Dear Editor,
The verbal furore that has arisen over the decision to house the offices of the soon to be established Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the compound of the Castellani House is very puzzling, and the authors who have castigated this move seem to have conveniently forgotten a few salient points.

This location was first a dumpsite before being transformed into its present glory by Cesar Castellani; it also once housed the Director of Agriculture in 1888, and in 1965 was converted to the official residence of then Prime Minister, Linden Forbes Burnham.

That aside, one must not forget, conveniently so I must say, that the grounds of the Castellani House are the location of a number of other activities, such as the swimming pool aback the building which attracts quite a number of people, the tennis court which was a much frequented location for local tennis enthusiasts, as well as the offices of the Presidential Guard.

It must be noted, that none of the activities that go on in the compound of Castellani House have detracted from the culture or the ambience of the location.  How can one now conveniently claim that an additional use of the grounds will take away from the cultural ambience and aesthetics of the building and what it houses inside?

It should be noted too that in 1993 when the decision was made to house the inaugural collection of the National Art Gallery at Castellani House, it was obviously never intended that the sole purpose of those environs would be that of an art gallery; this is very much evident today, as outlined before.

Mr Harry Hergash in a letter to Stabroek News on February 10 (‘An intelligence agency should not be sited in the Castellani House grounds’) stated that “the lawn and building add to the beauty of the heritage collection housed here.

“In my view, the ambience of this place should not be destroyed. If anything, it should be enhanced to support the arts and cultural industries.”

I wish to point out to Mr Hergash as well as other authors who wish to raise the question of culture as it relates to Castellani House, that culture is a socially learned and transmitted behaviour.  Noteworthy also, are the two aspects of culture: material and non-material.  The non-material aspects of any culture are its customs, philosophy, patterns, beliefs as well as its ways of communication.

The material aspect of culture, of course, has to do with the physical.  Every culture is the product of its interaction between the two aforementioned aspects.  It is also easier to change the material culture of any society than the non-material part of it, although this is quite obviously not the present administration’s intention.

I believe that this government has always supported both of these aspects and anyone who says otherwise is either stifling their conscience or opposing for the sake of opposing, the latter of which is glaringly evident in some corners of society whenever measures are implemented that benefit the whole of Guyana.

Yours faithfully,
Mike Meyers

Editor’s note

The land on which Castellani House is built was part and parcel of the acreage from former Plantation Vlissengen which was allocated for a Botanic Garden. The house was built originally not for the Director of Agriculture, but for G.S. Jenman, the botanist in charge of the Botanic Garden. It was completed in 1882, but he refused to move in until certain modifications were made to the design. He was eventually indulged in minor respects and subsequently occupied the house. It was some time later that the building became the residence of the Director of Agriculture.