Nunley reading

One particularly interesting aspect of the reading was the discussion of Carnival costumes as evidence of an amalgamation of cultures. Influences from both European cultures and colonized countries were obvious throughout Carnival costumes. Nunley mentions the idea that Carnival brought unity and identity to Trinidad, although it was a country that was previously characterized by “racial tension, cultural bias, and religious bigotry.” (p 85) This inclusion of aspects relevant to European identity, as well as aspects relevant to Caribbean identity in Carnival costumes results in many questions regarding identity of Trinidad citizens. It reminds me of the idea of double consciousness that Gilroy discussed. The black citizens of Trinidad obviously have an understanding of and relation to European culture and identity, yet are they also affording themselves some level of agency in defining their own identity as it relates to their African heritage? Because of the inclusion of European and African influences, are Carnival costumes one example of Gilroy’s idea that there is no way to explicitly define an identity specifically linked to only one culture? Considering colonization and Europe’s influence of Trinidad, could Carnival reveal an example of Gilroy’s argument that identity cannot be succinctly and simply separated by country or culture? Is this idea also relevant when discussing Chinese and East Indian influences, in addition to other influences mentioned in the reading, such as images brought back to Trinidad from Yucatan, Mexico?

It appears that Carnival reveals, through its costumes, numerous influences from different cultures and countries. I’m curious to understand how the performers interpret the general idea of incorporating multiple influences, rather than attempting to define a singular Trinidad identity. Additionally, the country has become more unified through Carnival. How has the combination of influences created that new level of unity?