Dear Editor,
I have to find a way of responding to a misrepresentation of my activity in a newspaper that has refused to publish any letter from me. I am trying to respond without breaching your principles about cross-referencing. Because I dared to say publicly that SOCU had not given a reason for withdrawing its charges against Ashni Singh and Brassington, a columnist in Guyana Times (February 12), using the name, “Eyewitness”, has deemed me to be a person with “Race on the Brain”, who brought about the end of unity among the races of people in Guyana.
I suspect the writer to be an upstanding citizen of Guyana, born, like the eminent post-World War 2 mentor, Cheddi Jagan, and like me, on a sugar plantation. To be born on a sugar plantation is to be born with race on the brain, whether you are aware of it or not.
When I raised questions about Singh and Brassington, I was raising a question, perhaps ignorantly, but for enlightenment, about the status of the High Court’s ruling. I did not know that I was raising questions about an organ, SOCU, which cannot be questioned. Guyana is race-ridden in many aspects of our life, not because of statements or proposals made by any one person, but partly because of centuries of a crime wave, known as the Atlantic Slave Trade and another known as Indentureship. Because I studied at home and not abroad, I am fairly well documented on the various theories of race relations that have resulted with other factors in the state of these relations today.
It has been a dynamic process to which many, including me, have contributed. In the final phase of its formation, it included theses about race and society, fewer than ten in number, which I can share with interested persons in an atmosphere of inquiry. Many of these theses were developed in good faith by persons concerned with our future. To understand them fully, we should try to examine each of them in the context in which it was developed and put forward. The result of this examination will be revealing and helpful.
I was very surprised to learn from the pen of ‘Eyewitness’ the accusation that I expressed any doubt about the allegations made against the process in Region 4. Almost alone, my position was that I would say nothing about one side, without a chance to weigh their counter allegations, which were found to be arguable only in an election petition. I delayed this letter for 24 hours hoping to make some things in it clearer and sharper. I have now decided to make myself available to any media, unit, or operator for the purpose of discussing my role in the ethnic politics of Guyana between the 1940s and the recent general elections.
Let my three most severe accusers or objective critics be selected to discuss with me on electronic media for as long a period as can be arranged. All I ask is equal treatment by the moderator for all who take part. My questioners may come in their own name or any name they choose. I will be speaking on my own behalf with any reasonable references to groups I have been active in. I hope this offer will take matters that concern so many a step further and shed more light than before.
Yours respectfully,
Eusi Kwayana
