

4 Adams, Frederick Upham, The Conquest of the Tropics (New York, 1914), p. 47.Google Scholar

5 Wilson, Charles Morrow, Empire in Green and Gold (New York, 1947), p. 83.Google Scholar

6 Upham, , Conquest, p. 79.Google Scholar

7 May, Stacy and Plaza, Galo, The United Fruit Company in Latin America (Washington, D.C., 1958), p. 5.Google Scholar

8 Wilson, , Empire, p. 5.Google Scholar

9 Putman, George Palmer, The Southland of North America: Rambles and Observations in Central America During the Year if 1912 (New York, 1913), p. 88.Google Scholar

10 Two examples of this type of emphasis in otherwise excellent works are de la Cruz, Vladimir, Las luchas sociales en Costa Rica (San José, 1983), pp. 31–33Google Scholar and Luis, CarlosMonge, Fallas, El movimiento obrero en Costa Rica (San Jose, 1983), p. 68.Google Scholar

11 Between 1881 and 1891 43,000 Jamaicans left the island. Of this number 10,000 went to work in the banana plantations in Costa Rica. Duncan, and Meléndez, , El negro en Costa Rica, p. 64.Google Scholar

12 Gaceta Oficial, 13 April 1872, p. 2Google Scholar; Gaceta Oficial, 4 June 1872, p. 3.Google Scholar

13 Gaceta Oficial, 11 Dec. 1872.Google Scholar

14 Figures compiled from the Gaceta Oficial, 20 Dec. 1872; 5 Jan. 1873; 26 Jan. 1873; 5 Feb. 1873; 15 July 1873; 25 Aug. 1873; 10 Oct. 1873; 15 Oct. 1873; 7 Nov. 1873; 22 Nov. 1874; 13 March 1874; 11 June 1874 and 28 July 1874.Google Scholar A definitive figure is virtually impossible to obtain as good records of this particular immigrant group were not kept by either the host government or their employers.

15 Monge, Fallas, El Movimiento, p. 210.Google Scholar

16 Monge, Fallas, El Movimiento, p. 214.Google Scholar

17 La Gaceta, 24 April 1888Google Scholar; La Gaceta, 18 May 1888.Google Scholar

18 de la Cruz, Vladimir, Las luchas sociales…, p. 34.Google Scholar

19 La República, 27 Oct. 1888, p. 2Google Scholar; El Comercio, 25 Oct. 1888; p. 3Google Scholar; El Comercio, 26 Oct. 1888, p. 2Google Scholar; El Comercio, 27 Oct. 1888, p. 2.Google Scholar

20 De la Cruz, , Las luchas sociales…, p. 35.Google Scholar

21 Adams, Upham, The Conquest, p. 56.Google Scholar

22 Wilson, , Empire, p. 29.Google ScholarAdams, Upham, The Conquest, p. 138.Google Scholar

23 Mallet to Grey, 1914, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 1919:24157.

24 Meléndez, and Duncan, , El negro, pp. 83–84.Google Scholar

25 Political Report from Consul in Tegucigalpa, 20 April 1931, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 150750.

26 Mallet to Governors of Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad, British Guiana, and British Honduras, 1914, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 1919:24157.

27 Mallet to Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, 1913, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 1703:42435.

28 Mallet to Governor of Jamaica, 1913, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 1703:44484.

29 Garden to BFO London on lunacy among West Indians, 2 May 1908, BPRO, Costa Rica/369, no. 126. The Foreign Office obtained its information from Colonial Office estimates, the tracing of banknotes sent to relatives in the colonies, the monitoring of steerage passengers and accounting for the origin of dead workers. Mallet to BFO London, 25 Nov. 1911, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 1176.

30 General Political Report Garden to BFO London, 17 May 1906, BPRO, FO/371, no. 26234.

31 Report from Bocas del Toro, 10 Oct. 1908, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/368, no. 34578; Commercial Report on British Subjects in Canal Zone, 1908, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/368, no. 175:34577; Cox to Mallet, June 1910, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/369, no. 279:19870; Mallet to Grey, 25 Nov. 1911, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 1176.

32 Garden to FO London, 17 May 1906, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2634.

33 Young to FO London, 24 June 1916, BPRO, FO, Guatemala/371, no. 2643.

34 Cox to Mallet, 1910, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/369, no. 279:19870; Report from Consulate in Trujillo, 20 Dec. 1907, BPRO, FO Honduras/369, no. 126.

