Of an ass and representation

Mr. Editor,

Ok, first, it was pretty ironic to see politicians taking a picture in front of a mural of an ass. They are last people that should be taking pictures next to that thing. At the minimum think about messaging and imagery man. Anyway, now to get serious and hopefully mature. But while I write, I won't hold my breath because our people, amongst all peoples in the Caribbean, seem to understand the least about identity and representation. We are truly watered down. But alas, to the point.

The mini public debate over the new mural at Clem Labega Square has largely been reduced to one question: is the donkey disrespectful or not? And that misses the more important issue. The problem is not the donkey itself. Donkeys were undeniably part of St. Martin’s history. They carried goods, supported livelihoods, and formed part of daily life in an earlier era. No serious person is denying that.

The real concern is how the donkey has been centered and elevated in this particular mural, in this particular place. Public symbols do more than reflect the past, they also reveal what we are choosing to honor in the present. When a large donkey is made the dominant image overlooking a central civic space, without equally centering the people who built Philipsburg, the salt workers, market women, fishermen, laborers, and ordinary families whose sweat shaped this island, the message can feel diminishing. It can appear as though the burden is being remembered more vividly than the people who carried it.

That is why this criticism should not be dismissed as ignorance, negativity, or hostility toward history. It is not anti-history. It is about representation and hierarchy.

Yes, the donkey belongs in the story of old St. Martin. But should it be the main visual symbol over a public square? That is where the discomfort begins. When the animal becomes the dominant image, the mural risks romanticizing hardship instead of honoring the resilience and dignity of the people who endured that hardship. It can unintentionally suggest that the donkey is the face of that era, when many would argue that the true face of that era should be the men and women who worked, sacrificed, and built this country.

There is also another layer that deserves attention. The vintage postcard style may be historically inspired, but it can also carry the feel of an outsider lens, one that packages St. Martin as quaint, rustic, and picturesque. What some may see as nostalgic, others may see as a simplified image of our past, stripped of the human depth, struggle, and pride that should come first in any serious representation of our heritage.

Location also matters. A mural in such a visible, civic setting reads like a public statement. And public art must be judged not only by the artist’s intention (which were good), but by the first impression it gives to the people who live with it. If the immediate impression is a donkey “looking over” Philipsburg, then organizers cannot be surprised that some residents feel mocked rather than honored.

This is the point critics are trying to make, and it is a fair one: the disrespect is not in using a donkey, it is in allowing the donkey to dominate the story while the people whose sweat built that history remain invisible.

And then there is how something makes people feel. This is too easily dismissed by the younger more "newer" generation who just don't "get" it. Facts may fade, words may be debated, and actions may be reinterpreted, but the emotional impact of a moment often stays with people for years, nae, for generations.

That is exactly why it is dangerous to dismiss how people feel when they react to history, culture, or public symbols. Too often, we rush to correct, minimize, or silence those feelings instead of trying to understand where they come from. But feelings, especially those tied to history and identity, do not come out of nowhere. They are rooted in memory, lived experience, and the meanings people carry with them.

You do not have to agree with someone’s perspective to recognize that how something makes them feel matters. A donkey in that setting makes some people feel insulted, belittled and minimised. Period! Connected sensitivities should have been considered. Understanding that is wisdom. And in a time when people are too quick to talk over one another, that kind of understanding is needed more than ever.

A mature society should be able to hold both truths at once. We can acknowledge the donkey’s place in our past while also insisting that our public symbols place human dignity at the center of the story. If a mural is meant to celebrate heritage, then the highest honor should go first to the people, not the beast of burden.

(𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫 - 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴. 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳. 𝘐𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘜𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘢 “𝘓𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.”. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.  𝘚𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦.)

‍