Skip to main content

Posted on by


CHEDDI JAGAN'S CONTRIBUTION TO GUYANA'S INDEPENDENCE

Inspired by events that were occurring in the wider world and influenced by progressive views while he was a student in the United States, Dr. Cheddi Jagan returned to Guyana in 1943, then British Guiana, intent on becoming politically involved on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged. He chose the trade union movement as an entrance point. Ashton Chase and Jocelyn Hubbard, both trade unionists, were sought out to join with him and Janet Jagan to form the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) on November 6, 1946, as a study and discussion group. Branches emerged in various places including Kitty, Buxton and Enmore. My father, Boysie Ramkarran, joined the Kitty Group in 1947. Ashton Chase, at the 50th Anniversary celebrations of the PAC said that my father was the Secretary of that group. Eusi Kwayana was active in the Buxton group.

Amidst unrest and great and increasing poverty in the Caribbean in the 1930s and 1940s due to the Great Depression and drop in the price for sugar, the bauxite workers went on a long strike in 1947. In 1948 the successful Teare strike of transport workers took place followed by the Enmore strike of sugar workers. Having already won a seat in the Legislative Council in 1947, these events, and in particular the Enmore strike, motivated Cheddi Jagan to speed up the establishment of a political movement to struggle for universal adult suffrage, social justice and independence.

 

PAC’s internal discussions and consultations designated Cheddi Jagan as the Leader and Ashton Chase as the Chairman of the new party. Chase was General Secretary of the British Guiana Labour Union led by Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow. Billy Strachan, a Jamaican-British activist of the Caribbean Labour Congress and the West Indian Students’ Union, both in the UK, with whom Jagan was in touch, recommended Forbes Burnham as potentially having more appeal as Chairman because he had just qualified as a lawyer. The PPP was formed on January 1, 1950, after awaiting Burnham’s return and his brief sojourn as a member of the League of Coloured Peoples.

The PAC, though small and of limited influence, challenged colonial rule. The PPP was the first major political institution to place Independence on its agenda. Its general council comprised the following persons: Cheddi Jagan, Forbes Burnham, H. Aubrey Fraser, Clinton Wong, Janet Jagan, Sydney King, Ram Karran, Ashton Chase, Rudy Luck, Frank O. Van Sertima, Ivan Cendrecourt, May Thompson, Hubert Critchlow, E. Kennard, Theo Lee, Ulric Fingall, Jainarine Singh, Sheila La Taste, Joseph P. Lachmansingh, Cecil Cambridge, Fred Bowman, and Pandit Siridhar Misir.  These are the men and women who first conceived of an Independent Guyana and who delivered the first blow. Their names deserve honourable mention. Universal adult suffrage was won in 1953 and the PPP won the elections of that year.

Hysterical but unfounded fears of ‘communism’ caused Churchill’s British Conservative Government to suspend the Constitution four months after and restrict and/or imprison some of its most militant leaders. My father was imprisoned for six months in March 1954 for violating the emergency regulations by not reporting to the Kitty Police Station one morning due to illness. He was required to report every morning. For several years he was restricted to between Sparendaam and Lamaha Street and Vlissengen Road.

The elections of 1957 were won by the Jaganite PPP after the split in 1955. The section led by Forbes Burnham was later known as the Peoples’ National Congress (PNC). The British Government granted self-government in 1961, after the PPP won the elections again, and agreed to set a date for Independence. The PNC supported Independence.

The Kennedy Administration of the United States then intervened due, once again, to unfounded fears of ‘communism.’ By then the British Conservatives, reconciled to the formal end of colonialism, saw Jagan like other nationalist politicians in the colonial world, who came around to ‘reality’ after Independence and the real world of economic development faced them. But the Americans insisted and the British, as always, succumbed to American pressure.

Disturbances took place in 1962, 1963 and 1964 leaving a legacy of death, destruction and ethnic discord. The PNC changed its position and argued that there must be new elections before Independence. According to plan, the British took Independence off the table until new elections were held in 1964 under a new electoral system designed to defeat the PPP. In 1964 a coalition government of the PNC and the right wing United Force took office. Independence was then granted on May 26, 1966.

