In these days when the country is seeking out its national heroes and trying to determine meaningful ways to honour them, a step backward is being taken with the removal of Sir Stafford Sands from the $10 banknote.
Notwithstanding that Sir Stafford, as the first minister of finance, is the person deemed responsible for placing the Bahamian dollar in a position where it maintains parity with the U.S. dollar and therefore strong when compared with other currencies in the Caribbean region.
There is no acceptable reason to be given for Sir Staford being taken off unless an equally plausible explanation can be given for not removing Sir Milo Butler ($20), Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield ($5), Sir Lynden Pindling ($1, and Sir Roland Symonette ($50). They were all outstanding Bahamian political heroes and all deserving of being tangibly recognised by the people for whom they laboured.
It is an accepted fact that the banknotes need to be as counterfeit resistant as possible and that at various times in the course of reprinting, additional safety measures will be included. But why, after 32 years of independence from Great Britain and with a move toward replacing the British Monarch with Bahamian icons, is it now necessary to return to again placing the Queen on the money?
This surely needs to be told to the masses in a way that they would understand and accept it.
The Bahamas is economically stable today primarily because of decisions made by Sir Stafford a half century ago when, as the minister responsible, he recognised the potential of making the country a year round tourist destination instead of a three-month winter resort for snow-weary North Americans.
In actuality, Sir Stafford Sands perhaps did more for The Bahamas and the Bahamian people than those who made the decision to take his likeness off the banknote.
Sir Stafford is often referred to as having been a racist, a white man who had no love for black people and who exiled himself from The Bahamas when the Progressive Liberal Party won the Government in 1967. However, it could be reasoned that Sir Stafford was a product of his time, the period in the history of the hemisphere when racial discrimination and segregation were a way of life.
The question is, what is the excuse today for those people who seem to be practicing reverse discrimination and vindictiveness?
Editorial from The Nassau Guardian