35 Edward to Secretary of State for the Colonies London, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/3 69, no. 279:12646; Garden to White, 1911, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1059:28545; Annual Report on Heads of State 1912, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1057:28166; Garden to Honduran Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1912, BPRO, FO Honduras/317, no. 1306:5090; Haggard to FO London, Annual Report 1912, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1587:31085; Hepburn to Armstrong, 26 Dec. 1916, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2902.

36 Hepburn to Walter, 13 July 1915, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 2297:134269.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Garden to Honduran Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1912, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1306:5090. The report for 1912 related the ‘La Masica” incident.

40 Petition from British West Indians to Young, 12 April 1916, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2643.

41 Young to FO London, 24 June 1916, BPRO, FO, Honduras/371, no. 2643.

42 J. Glaney, banana worker, to FO London, 1910, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 944:41616.

43 Hepburn to Young, 11 Dec. 1916, in Armstrong despatch to FO London, 26 Dec. 1916, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2902. ‘Zone' was the popular term for the areas in towns which were controlled by the banana company. Only high company employees were allowed to live there.

44 West Indian worker's letter enclosed in Hepburn to Armstrong, 14 Oct. 1919, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 3676.

45 Diario El Comercio, 7 April 1887, p. 2, cited in Duncan, and Melendez, , 1981, p. 78.Google Scholar

46 de la Cruz, Vladimir, Los martins de Chicago y el i de mayo dt 1913) (San José, 1985), p. 61.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., p. 62.

48 General Annual Report, Mallet to FO London, 1911, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 1176:14250.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid. British officials were convinced this was the reason for the union's exponential growth in membership. Membership reached 5,000 workers in a relatively short time. One official stated that ‘…a notable change in the demeanour of the labourers followed. They became insubordinate…'.

51 The Times (Limon, Puerto), 22 Nov. 1910Google Scholar; The Times, 24 Nov. 1910Google Scholar; The Times, 2; Nov. 1910Google Scholar; The Times, 29 Nov. 1910Google Scholar; The Times, 1 Dec. 1910Google Scholar; The Times, 8 Dec. 1910Google Scholar; The Times, 3 Jan. 1911.Google ScholarDe la Cruz, , Los martins, p. 69.Google Scholar Cox to Mallet, 1910, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371 no. 944/43443.

52 Cox to Mallet, 8 Dec. 1910, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 944.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Bourgois, , Ethnicity, p. 54.Google Scholar

57 Mallet to Grey, 24 April 1913, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 1704. El He ratio del Atlántico (Limon, Puerto), 10 March 1913. p. 3Google Scholar; El Heraldo del Atlántico, 31 March 1913, p. 2.Google Scholar British Foreign Office documents give the impression that the Panama-Costa Rica border did not have formal importance to the banana industry. The plantations covered both sides of the borders and workers moved back and forth quite freely.

58 Letter Chitterden to British Consul MacAdams, 28 Dec. 1918 and Letter Chitterden to Governor of Limón Province, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 3856 and 7856, p. 22825. Philippe Bourgois citing other sources puts the date at 2 Dec. 1918.

59 General Report Murray, 3 Feb. 1919, UK Consulate Colon, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 3856; 13162, p. 45,696.

60 Mallet to FO London, 23 Jan. 1919, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 3856.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid., p. 56.

65 Bourgois, , Ethnicity, p. 57.Google Scholar

66 Ibid.

67 The Foreign Office had received 163 complaints from West Indian banana workers during that period.

68 Mallet to FO London, 24 Feb. 1919, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 3856.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid.

71 Kyes to Mallet, 6 March 1919, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 3856.

72 Blair to Murray, 11 June 1919, BPRO, FO Costa Rica/371, no. 3856.

73 Bourgois, , Ethnicity, p. 58.Google Scholar

74 De la Cruz, , Las luchas sociales…, pp. 114–117.Google ScholarOrtega, Víctor H. Acuna, La huelgabananera de 1934 (San José, 1984), pp. 23–25.Google Scholar

75 La Tribuna (San Jose), 2 Jan. 1921, p. 3.Google Scholar

76 Although this incident of cooperation has been recorded virtually no details concerning it are available.

77 El Comercio, 3 March 1913, p. 3.Google Scholar

78 Migration of Central American workers to Limón was not comparable to the far greater influx of hispanics to the Honduran banana plantations. A relative labour shortage as well as employment opportunities in the coffee-exporting sector kept many Costa Ricans away from Limón. Since native and immigrant black workers were not in direct competition for jobs in the banana industry, as was the case in Honduras, worker-organising efforts through racial exclusion were avoided in Costa Rica.

