To the editor:

Responding to “Revisiting Grenada four decades on” (Salem News, Oct. 23), I disagree with this article as it is written from a colonial perspective with a romantic tone of Grenada before and after U.S. intervention, lacking an imagination of Grenada outside of a colonial lens.

The U.S. invasion ultimately relegated Grenada to a state similar to all of its colonial history — providing labor and raw materials for markets abroad, and being an attractive vacation destination for western tourists. For example, the author writes about the aromas of spices, which were cultivated and capitalized upon by colonial powers. The author admits he knew nothing about Grenada until U.S. intervention. So concluding with describing Grenada as “back to how it always was” frames the nation only within a colonial context.

It’s true that Grenadians were happy with the U.S. invasion because the entire island was on house arrest in the days after the military coup deposed the Bishop government. It should be noted Bishop’s government had made material gains in development for the country.

Reverting to “how it’s always been” after the invasion denies the potential outcomes of that independent development. At the end of the day, Grenada is still a commonwealth nation with the Queen of England on its currency, and no matter how sympathetic the people may be, I don’t think the author has a perspective on why that is still the case, and why that is problematic.

Alex Sands,

Brooklyn, N.Y.