THE ROAD FROM COLONY TO COUNTRY: THE UNTOLD MAKING OF SOVEREIGN BELIZE THE BATTLE BELIZE INHERITED

osilva

8

min read

A- A+

Read

Sun, 09/13/2026 - 07:40

Posted in:

World

0 comments

1798 was an event. 1898 helped construct its national memory. But neither created the sovereign country called Belize.

CHAPTER ONE

SPECIAL HISTORICAL SERIES

Belize City: Sunday 13th September 2026: There comes a point in the life of every mature nation when patriotism must become strong enough to withstand history.

Not the history polished for ceremonies.
Not the history compressed into schoolbook paragraphs.
Not the history inherited from colonial administrators, political parties or competing nationalisms.

But history with its contradictions restored.

For Belize, perhaps nowhere is that examination more necessary than September 10.

For more than a century Belizeans have been taught to look toward the waters surrounding St. George's Caye and see something resembling the beginning of the nation.

But there is a fundamental distinction that our national consciousness must now be mature enough to confront:
The logwood settlement that survived in 1798 was not yet the sovereign nation that emerged in 1981.

Something happened in those waters.

The documentary record is sufficiently substantial that dismissing the Battle of St. George's Caye as an invented event would itself distort history.

But another thing also happened.
The event acquired a meaning.
And the history of how that meaning was constructed may ultimately tell us almost as much about Belize as the battle itself.

1798 — BEFORE THERE WAS A BELIZEAN STATE

The people confronting the Spanish expedition in September 1798 were not defending the Nation of Belize.
There was no independent Belizean government.
There was no Belizean Constitution.
There was no Belizean citizenship.
There was no internationally recognised Belizean territory.
There was no blue-and-red national flag.
There were no sovereign people exercising authority over a state called Belize.

There was instead a British settlement operating within the much larger imperial struggle between Britain and Spain.

That distinction does not diminish the historical importance of what occurred.
It locates it correctly.
And locating history correctly is not an act of disrespect.
It is an act of intellectual independence.

THE PEOPLES' HISTORY LEFT IN THE SHADOWS

The traditional story becomes even more complicated when we ask a deceptively simple question:

Who were the people defending the settlement?

The surviving documentary record shows preparations involving men across racial and legal categories—including free men of colour and enslaved Africans.

And there lies one of the greatest contradictions in the patriotic narrative.
Belizeans have inherited the beautiful expression that Black and White defenders fought “shoulder to shoulder.”

Perhaps they did.

But standing shoulder to shoulder during military danger did not make those men shoulder-to-shoulder equals when the danger passed.

Slavery remained.

African men who could become indispensable when the settlement required defence could return to a society in which other human beings legally claimed ownership over them.

That uncomfortable fact does not destroy the September 10 story.
It makes the story human.
And considerably more important.
Because national unity should never require national amnesia.

THEN COMES 1898

A century after the confrontation, something enormously important occurred.
The event was transformed into an institutionalised public commemoration.
September 9 and 10 were declared holidays for the centenary celebrations.
Public committees organised festivities.
Patriotic language developed around the battle.
Songs reinforced its meaning.

The event increasingly became not merely something that had happened in 1798 but something later generations were being encouraged to understand as foundational.

And this occurred inside British Honduras.

Inside a colony.
Under British authority.
That is precisely why former Prime Minister Rt. Hon. Said Musa's recent description of September 10 as a “colonial construct” deserves serious examination rather than reflexive outrage.
It need not mean that the military encounter was invented.

It can mean something considerably more sophisticated:

the national meaning subsequently attached to the encounter was constructed substantially within the colonial period.

There is an enormous difference between those propositions.

A MYTH DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A LIE

This distinction is essential.
National myths frequently contain genuine historical events.
What makes them myths is not necessarily fabrication.
It is the process through which complicated history becomes simplified into an explanatory story about who “we” are.

Real people become heroes.

Ambiguous confrontations become decisive victories.
Contradictions disappear.

Later national identities are projected backwards onto people who may never have understood themselves in those terms.

The story becomes easier to remember.
Easier to celebrate.
And sometimes easier to govern with.
That process occurred throughout the world.
Belize should not be afraid to examine whether it occurred here.

BUT BELIZE'S STORY DID NOT BEGIN IN 1798

There is another historical correction that a genuinely decolonised account requires.

The territory did not suddenly enter history when British settlers and Spanish forces contested it.

