Dear Editor,
There are two reasons for my response to the last letter from Minister Rohee. The first is that Minister Rohee in response to a letter about him from Mr. Ogunseye dealt with a topic, which has now taken the limelight in the presidential race in the US. The second reason is that in light of Mr. Rohee’s observations I would like answers from him to questions I will present later.
Minister Rohee characterized the resistance he, his party and government are getting from the persons and groups representing African Guyanese as sentiments based on the African Liberation theology.
He wrote that the combustible combination of, “Black cultural nationalism and political extremism” ignores “objective reality and seeks to impose its own metaphysical and prejudicial views on society by appealing to race and ethnic insecurity. Small wonder why utterances about “marginalisation” “racial discrimination”, Black “liberation and resistance”, can be heard from time to time emanating from certain quarters.”
This particular observation by Minister Rohee is fair although I do not think Mr. Ogunseye’s specific criticism of the Minister is based on that theology. Anyway, I believe that the lingering ideological remnant of this once necessary and powerful African liberation movement, which is carried over into this new millennium is causing more harm than good for Africans generally.
I am very much aware of the genocide that Europeans, propelled by avarice, greed and in the name of Christianity, have perpetrated on Africa and other civilizations generally and on African slaves and their descendants specifically.
What is noteworthy is that Africans have triumphantly endured slavery and the “un-civil” period in North America.
The struggle now should be to take full advantage of where we are today. When we take into consideration that the majority of the descendants of the avaricious breed have recognized their ancestors’ atrocities with condemnations and even though they have concluded that reparations should not be their responsibility they have, however, laid down a reasonably fair playing field, which gives us the same options and opportunities they now have. Minister Rohee’s comments are made at the same time that similar sentiments are raised in the US presidential race. Many observers believe that Reverend Wright’s utterances, which caused Senator Obama to defensively make a speech on “race”, are motivated by African Liberation theology. This controversy has revealed that these sentiments, though not prominent, are still prevalent in the African American community.
We must note Senator Obama’s response to all of this. He rejected endorsements from the Black Panthers and Louis Farrakhan and even though he did not disown Reverend Wright he said that the Reverend’s and similar utterances represent a position and mindset of the past, which can contribute to stagnation. Obama’s position is that Africans can and must rise above that position. Africans must rid themselves of their unfortunate past before they can grasp their future.
The relation of all of this to Guyana is that most African leaders there are stuck in the African liberation mode although India and Indians were not responsible for slavery.
If our African leaders cannot see the struggle in Guyana through different eyes and attribute the race baiting to pure politics and triumphalism and if they cannot devise a strategy that is far removed from the African Liberation theology per se, there may be no progress for Africans in Guyana.
That is why I was in favour of the suggestion of an African renaissance in Guyana. I thought it was directed towards a new social and developmental attitude but I became distraught when I realized the renaissance was based and premised on the same old mentality.
In this context we must take note of R. Small’s thoughts in the letter captioned, “Civil society must organize themselves in the interest of citizen empowerment.” Small denounces the opposition strategies as, “an opposition clearly out in the wilderness and too pre-occupied with power sharing rather than empowerment of the vulnerable toward achieving the collective good. Please don’t begin to think that power sharing is a tool of empowerment, if history has taught us anything it is that with power sharing we’ll have two hands in the cookie jar, pinching and pilfering rather than one.” In pointing to a better strategy the view is that civil society has the potential to take the lead but he noted that civil society have not been effective or strong enough and have not taken the right path towards a developmental strategy for Guyana. As I look at the situation I wonder whether or not civil society can be effective. While civil society on many instances failed to grasp opportunities presented, for instance Moses Bhagwan’s proposal, there are also cases of Government suppressing the views of those who may wish to be civil, for instance Mr. Ralph Ramkarran.
Minister Rohee by his letter has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of African liberation theology in the present day circumstances in Guyana. He has noted the deficiencies of African leadership and seems to have an understanding of the dynamics which are responsible for the unrest and crime situation.
Given this background my questions for Minister Rohee are as follows. Why can’t the Minister implement a plan of enlightenment and skilfully build bridges to mend the scars on both sides so as to enhance prosperity?
What is wrong with Moses Bhagwan’s proposal, which deals with expressing understanding and encourages healing? Why the silence on this proposal? Why do you silently allow your comrades to “throw Mr. Ramkarran under the bus” for making positive observations and recommendations on a situation which can end hostility, bring applause to the Minister and the Ministry of Home Affairs and ensure a positive environment for investment and development?
Yours faithfully,
F. Skinner