On March 4, 2010, I wrote in celebration of a previous Independence Anniversary: “On May 26, 1966, Burnham, then Premier, was stunned by an unfamiliar act of forgiveness and generosity – the appearance of Cheddi Jagan, no longer in power, at the National Park to celebrate with him Guyana’s new status as an independent country and the realization of his dream and pledge in 1949 at Enmore to devote himself to the liberation of Guyana. The now famous embrace between these two leaders, who have shaped so much of Guyana’s political consciousness, says nothing about Forbes Burnham, the victor, but everything about Cheddi Jagan, the vanquished. “

The promise of that embrace is yet to be fulfilled.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Bibi Haniffa posted:

It makes me very proud to see my last name on that list and to know I am a daughter of the revolution.  The blood line flows on..........................

Some have done a good gob in those days to confuffle the poor and uneducated,the trend continues in this advanced age the educated are still confuffled.

Django
Last edited by Django
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

It makes me very proud to see my last name on that list and to know I am a daughter of the revolution.  The blood line flows on..........................

Some have done a good gob in those days to confuffle the poor and uneducated,the trend continues in this advanced age the educated are still confuffled.

The uneducated do not know the difference between confuffled and confuddled!  I am going to chalk this one up to this individual being confuzzled!

Bibi Haniffa
Bibi Haniffa posted:
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

It makes me very proud to see my last name on that list and to know I am a daughter of the revolution.  The blood line flows on..........................

Some have done a good gob in those days to confuffle the poor and uneducated,the trend continues in this advanced age the educated are still confuffled.

The uneducated do not know the difference between confuffled and confuddled!  I am going to chalk this one up to this individual being confuzzled!

Look around,you may find a lot in your surrounding.

Django
Last edited by Django

Jagan's anti-colonial creds were born amidst the turmoil of the civil rights fight in the US while he was at the all-Black Howard university. Burnham's was more personal at the UK university he attended. Jagan's was more raw and visceral; Burnham even being Black probably never felt racism in the unvarnished way that Cheddi experienced it.

Right there you could see the divergence of the two men's approach to the anti-colonial and post-colonial struggles. Burnham's would have a more individual stamp while Cheddi's would be for the masses. While one cannot give a value judgement as to the better approach, you have to see the evidence of history to evaluate their impact.

Burnham was driven more by a vendetta against the white colonialists than an urgency to lift Guyana to its potential. That's why he was less enamored of the white Soviets and more driven to China's leaders and that of North Korea. He had no patience for the South-south movement that was a home for Walter Rodney.

When Cheddi's political leanings had a contribution to the US intervention (cajoling the British to change the election system to PR to favor the anti-PPP forces - the British Labor party and JFK's Democratic party were kindred spirits, though Kennedy was more to the right in the foreign threat of the Soviets). So chalk this one down to Cheddi's foreign policy posture. To embrace Burnham on Independence and then the 1973 critical support were clearly strategic blunders borne out of Cheddi's non-individualistic approach.

You have to wonder if the PPP had mobilized after the 1964 elections (though he had no legitimate basis for doing so and Burnham had not yet revealed his cards other than to cozy up to the Americans and British in the anti-Soviet fight). The 1973 elections could have been a turning point, but instead Burnham turned Guyana into his personal fiefdom to drive Guyana to a basket case. Cheddi's inaction then was inexcusable. That's why there's this antipathy for both of these "founders" of today's Guyana. You have to see Seignet's rants in this light and the contrast with non-political civic leaders of the 50s and 60s whose vision of a Guyana was a market driven economy that would eventually free Guyana from being the primary producing country it is still today.

 

 

Kari

"You have to wonder if the PPP had mobilized after the 1964 elections (though he had no legitimate basis for doing so and Burnham had not yet revealed his cards other than to cozy up to the Americans and British in the anti-Soviet fight).

The 1973 elections could have been a turning point, but instead Burnham turned Guyana into his personal fiefdom to drive Guyana to a basket case. Cheddi's inaction then was inexcusable.

That's why there's this antipathy for both of these "founders" of today's Guyana. You have to see Seignet's rants in this light and the contrast with non-political civic leaders of the 50s and 60s whose vision of a Guyana was a market driven economy that would eventually free Guyana from being the primary producing country it is still today."


 

Great piece Kari.

Django

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  None of them has a clean slate. That being said, let's give them an applause for their effort given the milestone anniversary of that occasion.  This may very well be the last hurrah for them as the next milestone many of us may not be around and I don't see anyone taking steps to preserve our history for future generations. I am hoping that Ralph's two sons would carry his torch and keep us in the know.  They have the records.