Maya civilisation was here long before either empire.

Therefore a national story beginning exclusively with Baymen and Spain inevitably begins too late.

Recognising this does not diminish Creole history.
Nor African history.
Nor Mestizo history.
Nor Garifuna history.

It enlarges Belizean history sufficiently to accommodate all of them.

That is what a multi-ethnic nation requires.

THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION

Now we reach the bridge into our larger investigation.

Because something extraordinary happened during the twentieth century.

The descendants of people living inside a colonial settlement gradually developed institutions and a political consciousness through which they began asserting something fundamentally different:

We are not merely inhabitants of British Honduras.
We are a people.

And eventually: We are Belizeans.

That transformation cannot be explained by one politician, one political party or one date.

Workers participated.
Trade unions participated.
Teachers participated.
Journalists participated.
Women participated.
Students participated.
Churches participated.
Political organisations participated.
Intellectuals participated.
And competing ideological movements participated.

Some wanted reform.
Some wanted independence.
Some demanded deeper social transformation.
Some feared independence.
Some challenged British colonialism.
Some feared Guatemala more.

Some questioned whether merely replacing British constitutional authority with a Belizean political elite would constitute genuine liberation at all.

That debate produced something enormously valuable.

National consciousness.

1969 — WHEN YOUNG BELIZE STARTED ASKING DIFFERENT QUESTIONS

This is where Chapter One deliberately opens the door to Chapter Two.

In February 1969 the United Black Association for Development — UBAD emerged.
The People's Action Committee — PAC, associated prominently with Assad Shoman and Said Musa, followed.

For several months UBAD and PAC joined through the Revolitical Action Movement — RAM. Contemporary accounts place Evan X Hyde and Ismail Shabazz among the UBAD personalities and Shoman and Musa among the PAC leadership.

They disagreed.
They eventually separated.
Their ideological trajectories differed.

But something larger than any organisation had entered Belizean politics.

They questioned inherited structures.
Race.
Class.
Foreign economic domination.
Black identity.
Capital.
Political power.
Culture.
Education.
The meaning of freedom itself.
And that matters enormously to the history of independence.

Because the question was no longer merely: When will Britain leave?

A younger generation was beginning to ask: What kind of society will remain when Britain leaves?

That is an altogether more revolutionary question.

AND THEN BELIZE TOOK ITS CASE TO THE WORLD

The struggle subsequently moved from Belizean streets and political organisations into international diplomacy.

By 1975 the Belize question had reached a decisive international stage.

On December 8, 1975, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3432 (XXX) was adopted by 110 votes to 9, with 16 abstentions.

The importance of that moment cannot be overstated.

The international community was increasingly recognising that Belize was not simply British territory over which Britain and Guatemala could bargain indefinitely.

There was another actor.

THE PEOPLE OF BELIZE.

And those people possessed an inalienable right to self-determination and independence, together with territorial integrity.

Five years of additional diplomacy followed.
Resolution after resolution reinforced the principle.

Then came the breakthrough.

NOVEMBER 11, 1980

UN General Assembly Resolution 35/20 declared that unresolved differences between Britain and Guatemala could no longer be permitted to delay Belizean self-determination.

Its reasoning went directly to the heart of sovereignty: disagreement between other governments could not extinguish the rights belonging to the Belizean people themselves.

Think about the transformation.

In 1798, imperial powers fought over a settlement.

By 1980, the international community was increasingly saying:

The people living there possess rights that neither imperial history nor territorial claims can simply override.
That is the journey from object to subject.
From territory being discussed by others—
to a people speaking for themselves.

THEN CAME 1981 — AND BELIZE ALMOST TORE ITSELF APART

The final road to independence was not the tidy patriotic procession sometimes remembered today.

It became explosive.

On March 11, Britain and Guatemala signed the Heads of Agreement.

Read today, the document remains startling.

It contemplated Guatemalan access to territorial seas and the high seas; use and enjoyment of Ranguana and Sapodilla Cayes under arrangements to be negotiated; free-port facilities at Belize City and Punta Gorda; transit arrangements; road improvements; and facilitation of oil pipelines, among other provisions.

Belizeans reacted.
Opposition intensified.
The Public Service Union opposed the proposals.
Students became involved.
Protests and disorder followed.
A state of emergency eventually came.

The Belize Archives' own catalogue of contemporary 1981 material preserves the extraordinary pace of those weeks: government statements, material on the Heads, interviews, CARICOM activity and the Declaration of Belmopan all appear within days of one another.

