By Nyan Reynolds

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Weds. May 13, 2026: There are elderly men and women throughout the Caribbean today who grew up saluting the British flag, singing “God Save the Queen,” learning British history in school, and pledging allegiance to a Crown that once claimed them as its own. Many of them are now in their sixties, seventies, and eighties, yet few fully understand that at one point in history, they were legally tied to the British Empire as nationals of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Even fewer understand what happened to that identity after independence arrived across the Caribbean.

Recently, I began asking older Caribbean people a simple question:

“Did you know that before independence, you were legally connected to Britain as a colonial national?”

Most looked confused.

Citizen Of The United Kingdom And Colonies

Some had never heard the term “Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies,” commonly referred to as CUKC. Others assumed that because Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, and other Caribbean nations later became independent, whatever relationship existed before simply disappeared without consequence. A few believed they were always only Jamaican, Trinidadian, or Barbadian. Yet history tells a far more complicated story.

For generations born under British colonial rule, identity was never as simple as geography. A child born in Jamaica in 1957 was not born into the same constitutional reality as a child born in Jamaica in 1970. One was born into the British Empire. The other was born into an independent nation. That distinction matters because law shapes identity, and identity often survives long after laws change.

Before Jamaica gained independence in 1962, it was a British colony. The same was true for many Caribbean territories that existed under British control for centuries. People born in these colonies were classified under British nationality law as British subjects and later as Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies following the British Nationality Act of 1948. Their nationality did not come from words printed on a birth certificate. It came from the legal structure governing the colony itself.

In practical terms, this meant that many Caribbean people born before independence were legally tied to Britain. They were part of an imperial system that viewed the colonies not as foreign lands, but as extensions of British rule. This reality shaped every aspect of life. Children attended schools that centered on British history and British values. They learned about British monarchs, wars, literature, and patriotism. Portraits of the Queen hung in classrooms. The Union Jack represented authority and national belonging. The British Empire was not presented as distant. It was presented as home.

This is one of the most overlooked psychological consequences of colonialism.

Colonial education did not merely teach subjects. It taught identity. It cultivated loyalty to the empire and produced generations who were conditioned to see Britain as the political and cultural center of their world. Many Caribbean people grew up knowing more about English kings and queens than they knew about African civilizations, Caribbean resistance movements, or their own ancestral histories. Their worldview was filtered through the lens of empire.

INDEPENDENCE

Then independence arrived.

For countries like Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados, independence represented liberation, dignity, and self-determination. These nations could finally govern themselves without direct colonial oversight. Flags changed. Constitutions changed. Political power shifted into local hands. Across the Caribbean, independence was celebrated as the birth of a new national consciousness.

Yet, beneath the celebration lay another reality rarely discussed.

A generation of people who had spent their entire lives being shaped as colonial subjects suddenly found themselves politically reclassified. The imperial identity they inherited no longer carried the same meaning it once had. Many transitioned from being legally connected to Britain to being citizens of newly independent Caribbean nations almost overnight. The empire that once claimed them was shrinking, and as it shrank, so too did the meaning of imperial citizenship.

This created a profound contradiction.

How do you spend your childhood singing “God Save the Queen,” pledging loyalty to Britain, and learning that you belong to an empire, only to later discover that the relationship was politically temporary?

How does a person emotionally process the idea that they were once considered part of Britain, only to later become categorized as separate from it?

For many Caribbean people, these questions were never clearly explained. Life simply moved forward. Nations became independent, passports changed, and new national identities emerged. Yet the emotional and psychological transition was far more complicated than the constitutional transition.

The law changed quickly. Identity did not.

This fracture became even more visible during the Windrush era. Thousands of Caribbean people migrated to Britain after World War II to help rebuild the country. Britain faced labor shortages in transportation, healthcare, manufacturing, and public services. Caribbean migrants answered the call because many believed they were traveling not to a foreign country, but to what they had been taught was the “mother country.”

Some arrived holding British passports. Many had every reason to believe they belonged there legally and culturally. They worked in hospitals, factories, railways, and transit systems. They paid taxes, raised families, and helped shape modern Britain itself.

Yet decades later, many members of the Windrush generation found themselves questioned, detained, denied healthcare, denied employment, and even threatened with deportation because they could not produce paperwork proving rights they once assumed were unquestionable. The Windrush scandal exposed a painful truth about empire: people who were once welcomed as imperial citizens later became treated as immigrants whose belonging could be challenged.