Bibi Haniffa
Kari posted:

. Ja; Burnham even being Black probably never felt racism in the unvarnished way that Cheddi experienced it.

 

 

Please explain that part. I do believe that in the 50s there was way more hostility towards blacks then towards Indians.

Do you think that Cheddi ever had some one checking to see if he had a tail (as in a lower level primate) that Burnham, and others studying in the UK would have encountered.  Or folks asking if they swung from trees back home, and being very serious about it too.

I happen to think that both Cheddi and Burnham were frauds who exploited the ethnic insecurities to their own personal ends.  That it was Burnham who succeeded in almost destroying Guyana is just an accident of history. 

A Cheddi regime in 1966 would have been doctrinaire Marxist Leninist, and Janet would have been sure to engineer Guyana into becoming the USSR's 2nd staging post in the Americas. 

The fanaticism that they cheered the USSRs involvement in Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Somalia was very indicative of the degree to which they were in the pockets of the Russians.

We are NOT talking about Michael Manley style democratic socialism, with the aim of being non aligned.  Nor are we talking about the nationalism of Eric Williams, and Errol Barrow.

I suggest anyone to do a youtube drive through Havana, or to see the desperate measures that Cubans had to take to flee that island, to tell us whether the results would have been what we can live with.

Consider that Guyana was way more backward than was Cuba in 1959.  So Guyana would have been even less able to weather the destruction than was Cuba.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  

Do you?  So tell us some faults about Jagdeo.  Tell us why so many of the Jaganite cronies harbor extreme hatred towards him.

FM
Django posted:

"You have to wonder if the PPP had mobilized after the 1964 elections (though he had no legitimate basis for doing so and Burnham had not yet revealed his cards other than to cozy up to the Americans and British in the anti-Soviet fight).

 


 

PPP could not successfully mobilize its supporters after the 1964 election. There was a state of emergency and over 30 senior PPP functionaries were detained in Sibley Hall prison since June that year. They included GAWU President Harry Lall, Moneer Khan, Vincent Teekah and they were released just a few months before Independence Day. After Burnham became Prime Minister he wasted no time in passing a National Security Act which gave the police powers to search homes without warrant and seize guns from citizens. What the PPP was able to mobilize was a large peaceful "FREE THE DETAINEES" march that started from Berbice and Essequibo Coast and ended in Zeeburg, WCD in August 1965. I was there.

FM
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  None of them has a clean slate. That being said, let's give them an applause for their effort given the milestone anniversary of that occasion.  This may very well be the last hurrah for them as the next milestone many of us may not be around and I don't see anyone taking steps to preserve our history for future generations. I am hoping that Ralph's two sons would carry his torch and keep us in the know.  They have the records.

There's no question that Jagan had a huge impact in the struggle to get free education for all Guyanese, workers' ability to organize against terrible working conditions, getting civil servant jobs without having to Christianize one's name and religion, women's right to vote, etc. Burnham's contribution to change the cultural perception of Indian and African clothing, cuisine and music as inferior was probably driven more by economic realities (the debilitating foreign currency hole he put Guyana in) than in anything driven by his conscience. After all he liked everything Anglo-Saxon for himself right down to Johnny Black as opposed to good old El Dorado. You have to ultimately these two leaders by the legacy they left behind and that has been colossal failures.

Kari
caribny posted:
Kari posted:

. Ja; Burnham even being Black probably never felt racism in the unvarnished way that Cheddi experienced it.

 

 

Please explain that part. I do believe that in the 50s there was way more hostility towards blacks then towards Indians.

Do you think that Cheddi ever had some one checking to see if he had a tail (as in a lower level primate) that Burnham, and others studying in the UK would have encountered.  Or folks asking if they swung from trees back home, and being very serious about it too.

I happen to think that both Cheddi and Burnham were frauds who exploited the ethnic insecurities to their own personal ends.  That it was Burnham who succeeded in almost destroying Guyana is just an accident of history. 

A Cheddi regime in 1966 would have been doctrinaire Marxist Leninist, and Janet would have been sure to engineer Guyana into becoming the USSR's 2nd staging post in the Americas. 

The fanaticism that they cheered the USSRs involvement in Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Somalia was very indicative of the degree to which they were in the pockets of the Russians.

