Fenty Last Friday, Granger too
In comparison to a majority of our local social scientists, historians, perhaps, political analysts and, of course, politicians, mine would be a minority viewpoint.
A little ridicule, much critical assessment of either my naiveté or denial – or my ignorant reluctance to accept or understand our ethnic ‘history’ and (alleged) contemporary realities, should be directed my way for the following paragraphs. But I know there are still many who will appreciate my right to my views – especially after my nearly seventy years of being around. So what am I going on about today?
It’s the age-old question/issue or race and race relations in our republic. From the periods of colonial-engineered slavery and indentureship to the Guyana of the sixties and beyond.
This is still my basic view: that though there are numerous pockets of outright racism promoted by specific interest groups, there is no extreme racial polarisation between the majority of our two main groups descended from the continents of Africa and Asia.
As might be expected of me, readers won’t be treated to the European role in ‘dividing’ our two main race groups after slavery and a treatise about colonialism’s techniques aimed at perpetuating psychological divide-and-rule domination in societies such as ours. (I’ve always been perplexed over the fact that since our earliest leaders and sociologists knew of the ‘White man’s machinations, how come our own, in authority and power, seemed not to have vanquished the European “success”?)
To me, after 1953/1957 – political unity, then race-oriented schisms – our two major leaders benefited from the latter-day contemporary race-consciousness provoked between 1955 and 1964. Reminding that it was not Dr Jagan who promoted “Aphan Jhat/Vote-for-yuh-own”, I’ve long decided that neither Jagan nor Burnham qualified to be themselves racist. Burnham quickly became a master manipulator of the political forces which emerged and Cheddi Jagan was too Communist/Socialist to be actively racist. Frankly Speaking however, both of these two early leaders allowed race to benefit their objectives and causes.
Along the way, the journey of political power – and the absence of it, in Jagan’s 28-year case – threw up reasons for racism to become a factor. So I conclude: it was/is politics and politicians that stoke the fire of racial considerations and animosity from time to time. And even though some vulnerable individuals, even groups, harbour almost lifelong race-based feelings, left to themselves most Guyanese eschew racism and will live in reasonable comity. Non-existent in too many other areas of our planet.
Recognising differences, discrimination…
To me animosities of the racist variety gained national traction during and as a consequence of the prolonged country-wide protests bombings and killings between 1962 and 1964.
Politically inspired to make governance miserable with a view to removing the Cheddi Jagan administration altogether, communities took nightly turns to beat, burn, bomb and commit murder. These acts were directed against ethnic groups because of their race, their politics, even their minority status. Whole groups, entire communities were forced to uproot themselves and relocate to friendlier environments.
Frankly Speaking, political, anti-PPP objectives fuelled racial animosities even amongst those groups who had co-existed peacefully in one space for decades. But this is not to say that a defiant PPP government didn’t demonstrate its own ways of inflaming tensions. They hardly negotiated or granted justifiable concessions.
1964 saw the removal of the PPP and the emergence of PNC-led domination. By that time both major parties had secured their respective ‘racial’ labels baggage practices. For the next twenty-eight years many Indo-Guyanese decided that political preferences and discrimination were really racist in nature. That was not the case most times, I feel. The policies and practices of Forbes Burnham and his loyalists touched all groups negatively from time to time all groups voted with their feet and migrated – from Afro-traders to and from Caricom to be Indo-Guyanese who created a new Berbice in Queens, NY. The ‘Africans’ fled to Barbados and Brooklyn as well.
For me Fenty, I see little wrong with Afro-villagers of Leeds on the Corentyne loving their cultural practices and African heritage, just as I respect an Indo-Community in Canal Number Two (WBD) preferring their own types, their Hinduism and/or their lifestyle of fierce economic independence. Racism rears its head when racial pride is transformed into hatred for others, ethnic nepotism and discrimination to keep opportunities and fair play from another group. We must have laws institutions and attitudes in place to prevent the latter behaviours.
Natural, human love for all, should really transcend laws, for you can’t legislate love. But a Constitution should assist. As must families, church and school teach tolerance and care.
A ‘Douglah’ politician discriminating?
This might come off as far-fetched but I do really need to explode one myth.
From the sixties to now, ambitious (selfish) politicians have exploited racial insecurities – real or perceived. Dumb – or racially-inclined – voters allow themselves to ignore issues and capable, meritorious candidates to vote for ‘their own’ instead. Their choice.
In between elections, we all suffer from the cost of living, go to school, eat, play cricket and worship together. We take all that for granted, forgetting it can’t happen in many other societies. Guyanese inter-mingle, even inter-marry. And produce mixed-race progeny.
In Guyana mixed-raced persons abound. Santantone, Bouviander, Douglah. There are thousands of Douglahs of the Afro-Indo variety. Should that racial reality not reduce racism? Not at all! I can’t examine the myth fully here but I say to you-all: Douglahs frequently choose those they prefer. An ‘Indian’ fellow with an ‘African’ wife for years, still has his choice of political party. Perhaps based on race! Their Douglah children will surely exercise their right to choose too. But more on this next time.
Peaceful protest a must!
Recall Mohandas Gandhi! Later a Mahatma! Recall his great marches of protest and his perfecting non-violent civil disobedience on the way to India’s Independence.
In this column last Friday I lamented the lack of guts and physical, visible protest against executive wrong-doing. (Another columnist, to his credit, never lets up with his disgust, in this regard.) Little did I know that the Opposition Leader would announce his party’s programme of peaceful protest that same Friday! Believe me that it was very co-incidental.
Go to it, I say. The retired Brigadier, the former Police Commissioner and all their APNU lieutenants must know how to prevent rabble-rousing, mischief –making infiltrators from their civil protests. Situate your marshals strategically.
I suggest the following: (1) Secure funding from Diaspora members to provide for your protesters who might be later violated, in terms of their jobs and tenure. (2) Wear your arm bands and carry photos of Gandhi and his protests. (3) Be silent some of the protest time. (4) Videotape your protests (for local and overseas use – and as evidence). (5) Have regard for road traffic and noisy instruments. More next time.
Consider…
*1) Skeletons and allegations: the new nature and character of a Guyanese elections campaign?
*2) Gecom Commissioner Alexander: “They are taken to do every verification; they are present at every registration centre. It means that every political party in the country is in a position to come up with the same list that Gecom comes up with. They have all of the information!” Remarkable!
‘Til next week?
(Comments? allanafenty@yahoo.com)