That contradiction still echoes across the Caribbean diaspora today.

Many elderly Caribbean people do not fully know the legal history of their former status within the empire. They remember the flag. They remember the songs. They remember the schools and the rituals of British colonial life. But few were taught how dramatically their political identity shifted after independence. Some still carry an emotional attachment to Britain while simultaneously identifying deeply with their Caribbean nationhood. Others reject colonial identity altogether because of the harm colonialism inflicted upon the region.

The result is a layered identity that cannot be reduced to a single label.

ANCESTRY

Many Caribbean people are African by ancestry, Caribbean by culture, British by colonial formation, and part of a wider Black Atlantic experience shaped by slavery, migration, empire, and resistance. The modern world prefers clean national categories such as citizen, immigrant, foreigner, or national. But the empire created identities far more complex than modern immigration systems are comfortable admitting.

This is why history matters.

Not because people want to remain trapped in the past, but because the people who lived this history are still alive. There are senior citizens walking throughout Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, and the broader Caribbean who were born into one constitutional reality and aged into another. Some never understood the transition. Some never questioned it. Some are only now realizing that the empire they pledged loyalty to once considered them part of itself.

Their story deserves to be told because identity is not merely paperwork. It is memory. It is education. It is belonging. It is the stories nations tell people about who they are.

The Caribbean carries deep scars from colonialism, but it also carries forgotten truths. One of those truths is that there exists a generation whose lives were shaped by an empire that later redrew the boundaries of belonging around them. They were taught to see Britain as home while simultaneously being kept at the edges of it. They inherited an identity that dissolved politically even while its psychological imprint remained.

And perhaps the greatest tragedy is not simply that this happened, but that so many people who lived through it were never fully told the story of who they once were.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nyan Reynolds is a U.S. Army veteran and published author whose novels and cultural works draw from his Jamaican heritage, military service, and life experiences. His writing blends storytelling, resilience, and heritage to inspire readers.  

RELATED: The Rebel We Need Again: Jimmy Cliff, John Lewis, And The Disappearing Courage To Speak

By Ron Cheong

News Americas, Tues. May 12, 2026: Guyana has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade, following the discovery of vast offshore oil reserves, and has emerged as the world’s fastest-growing economy.  President Irfaan Ali has expressed confidence that the coming decade could prove even more extraordinary, driven by rapid advances in infrastructure, energy, technology, and national development. Yet, amid this unprecedented progress, a serious shadow remains: the Guyana-Venezuela border battle continues. Venezuela continues to lay claim to nearly two-thirds of Guyana’s territory, including the resource-rich Essequibo region. Although Venezuela maintains that it does not recognize the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction, the long-running border controversy has finally come before the Court for adjudication.

The Law, Historical Record, And Established Practice Favor Guyana

Based on the evidence presented so far, it appears highly likely that Guyana will prevail in the case now before the International Court of Justice at the Peace Palace.  This may not be the end, but hopefully it might at least be the beginning of the end.

The law, the historical record, and decades of established state practice all strongly favor Guyana’s position. Venezuela itself celebrated the 1899 Arbitral Award as a victory at the time, having secured control of both banks of the strategically vital Orinoco River – a settlement that remained effectively uncontested for more than sixty years.

Since then, Guyana’s engagement with Venezuela, including during the 1966 Geneva Agreement process, has consistently reflected the posture of a responsible neighbor: acknowledging Venezuela’s differing position while steadfastly maintaining its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Venezuela’s Two-Pronged Gambit: Invoking Post-Colonial Injustice

Despite its claims and periodic provocations, including the recent brooch controversy, Venezuela increasingly appears to understand that its legal position before the Court is weak. As a result, Caracas seems to be pursuing a parallel strategy aimed at shaping international perceptions – not only through legal submissions before the ICJ, but also through a broader diplomatic and public-relations campaign rooted in the language of colonial injustice.

Venezuela argues that the 1899 arbitral process was tainted by manipulation and that the country, weakened and vulnerable at the time, was effectively overpowered by the then-dominant British Empire. That narrative carries emotional and political resonance, particularly across the Global South, where many nations still bear the scars of colonial exploitation and unequal power relations.