We are NOT talking about Michael Manley style democratic socialism, with the aim of being non aligned.  Nor are we talking about the nationalism of Eric Williams, and Errol Barrow.

I suggest anyone to do a youtube drive through Havana, or to see the desperate measures that Cubans had to take to flee that island, to tell us whether the results would have been what we can live with.

Consider that Guyana was way more backward than was Cuba in 1959.  So Guyana would have been even less able to weather the destruction than was Cuba.

Right on cue caribny you have to bring in the race angle - Cheddi's anti-racism creds  versus Burnham's. You really can compare UK's racism in the 50s to the USA's at that time? And especially with Janet Rosenberg to goad him on? Cheddi was probably further down the human chain than an African-American Black.

Ii do not have to do a YouTube drive through Havana - I've been to Havana and elsewhere in Cuba. I was approached for sex for a lousy US$1. While Castro's folks showed us the nice parts of Cuba you could not miss the people who were in the lower rugs of racist Cuba. After all I was a lowly official on that 2-week trip when the body bags were coming home from Angola.

caribny, you are so predictable anytime one brings up Black versus anything else, even if it involves you immortalizing Burnham whom you proclaim to hate with a vengeance. Hippocracy 101?!

Kari
Kari posted:
 workers' ability to organize against terrible working conditions,

I know that you are a Cheddi-ite, but please learn Guyanese history. The struggle for worker's rights wasn't a Cheddi struggle.  Like Jagdeo, he didn't give a damn about people who weren't Indian.

The father of the trade union movement was Critchlow.  Not only did he organize the urban workers, and those in bauxite and the gold sectors, but he also provided assistance to the sugar workers to do the same.

And I can assure you, as some one who comes out of that African middle class, whose upward mobility was due to their involvement in the civil service.  This when the private sector blocked them from opportunities in the private sector (I remember that the sales girls at Bookers were WHITE, and those at Fogarty's and Betancourts were either Portuguese or mulatto).   They did NOT Like Cheddi, who was pushing unqualified PPP activists into civil service positions for which they weren't suited.  These were 100% Indians.

So please desist from peddling the lie that Cheddi, post 1957, assisted all Guyanese.  His goal was to assist HIS support base!  By 1961 his ethnic exclusionary tactics were every bit as damaging as were those peddle by Burnham after 1973.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
caribny posted:
Kari posted:
 workers' ability to organize against terrible working conditions,

I know that you are a Cheddi-ite, but please learn Guyanese history. The struggle for worker's rights wasn't a Cheddi struggle.  Like Jagdeo, he didn't give a damn about people who weren't Indian.

The father of the trade union movement was Critchlow.  Not only did he organize the urban workers, and those in bauxite and the gold sectors, but he also provided assistance to the sugar workers to so the same.

What is a Cheddi-ite? What Guyanese history you have to teach me? The labor unions were the urban industrialized workers who were easily confronted. Try that with the rural agricultural workers who were POLITICALLY led - not by by Critchlow, who BTW was good at what he did.

Here we go again caribny - race always color your responses.

Kari
Kari posted:
 

What is a Cheddi-ite? .

You. With your notion that the world began with Cheddi!  And that Guyanese did nothing before the late 40s.

You do know that the Jagans, upon their return JOINED political and social action groups that were already functioning, with the goal of improving the lives of Guyanese!   Do you think that it is a coincidence that PAC, when it was first established, consisted mainly of middle class urban Africans and coloreds!

So where do you get the notion that the rural laborers were the vanguard?

Even now you claim that the urban trade unions were pushed around, while the sugar workers were heroes.

TRUTH is that it was the urban workers who were more easily mobilized. They didn't live on estate land as did the sugar workers.  They also had more experience in organizing than did the sugar workers.

It was Critchlow who provided assistance in helping the sugar workers establish trade unions.

But continue with your Indocentric analysis of Guyana, where Africans are reduced to nothing!

FM
Kari posted:
 

Right on cue caribny you have to bring in the race angle - Cheddi's anti-racism creds  versus Burnham's. You really can compare UK's racism in the 50s to the USA's at that time? And especially with Janet Rosenberg to goad him on? Cheddi was probably further down the human chain than an African-American Black.