That episode deserves its own chapter because it exposes something fundamental:
Belizeans were not simply waiting for independence to be handed to them.
They were arguing fiercely over the conditions under which they were prepared to receive it.
And whatever one's political interpretation of those protests, one principle emerges powerfully:
territory had become inseparable from Belizean sovereignty.

SEPTEMBER 21, 1981

And finally, the transformation was completed.

Not because every controversy had disappeared.
Guatemala's claim had not disappeared.
Belizean political divisions had not disappeared.
Economic dependence had not disappeared.
Colonial institutions did not vanish overnight.
But something legally and historically irreversible had occurred.
Belize became the sovereign authority over Belize.

That is why September 21 and September 10 cannot mean precisely the same thing.

September 10 commemorates an event occurring inside the imperial history from which Belize eventually emerged.
September 21 marks Belize's emergence from colonial rule itself.
One belongs to the inheritance.
The other belongs to sovereignty.

Both can remain in our national history.
But they should not be confused.

GEORGE PRICE'S EXTRAORDINARY HISTORICAL ROLE

This also permits us to understand George Price more deeply.

Price did not need to erase September 10.

He could inherit it—and eventually politically supersede it.

The colonial National Day became a platform upon which the independence movement could progressively articulate an anti-colonial Belizean identity.

The symbolism is remarkable.
The inherited colonial stage eventually became a stage from which colonialism itself could be challenged.
That is political transformation.

And September 21 ultimately provided independent Belize with something September 10 could never provide:

a national day grounded not in Britain's survival in the settlement, but in Belize's sovereignty over itself.

THE BATTLE BELIZE INHERITED

So where does that leave September 10?

Not in the rubbish bin.
Not erased.
Not dishonoured.
And certainly not forgotten.

It belongs exactly where serious history should place it:

inside the complicated inheritance from which Belize emerged.
The encounter happened.
Its consequences mattered.
African participation matters.
The Baymen matter.
The Spanish expedition matters.
The reef and maritime geography matter.
The colonial reinterpretation matters.
The centenary commemoration matters.
The construction of patriotic tradition matters.
And the later struggle to transcend colonial identity matters.

All of it belongs to us.

BUT OUR INVESTIGATION HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN

Because between 1798 and 1981 lies the story that National Perspective Belize will now pursue.

How did British Honduras become Belize?
How did colonial subjects begin thinking of themselves as citizens of a future nation?
What role did labour play?
What role did Black consciousness play?
What role did Maya, Garifuna, Mestizo and other communities play?
What did Britain privately believe?
What did Washington privately believe?
What did Guatemala privately calculate?
What did Caribbean governments do?

How did Africa and the Non-Aligned Movement become diplomatic allies of a tiny Central American territory?

What compromises were contemplated?
What pressures were exerted?
What did George Price refuse?
What did Belizean opposition forces fear?
What happened behind closed doors while speeches about independence were being delivered publicly?
And perhaps the most important question:

WHEN DID BELIZEANS BEGIN TO BELIEVE THAT BELIZE BELONGED TO THEM?

That question takes us directly into Chapter Two.

NEXT: CHAPTER TWO

WHEN THE COLONY BEGAN QUESTIONING ITSELF

1969–1974: UBAD, PAC, RAM and the generation that demanded more than a change of flag

We will return to Belize of 1969.

To Evan X Hyde.
To Assad Shoman.
To Said Musa.
To Ismail Shabazz.
To the young activists.
To the intellectual confrontations.
To Black consciousness.

To accusations of communism.
To political prosecutions.
To the Supreme Court.
To Amandala.

To the relationship—and confrontation—between radical transformation and George Price's nationalist independence project.

Because something was happening beneath the surface of British Honduras.
The colony had begun arguing with itself about what freedom actually meant.
And once a colonised people begin asking that question seriously, the colonial clock has already started running.

National Perspective BELIZE — SERIES DECLARATION

This series will not attempt to manufacture heroes or villains.

It will follow the documents.
It will distinguish evidence from interpretation.
It will recover voices that official narratives sometimes left behind.
And where the historical record contradicts our assumptions, the assumptions—not the historical record—must yield.

Because this project is ultimately larger than September 10.

It is the story of how people living inside a colony gradually acquired the consciousness, institutions, political will and international recognition necessary to call themselves a sovereign people.