Moreover, Venezuela’s diplomatic and public relations offensive appears to be entering a more aggressive – yet far more polished and strategically disciplined phase. Ironically, the removal of Nicolas Maduro, whose administration was widely associated with international isolation, confrontation, and criticism, may have created an opening for a recalibrated Venezuelan leadership to refine its messaging and international posture. The tone is now more measured and sophisticated, crafted to appeal to global audiences and diplomatic institutions, but the substance remains every bit as strident, uncompromising, and expansionist in advancing Venezuela’s longstanding claims over Guyana’s Essequibo region.

On Saturday, Venezuela’s acting President made a dramatic televised announcement declaring that she was traveling to The Hague to personally represent Venezuela in the case before the International Court of Justice, asserting that it was her duty to defend what she described as Venezuela’s “inalienable rights.” The highly choreographed declaration underscored Caracas’ increasingly assertive diplomatic campaign – one designed not only to challenge Guyana’s position legally and politically, but also to project confidence, legitimacy, and resolve on the international stage.

Guyana’s options are therefore either to actively, though discreetly, counter this international public-relations offensive or to allow the eventual ICJ ruling to speak for itself.

Venezuela’s acting President, appeared personally before the International Court of Justice on Monday in what many viewed as an unusually
confrontational and another highly choreographed public relations offensive. Her extraordinary personal appearance before the Court – despite Venezuela’s repeated claims that it does not recognize the ICJ’s jurisdiction, carried an unmistakably defiant and “in- your-face” message aimed as much at the international audience as at the judges themselves.

In a strikingly dismissive and unapologetic closing statement, Rodríguez declared that Venezuela would not accept any ruling by the Court affirming the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that definitively settled the boundary with Guyana. “Even if the Court were to declare
the award valid, Venezuela would be unable to comply with such a ruling,” she argued, insisting that any decision contrary to Venezuela’s position would itself violate the Geneva Agreement and international law.

The spectacle of Venezuela’s acting President personally delivering such a blunt repudiation of the Court’s authority appeared designed to project strength and nationalist resolve. Yet to many observers, it also reflected a government increasingly aware of the legal fragility of its
case and therefore turning to political theatre, diplomatic pressure, and media spectacle to compensate for weaknesses in the historical and legal record.

Building A Global South Narrative Of Its Own

Guyana would likely be better served by not allowing Venezuela to monopolize anti-colonial language. Guyana itself is a post-colonial state: a small developing country of fewer than one million people and approximately 83,000 square miles, facing sustained pressure from a neighbor of roughly 28.6 million people and more than 384,000 square miles in size.

This reality significantly undermines Venezuela’s attempt to invalidate the 1899 Award on the basis of power imbalance. If historical asymmetry alone were grounds to reopen settled borders, countless international frontiers across the developing world could become vulnerable to revisionist claims.

Guyana’s diplomatic messaging should therefore emphasize a central principle: post-colonial justice cannot mean overturning settled international borders whenever historical grievances are invoked.

At the same time, Guyana would benefit from quietly deepening relations not only with Caribbean states – where it remains a leading voice for regional unity, but also with members of the African Union, ASEAN states, and moderate Latin American governments. The broader framing should be clear: this is not “Britain versus Venezuela”; it is about protecting small-state sovereignty, international stability, and the sanctity of international law.

Guyana’s Posture: Dignified And Committed To International Law

If the ICJ rules decisively in Guyana’s favor, as many observers expect, Venezuela’s political establishment, regardless of ideology, may still find it domestically difficult to abandon the claim immediately.

For that reason, Guyana’s post-ruling messaging should avoid framing the outcome as a humiliating defeat for Venezuela. A measured, statesmanlike approach would lower the political cost for Venezuelan leaders to gradually moderate their positions over time. By contrast, triumphalist rhetoric could unintentionally harden Venezuelan nationalism for generations.

Any future provocations should continue to be addressed through the ICJ, the United Nations, CARICOM, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organization of American States, and established diplomatic channels.

Guyana must continue to position itself, as it largely has throughout the dispute, as calm, lawful, restrained, and principled – thereby retaining the moral and diplomatic high ground as a defender of the rules-based international order while Venezuela risks being viewed as revisionist.

Going Forward: Reinforced Sovereignty And Greater Diplomatic Influence

Guyana could ultimately emerge from this dispute with internationally reinforced sovereignty, enhanced investor confidence, stronger diplomatic stature, greater regional influence, and recognition as a mature defender of international law.

