Dear Editor,
In his latest letter on the subject Eric Phillips again fails to prove that I have written anything against the movement for reparations. Let us recall that he was challenged in my last letter to quote me taking such a position or to offer apologies. He now retreats behind a wall of incomprehension but still insists that I am arguing that “Africans sold other Africans into slavery and there should be no reparations.” He puts this to the public without citations or other evidence beyond his impressions, imprecise as they appear to be and befuddled, he claims, by a language he declares as above the heads of the ordinary man as he imagines him to be.
Frankly, this is dishonest or obtuse.
On a facebook page he created to publish and propagate this calumny he further writes “his arguments show a hidden hostility to anything African.” And he repeats the falsehood that “He wrote two letters stating that Africans sold other Africans into slavery and therefore there should be no reparations.” In short, Mr Phillips proves himself to be a recidivist.
In the SN edition of Sat, March 29 he again fails to produce a quote but persists still in the falsehood, adding that I “appear” to have raised the traditional European objections to reparations. Language laden with emotional charges of collaboration with the enemy.
Phillips needs someone or some tribunal to roll out his arguments before. He has created a straw man and in quixotic fashion is arguing against a figment of his imagination. It is pathetic that this is the figure that the Guyana government has imposed as chairperson of a Guyana National Reparations Committee for native genocide and slavery. It is to this level of representation that we, the descendants of Africans and native peoples are reduced.
The display of illogicalities continues with the chairperson insisting that the UN declaration condemns only what he calls “chattel slavery” but is apparently okay with African types of slavery. This is ignorance. African slavery or every form of slavery is condemned. Africans treated others as chattel in the singular act of reducing them to objects of commerce. Let him explain what he thinks he means by “chattel slavery.” We cannot seriously be put on the witness stand with this kind of irrationality.
Mr Phillips then says I place him in the same “ethnic activist” category as Vishnu Bisram. Of course I do. He is an ACDA leader, despite differences with this organisation over the entire conduct of the reparations issue.
We conclude, without further ado, that “Afrikan” (to use Jonathon Adams’ orthography) activists of this calibre will in the end do more harm than good to the reparations movement and that the warning in the letter by Tacuma Ogunseye, Mellisa Ifill, Duane Edwards and Charlene Wilkinson, which was followed by corroboration from Barrington Brathwaite, needs to be heeded. This thing is being approached in a haphazard fashion. The Guyana government has to understand that this cannot end up in the same alley as the faux pas of the 1823 monument controversy. Ethnic issues are generators of emotion and stress. Their management has to be undertaken with the greatest care.
I would suggest and endorse the suggestion that certain ones be relieved of any charge of steering the process of promoting reparations and that a broad-based body with proper minds be constituted to get things going.
As a normal Guyanese descended from both Africans and native peoples, the issue has a particular resonance for me and I personally would be hard pressed to take seriously any initiative that offers us the sub-standard or a politician’s plant in any form or personality.
The facebook page started by Mr Phillips contains a comment by a griot suggesting that I myself, being of unknown provenance, may be in the pay of hostile forces. To which Mr Phillips responds that he does not know me nor for whom I work nor has he ever seen a photo of Abu Bakr.
Rest assured, all, that I am neither a phantom nor a politician’s plant – doubtless this last accusation will gather steam in the Phillips’ correspondence on the subject.
Again, let him not write of impressions or start accusations by “it seems.” It is not with this level of evidence that we the descendants will approach the tribunal.
I am, finally, for full ventilation of the reparations issue. Being for or against is dependent on
-what we mean by reparations
-who is called upon to pay
-what form reparations take
-the entire narrative of slavery and native genocide we endorse. Not every loudmouth’s brayings…
-who benefits and in what fashion
Questions that need still to be presented.
Mr Phillips says that he has submitted articles to SN on the subject which were ignored. He needs to find alternative avenues of course. Facebook is a start when used for noble ends. Otherwise, the requisite competencies need to be sought and engaged. By which I mean get the people with the skills needed to do the public education and information.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
