Dear Editor,
Vincent Alexander’s letter (SN 24/02/24) reeks with hypocrisy. Writing on behalf of the Burn-ham Foundation, he embraced Nigel Hughes’ proposition (which I have not seen) but made no attempt to distance himself or his organisation from Hamilton Green’s deranged comments. That is not surprising. Green was reciting PNC dogma and calling for more of what Burnham did for 24 years and what APNU+AFC attempted in 2020. Mr. Alexander wants us to look the other way and don’t believe our “lying” eyes. His explanation of Green’s statement reads like an endorsement. I see no daylight between the Burnham Founda-tion, APNU+AFC and Hamil-ton Green on the issue of rigging.
The right to vote is our most important human right. It is our right to choose our government in periodic elections. If that right is lost, every other right can be lost. Rigged elections produce governments that are unaccountable to the people. We saw that in the period between 1968 and 1992 when Hamilton Green and others imposed themselves on the people and trampled on their rights and freedoms.
The fact that Green is an unabashed advocate for rigged elections is no surprise. He is the product and a primary beneficiary of rigged elections. He owes his livelihood and his lifestyle to rigged elections. As recent as 2020 when APNU+AFC was trying to steal the elections, Green urged David Granger to ignore the constitution and the law and remain in power. Back in 1992, he opposed electoral reform and criticized Desmond Hoyte when he lost the first free and fair election since 1964.
Green downplayed Burnham’s rigging as if it were an abstract allegation. He must have forgotten that Burnham is on record as having informed the US and his party of his plans to rig the elections in 1968 and 1973 and went so far as to enquire what level of rigging Washington would be comfortable with.
But that was not the most absurd thing Green said. He added, “Burnham sought to unite the people, but the “new Indians” didn’t want that.” That is a whopper. Divide and rule was Burnham’s philosophy. Race politics was his specialty. His backers in the US encouraged him to moderate his stance to broaden his support but he made no effort to do so. Aside from some silly idea to farm black votes from St Vincent, rigging was clearly his preferred option. It is absurd for Green to suggest that Burnham, as he was rigging elections, was trying to unite the country. The contradiction impli-cit in that statement must have escaped his attention. And by the way, who were the “new Indians” in the Burnham era.
He continued “We (meaning Africans) welcomed the indentured people.” There is a lot to unpack in that false state-ment. Africans had grievances with every other race. They resented the Chinese who they claimed stole their produce and took their women. They despised the Portuguese (and the mulattos) who they believed received preferential treatment because of the colour of their skin. By the time the Indians arrived, their opposition to indentured labour aroused strong anti-Indian sentiments. They regarded indentured Indians as scab labour that increased black unemployment and lowered their wages. Their attitude towards indentured Africans who came from Barbados, Sierra Leone and other countries was no different. For what it’s worth, they were not enamoured with the Amerindians who were used by the planters to recapture runaway slaves. Oddly, they would go on to embrace the British who enslaved them.
Green suggested that “the only people who deserve” to govern the country are the descendants of African slaves. This claim has roots in our early history. Creole blacks (born in Guyana) at one time considered themselves as “natives” and indentured labourers as “immigrants.” They considered themselves superior to Indians based on how they dressed, what they ate and how they worshipped. They mocked the Indians for the way they did those same things. The term “coolie” became a racial insult. Their conversion to Christianity gave them a head start on education. Their superior English language skills gave them “better” jobs as civil servants, policemen and teachers while the Indians continued to toil in the fields. However, as Dr Rodney noted, the self-images of creole blacks were conditioned by white racist ideas and their negative impression of Indians was drawn from planter stereotypes. He added that the yardstick used by Africans who believed they were “more civilised” than Indians was “the outward trappings of European clothing, language and general deportment.” Neverthe-less, it was that feeling of superiority and entitlement that led Burnham to leave the PPP (after three unsuccessful attempts to secure the leadership) and form the PNC in 1957.
In 1981) Barbadian novelist George Lamming wrote:
“This perception of the Indian as alien and other, a problem to be contained after the departure of the imperial power, has been a major part of the thought and feeling of the majority of Afro-Guyanese and a stubborn conviction among the black middle layers of Guyanese society. Indian power in politics and business has been regarded as an example of an Indian strategy for conquest. And this accusation persists even though, in the fashionable arithmetic of democracy, their numerical superiority might have justified such an ambition for supreme political power.”
Lamming’s comments go to the heart of the problem in Guyana.
Yours truly,
Milton Jagannath