79 Towards the end of the nineteenth century the mining of precious metals had been seen as a vehicle for integration into the world economy. The mines were controlled by US, British and, to a lesser extent, French capital. Owing to financial problems, the low price of silver, low output and political instability the expected boom never took place and the mines were in decline by the turn of the century. Posas, Mario, La construccióndel sector público y del estado national en Honduras (San José, 1983), p. 30.Google Scholar

80 Ibid., p. 32.

81 Lyall Report of Interview with President López Gutiérrez, 9 July 1921. BPRO FO Honduras/371, no. 5550:A5958.

82 Armstrong to Young, 11 July 1914, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2643:139765.

83 Carden to Honduran Foreign Minister, 1912, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1306:5090 and 18644; Letters from Gallop, Scott, Gordon, Holland, Rosario, Ivy, Ewart, Bamer, Gayley and Robinson to FO, 15 May 1912, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1308:24458. Mr Holland and Mr Robinson were survivors of ‘La Masica’.

84 Report British Legation Guatemala on La Masica, 1912, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1308:24458.

85 Ibid., Garden Political Report, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1306:23862.

86 Letter from Young to Grey, 4 May 1914. BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1919:22849. The UFCO was the one most concerned with the issue of West Indian labour. The other companies mostly hired those who drifted away from UFCO farms.

87 Letter Young Guatemala, 3 Aug. 1915, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2296:113189.

88 Report Guatemala Legation, 1917, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2903:50574. Honduras was required to pay compensation. All diplomatic expenses were deducted from this payment. The amount granted to the dead man's family was minuscule.

89 Letter Young to Grey, 4 May 1914. BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 1919:22849.

90 Letter Young to Truxillo Consul, 24 July 1916. BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2643:139765.

91 Young Report, 24 June 1916, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2643:139765.

92 Walter to Young, 1 Aug. 1916, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2643:176479 and 139765.

93 Letter Amos to Grey, 28 July 1916. BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2643:139765.

94 Letter Walter to Young, 1 Aug. 1916. BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2643:139765.

95 Young to FO, 25 Sept. 1916. BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2643:139765.

96 Armstrong Despatch, 26 Dec. 1916. BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 2902:13462. The Foreign Office had secret access to correspondence between the Honduran Foreign Office and UFCO General Manager.

97 Lyall interview with President López Gutiérrez, 9 July 1921. BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 5550:A5958.

98 Smith to Acting Colonial Secretary, 29 July 1924. BPRO, CO Honduras/371, no. 118:56234.

99 1929 Decree no. 101.

100 Walter Report, 1 May 1929. BPRO, FO Honduras/372, no. 2584:6168.

101 In El Salvador the 1920s were a period when thousands of peasants were dislodged owing to the consolidation of coffee land holdings.

102 Durham, William H., Scarcity and Survival in Central America (Palo Alto, CA, 1979), pp. 57 and 124.Google Scholar

103 One important organiser in Honduras was Graciela A. García, a Salvadoran. She was at the forefront of labour and marxist organising in Honduras. García was expelled back to El Salvador during the Tiburcio Carias Andino regime.

104 Vansittart to Johnson, 4 Nov. 1924, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 9518:118; Letter from West Indian worker to FO London, 5 Sept. 1924, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 9518; Smith to Tatum, 29 July 1924 and 19 Sept. 1924, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 9518:118; Acting Consul Trujillo to Armstrong, 25 July 1924, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 9519.

Shaw to Secretary of State, 28 Feb. 1924, Department of State General Files, Internal Affairs Honduras, 1910–29, Micro Copy no. 647, Roll no. 15, National Archives, Washington D.C.; Beaulac, Consul Puerto Castilla, to Secretary of State, 4 May 1924, George P. Waller, Consul La Ceiba, to Secretary of State, 1 March 1925, SD, Internal Affairs Honduras, 1910–29, Micro Copy no. 647, Roll no. 18, National Archives, Washington D.C.

105 Ibid. The only reference to this incident which the author found in Honduran documents was in García, GracielaPáginas de Ayer y Hoy, Cuaderno no. 12, México D.F., 1981.Google Scholar These are accounts of her experience as a labour organiser in Honduras. In her memoirs she recounts a labour conference that took place not far from Trujillo in the summer of 1924. The events in Trujillo were referred to strictly as an instance of workers' collective action ignoring its racial component.

