Nowadays, it became quite fashionable sociologists and political scientists to discuss the essence of Caribbean people’s existential mode as such that derive out of their possession of strongly defined ‘Caribbean identity’. In its turn, this identity is being defined as something that has very little to do with the qualitative essence of native populations’ tendency to assess surrounding reality through ethno-cultural lenses. Apparently, people in the Caribbean are being assumed capable of adopting an open-minded perspective onto the very concept of identity, as opposed to be concerned with exploring the subtleties of their individuality in essentially tribalistic manner. After all, since most Germans, Brits and French do not have objections against being referred to as ‘Westerners’, why should Dominicans, Puerto-Ricans and Haitians, for example, have objections against being referred to as simply ‘Caribbeans’? And, once the existence of a distinct Caribbean identity is being confirmed, it will provide the advocates of such an identity with a legitimate justification to look into gaining additional academic credits by designing ‘theories’ as to how ‘Caribbean identity’ should be explored by those who are believed to posses it, in the first place. After all, according to multicultural paradigm, regardless of what ethno-cultural identity’s qualitative subtleties might be, it should never ceased being celebrated: “Visibility establishes who we are. It supports the naming of the Caribbean identity in America; it gives context to our being and history to our belonging… So my fellow Caribbeans, my fellow Americans, let us celebrate [identity] together” (Nelson, 2007, p. 3). Nevertheless, the actual realities of Caribbean living point out to the fact, unlike what the proponents of a strong ‘Caribbean identity’ would like us to believe, the natives in the Caribbean proper continue to think of their existential identity as something quite inseparable from the color of their skin and their culturally-religious affiliation. And, given the fact that the color of people’s skin in the Caribbean, ranges rather dramatically from country to country, the very idea of a unified ‘Caribbean identity’ appears conceptually fallacious. As Schmidt (2008) had pointed out: “With regard to the multiple dimensions of Caribbean culture(s) one has to accept that culture can no longer be defined as a self-contained entity but as something full of discontinuities, repetitions and contradictions” (p. 2). In our paper, we will aim to explore the validity of an earlier articulated suggestion at length, while arguing that, as of today, there are no objective preconditions for people in the Caribbean to posses ‘trans-ethnic’ sense of identity. In his book, Anderson (1991) came up with particularly valuable observation, in regards to the discussed subject matter: “Nationness is virtually inseparable from political consciousness” (p. 135). What author wanted to say is that, the subtleties of how one perceives its national/social identity cannot be discussed outside of what defines such individual’s ability to indulge in abstract reasoning. For example, prior to French Revolution of 1789, Europeans were not even aware of such notion as ‘nation’. And, the reason why, during the course of 19 th century, this notio