Why Trinidad and Tobago artists are up in arms about the country’s attempt to ‘decolonise’ its coat of arms

Image of a tenor steelpan via Canva Pro. The proposed update to Trinidad and Tobago's coat of arms includes the representation of a tenor pan to replace Columbus's three ships.

After much public discussion about the role of statuary, iconography and other visible aspects of the Caribbean's shared colonial past — the presence of which, to many, continues to whitewash the accuracy of the historical narrative — Trinidad and Tobago's government has decided to make changes to the country's coat of arms.

Those changes involve replacing the images of Christopher Columbus's three ships with one of the steelpan, the country's newly minted national instrument. Designed in 1962, the year of Trinidad and Tobago's independence from Britain, by a committee that included respected artist Carlyle Chang and Carnival designer George Bailey, the national emblem was meant to incorporate colonial and Indigenous elements of the country's history. At the top — called the crest — is a golden ship's wheel in front of a coconut tree, which had traditionally appeared as the central image on the seals of British Colonial Tobago. The helm, meanwhile — a gold helmet representing the then queen — crowns off the shield on which the three ships in question appear.

On January 13, through the National Emblems of Trinidad and Tobago (Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 2025, there was parliamentary approval for the proposed modification, giving legal effect for the change. However, while stakeholders from Pan Trinbago were hailing the move as “a defining moment for our nation,” once the new design was released, local artists, writers, and graphic designers began to weigh in.

First off the blocks was illustrator Raj Ra, who was “flabbergasted” at the fact that “the artist who did this used digital tools on a traditional piece.” He pointed out that the techniques used on the original coat of arms included hatching, pencil shading and highlighting but “no soft blending of the brush.”

“Because they are two different mediums,” he continued, “the steelpan kind of pushes itself forward and it kinds of feels like you're not watching one piece.” For the updated design to have worked, he suggested, the techniques used in the original needed to be replicated. “And,” he quipped at the end of his video, “don't get me started on the pan sticks.”

On her blog, graphic designer Ayrid Chandler put in her “two cents” worth. She began by clarifying the prevailing narrative of how the coat of arms came to be designed in the first place: “When Trinidad and Tobago gained independence in 1962, Carlisle Chang was ‘hired’ to draw/design our coat of arms. This is a British tradition as we were under the British rule at the time. His sketch was then sent to London to be properly illustrated by a heraldic artist in the style of all other coat[s] of arms. He was not paid for this job and it was done by him alone within a short period of time, although it was meant to be the work of an independence committee. This is what we’ve used for the past 60+ years to represent our government and ministries and our country.”

She also questioned the process surrounding the redesign. The artist charged with the redesign was local jeweller Gillian Bishop — “and [two] months later,” Chandler said, “we are presented with what is meant to be our new coat of arms. […] To say I’m disappointed is an understatement. […] I also have an issue with our country not understanding the importance of our identity and not going about the process the right way. Our national identity isn’t something that should be rushed. And it’s definitely not as simple as removing some ships and adding a newly appointed national instrument.”

Citing the coats of arms of countries like Haiti and Mexico, which “do a great job of reflecting the identity of their country and their post colonial selves,” Chandler posited that if the intent of the change, as stated by Prime Minister Keith Rowley, was to remove “the colonial vestiges embedded in our constitution,” then “a lot of additional elements need addressing.”

Meanwhile, Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts Randall Mitchell repudiated criticism of the updated coat of arms, defending Bishop's “artistic expression” and saying, “The majority of people are in favour of it.” To this, graphic designer Marlon Darbeau posted on his Instagram account:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by MARLON DARBEAU (@marlondarbeau)

“A Coat of Arms,” Darbeau clarified, “is not a piece of ‘Art’ subject to individual taste and therefore does not merely exist for pleasure or entertainment. It is the identity of a nation — a symbol meant to distinguish us, encapsulate our values, and reflect our aspirations… Together we aspire, together we achieve. […] This process is not about whether people ‘like it’; it's about defining who we are and clearly expressing those values through the Coat of Arms, as well as all related communication materials with the steelpan as a key element in the broader narrative.”

He added that the process should also have involved “conducting research, which would have included gathering insights from stakeholder interviews and auditing the global Coat of Arms’ visual landscape,” and testing the design.

Meanwhile, writer Kevin Jared Hosein offered his own point of view: “A coat of arms is a story stitched from emblems. The ships are part of this particular one's story. The ships, the hills, it is why this island is called Trinidad. But I'm not here to debate erasure of history […] Focus on story, and you would see how this would've benefited from a full top-down redesign to incorporate the pan motif. Why even stop at the pan then, with the colonial helmet still sitting so ostentatiously? Just a thought – imagine this same helmet and mantle crushed at the feet of our national birds, plumage and all. Without the ships, what is the purpose of the wheel, the hills, the waves on the channel? A clumsily edited story, it is shaping up to be!”

The aesthetic of the revised coat of arms also failed to impress Hosein, and as for the goal of removing the vestiges of colonialism, he argued, “It is not. It is a halfway dream, suspended between intention and inaction. No, this was never about colonial vestiges. Will the coat of arms become like a tree at the top of a politically charged nature hike? Before you leave, take out your knife and etch onto it, _______ WAS HERE. Then below it, _______ WAS HERE TOO. And on, and on. It remains true, for many nations, that a coat of arms is as much a burden as it is a boast.”

In support of this point, Hosein turned the discussion back to the original artist, Carlisle Chang, and his destroyed masterpiece: “Today, in Piarco Airport's arrivals hall stands a replica of a fascinating mural, The Inherent Nobility of Man. You'd know it by the indigenous winged man. Carlisle Chang did the original. Chang also co-designed the coat of arms. Both tell a story; colonial, anti-colonial, almost like two sides of a coin. The original mural was put up in 1962. In 1976, the Government allowed it to be destroyed. In interviews, Chang seems too morose to elaborate.[…]

“Of course, we don't know the jeweller's brief (as a professional, she would know how to decline a job), and this was not her only submission, she claims. In fact, no one yet knows who approved this iteration, not even she. This is the fault of many. All themselves captains in the distant haze. The jeweller has now proclaimed that she does not care about the public she was designing for. She will one day die. The anonymous person or committee in the Office of the Prime Minister who selected this version will one day die. […] The President that facilitates its assent will one day die. The rest of us might very well be stuck with this for decades.”

Contemporary artist Christopher Cozier posted visual examples — the latest iteration of the coat of arms among them — of “the acts of vandalism prosecuted on our behalf over and over,” while Facebook user Ismail Barton summed up the whole debacle this way: “Supposedly, the drive behind it was to push forward decolonisation. That's a necessary and good thing. However, the way they went about it doesn't feel like decolonisation. A design made by one person, hand-picked by the PM's inner circle, and thrust upon the rest of us with no take-backs doesn't feel very liberating. What could have been a beautiful moment in our history has instead become yet another reminder that while our colonial ‘masters’ may have gone, their system of subjugation remains very much intact.”

Start the conversation

Authors, please log in »

Guidelines

  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.