106 G. Smith to A. H. Tatum, 29 July 1924, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 9518.

107 Ibid.

108 G. Watson to FO London, 20 April 1929, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 13471. This despatch enclosed reports from the British Consul in Trujillo and La Ceiba.

109 Telegram Tatum to Walters, 27 April 1929. BPRO, FO Honduras/3 71, no. 551:A3573.

110 Tatum letter, 17 April 1929, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 13471:551.

111 Rodgers to Henderson, 26 Sept. 1929, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 13471:551.

112 Posas, Mario, L.uchas del Movimiento Obrero Hondureao (San Jose, 1981), pp. 47 and 71.Google Scholar

113 El Nuevo Tiempo, Tegucigalpa, 18 July 1916.Google Scholar

114 Meza, Víctor, Historia del Movimiento Obrero Hondureno (Tegucigalpa, 1980), p. 21.Google Scholar

115 Diario del Norte (La Ceiba, ), 28 Sept. 1927.Google Scholar

116 Enciclopedia Históries de Honduras (Tegucigalpa, 1989), p. 93.Google Scholar By 1915 the Cuyamel Fruit Co. was firmly established in the Motagua Valley, along the border between Honduras and Guatemala. The United Fruit Co. was interested in expanding its Guatemalan operations in this same area. This border had been disputed by Honduras and Guatemala for many years. It has been argued that the sudden interest the United States showed in providing arbitration of the dispute was directly related to the tensions between the US firms. In the end Guatemala was granted jurisdiction over the territory.

117 Posas, , Construction, p. 74.Google Scholar

118 Otero, Luis Marinas, Honduras (Tegucigalpa, 1983), pp. 372–373Google Scholar; Enciclopedia, pp. 91–2.

119 Posas, , Construction, p. 79.Google Scholar

120 Armstrong to FO London, 24 July 1919, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 3637.

121 The author found no wholly reliable documentation concerning the incentives for workers to participate in the rebellions. However, there are accounts which state that the soldiers in these rebellions were paid, albeit small sums, for their services. They were also occasionally given clothing, shoes, etc. Luque, Chalo, Las revolutions; en Honduras: memorial de un soldado Hondureno (Honduras, 1981), pp. 141–144.Google Scholar

122 Posas states that some black workers were used as strike breakers. Posas, , Luchas, p. 71.Google Scholar

123 Armstrong to Garden, 14 Nov. 1919, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 3676:A12; Armstrong to Garden 25 Nov. 1919, BPRO, FO Honduras/371, no. 3676:A19.

124 Posas, , Lucbas, pp. 72–73Google Scholar; Bulmer-Thomas, Victor, The Political Economy of Central America since 1920 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 44–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

125 Meza, , Historia, p. 27.Google Scholar

126 British diplomatic correspondence notes that strike leaders who were supposedly arrested and sent to Tegucigalpa, the capital, were greeted as delegates and allowed to proceed with their campaign to expel British West Indians. Walter Report, 6 Aug. 1924. BPRO FO Honduras/371, no. 9519:330.

127 Ibid., pp. 29–30.

128 Ibid., p. 44.

129 Posas, , Lucbas, p. 79.Google Scholar

130 El Combate, 8 Jan. 1932; 14 Jan. 1932 and 15 Jan. 1932.Google Scholar

131 El Combate, 11 Feb. 1932.Google Scholar

132 El Combate, 4 Jan. 1932; 7 Jan. 1932; 8 Jan. 1932; 14 Jan. 1932; 15 Jan. 1932; 19 Jan. 1932; 20 Jan. 1932; 27 Jan. 1932; 1 Feb. 1932; 2 Feb. 1932 and 11 Feb. 1932.Google Scholar

Vice-Consul Tela enclosed in J. Lay to Secretary of State, 19 Jan. 1932, SD, Internal Affairs Honduras, 1930–39, Box 5489, no. 386, National Archives, Washington D.C.; Higgins to Secretary of State, 20 June 1932, SD, Internal Affairs Honduras, 1930–39, Box 5501, no. 515, National Archives, Washington D.C.; J. Lay to Secretary of State, 3 March 1932, SD, Internal Affairs Honduras, 1930–39, General Conditions Report, Box 5491 no 416, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

133 Posas, Mario, Las sociedades artesanales y los orígenes de movimiento obrero Hondureño (Tegucigalpa, 1977), pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

134 Posas, , Luchas, p. 79.Google Scholar

135 Durham, William, Scarcity and Survival in Central America (Palo Alto, CA, 1979), p. 57.Google Scholar