A successful outcome before the ICJ would also significantly stabilize the environment for offshore energy development and long-term economic planning. In doing so, Guyana could become a modern example of how small states can successfully defend their sovereignty not through force, but through law, diplomacy, and international legitimacy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ron Cheong is a frequent political commentator and columnist whose recent work focuses on international relations, economic resilience, and Caribbean-American affairs. He is a community activist and dedicated volunteer with extensive international banking experience. Now residing in Toronto, Canada, he is a fellow of the Institute of Canadian Bankers and holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Toronto.

RELATED:

CARICOM News: How U.S. And China Are Shaping Caribbean Energy

The Long Siege Of Cuba: CARICOM At Last Begins Pooling Cash For Cuba Relief Supplies

The Long Siege Of Cuba & Caribbean Geopolitics: The Prequel To King Kong And The Island

King Kong And The Island: America’s Moral Collapse And Cuba

By Staff Reporter | NewsAmericasNow.com

News Americas, WASHINGTON, D.C., Tues. May 11, 2026: The Trump administration has nominated controversial anti-immigration hardliner Kari Lake to serve as United States Ambassador to Jamaica – a move that has implications for the Caribbean diaspora and the hundreds of thousands of Jamaicans living and working in the United States.

The White House sent Lake’s nomination to the Senate on Monday, naming her Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Jamaica. She would replace Jamaican-born former ambassador Nick Perry, who served in the role from 2022 to 2025.

Who Is Kari Lake?

Lake, 56, is a former Phoenix television news anchor who became one of Donald Trump’s most vocal supporters and surrogates following her departure from KSAZ-TV in 2021. She won the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Arizona in 2022 with Trump’s endorsement but narrowly lost the general election to Katie Hobbs – a result she refused to concede, filing a legal challenge that was ultimately rejected by Arizona state courts after nearly two years of litigation.

She subsequently ran for the US Senate in Arizona in 2024, again winning the Republican nomination but losing the general election to Ruben Gallego.

Since March 2025, Lake has served as a senior advisor to the United States Agency for Global Media. She previously served as the agency’s deputy CEO and acting CEO from July to November 2025 – a tenure later ruled illegal by a federal judge who voided all actions she took in that capacity.

A Record That Alarms

For Caribbean and Jamaican diaspora communities across the United States, Lake’s nomination carries serious concerns. She is among the most prominent advocates for the Trump administration’s hardline immigration agenda, having campaigned on implementing what she describes as the largest mass deportation in US history and backing the full construction of the US-Mexico border wall.

Lake has repeatedly framed undocumented immigration as an invasion, said immigrants are rapists, and promoted messaging aligned with the Great Replacement theory – suggesting that open border policies are intentionally designed to replace American voters.

She has also taken aggressive stances against foreign work visas and pushed to reallocate foreign aid funding toward border security measures.

Her rhetoric and record stand in sharp contrast to the diplomatic sensitivities required for a posting to Jamaica – a nation with deep cultural, economic, and family ties to the United States, particularly through its large diaspora communities in New York, Florida, and across the Northeast.

Controversies Follow Her

Lake’s nomination also arrives with a string of controversies. Her leadership at the US Agency for Global Media drew widespread criticism for reducing resources, limiting the reach of Persian-language broadcasting during Iran tensions, and overseeing what employees described as politically motivated editorial interference and censorship.

A Washington Post report cited VOA Persian employees describing a systematic ban on coverage of prominent Iranian dissidents under her watch. In March 2026, a VOA Persian journalist and human rights activist claimed he was fired after confronting a senior adviser over the suppression of anti-regime coverage.

Critics have also pointed to what they describe as hypocrisy in her hardline immigration stance – Lake has made campaign appearances at an Arizona restaurant later raided by federal authorities for employing undocumented workers.

A Sharp Contrast To Nick Perry

The contrast between Lake and her predecessor could not be starker. Nick Perry – who was born in Jamaica and immigrated to the United States – represented one of Brooklyn’s most diverse Caribbean communities for nearly 30 years before being appointed ambassador. His posting was widely seen as a reflection of the deep human ties between the United States and Jamaica.

Lake brings no known connection to Jamaica or the Caribbean, and her public record on immigration enforcement raises direct questions about how she would approach the bilateral relationship – particularly on issues of deportation, remittances, and the treatment of Jamaican nationals in the United States.

Her nomination is now subject to Senate confirmation.

RELATED: DHS Proposes Massive Immigration Fee Hike For Deportation Delays