Ii do not have to do a YouTube drive through Havana - I've been to Havana and elsewhere in Cuba. I was approached for sex for a lousy US$1. While Castro's folks showed us the nice parts of Cuba you could not miss the people who were in the lower rugs of racist Cuba. After all I was a lowly official on that 2-week trip when the body bags were coming home from Angola.

caribny, you are so predictable anytime one brings up Black versus anything else, even if it involves you immortalizing Burnham whom you proclaim to hate with a vengeance. Hippocracy 101?!

 

Cheddi in DC, would have been an exotic foreign student!  This by his own account.  He WITNESSED Jim Crow. He wasn't forced to live within it!  South Asians were viewed as some kind of inferior white, much as Middle Eastern people were.

In fact FOREIGN blacks were treated better than American blacks, so what nonsense are you babbling about Cheddi being treated worse.

You want to worship Cheddi. Find something else.

And ask yourself why most blacks in the 60s and 70s, recoiled from Cheddi in fear, seeing him and his wife as a MONSTER!

 

FM
Last edited by Former Member

my goodness ram karan juss pick up history as he sees it. there should be flogging in the public square for the likes of him. There was a history long before the Jagans and Burnham. 

And he doan bother to consult Ishmael's historical pieces on the Independence. And it is for the whole world to read on the internet.  

S
seignet posted:

. There was a history long before the Jagans and Burnham. 

 

I am glad that even a brown bai KKK like you knows this.

The frauds that these two imposters were, deliberately didn't teach Guyanese history, so few Guyanese know it.  So they think, as does Kari, that life didn't begin until 1953. That before this, Guyanese were docile people, who were pushed around by the colonials.

FM
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  

Do you?  So tell us some faults about Jagdeo.  Tell us why so many of the Jaganite cronies harbor extreme hatred towards him.

Some of the  "Jaganites" do not like him because they believe in the same old, same old. They are stuck in the culture of 1951. However, times have changed.  There is a new Global World Order that neither Burnham nor Jagan could have survived.  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.  Had Jagdeo gone back to the Jagan policies, he would have failed also.  Instead, he stepped out of the box, embraced the changing world Around him and produced the greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

Bibi Haniffa
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.

I know that you are  a racist, but what Burnhamesque policies has the coalition gov't engaged in?  Have they nationalized anything?

In fact it will be more accurate to describe the coalition gov't of continuing the Jagdeoite form of governance, where the poor are punished, and all benefits accrue to the politically connect, and the wealthy.

Guyanese are saying that the voted for change, and not exchange. Right now they think that they have merely exchanged a Ramotar/Jagdeo regime for a Granger/Harmon one. They are at a loss to see what has changed.

Go to Jagdeo for some sense, but then given that what tumbles out of his mouth is also nonsense, I don't think that he can help you.

Look at how MadBURRO is begging Rowley for help.  Jagdeo wants Guyana to embrace that loser, who has reduced Venezuelans to fleeing to T&T as refugees.

FM
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Do not take two sentences out of my comment and twist it out of context.

What context?  Clearly you mean "blackman a kill ahbe".

What is there about Granger which reminds you of Burnham?  Hoyte maybe, but NOT Burnham.

Now continue with your brown KKK squeals.

FM
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  

Do you?  So tell us some faults about Jagdeo.  Tell us why so many of the Jaganite cronies harbor extreme hatred towards him.

Some of the  "Jaganites" do not like him because they believe in the same old, same old. They are stuck in the culture of 1951. However, times have changed.  There is a new Global World Order that neither Burnham nor Jagan could have survived.  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.  Had Jagdeo gone back to the Jagan policies, he would have failed also.  Instead, he stepped out of the box, embraced the changing world Around him and produced the greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

Django
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.

I know that you are  a racist, but what Burnhamesque policies has the coalition gov't engaged in?  Have they nationalized anything?

In fact it will be more accurate to describe the coalition gov't of continuing the Jagdeoite form of governance, where the poor are punished, and all benefits accrue to the politically connect, and the wealthy.

Guyanese are saying that the voted for change, and not exchange. Right now they think that they have merely exchanged a Ramotar/Jagdeo regime for a Granger/Harmon one. They are at a loss to see what has changed.

Go to Jagdeo for some sense, but then given that what tumbles out of his mouth is also nonsense, I don't think that he can help you.

Look at how MadBURRO is begging Rowley for help.  Jagdeo wants Guyana to embrace that loser, who has reduced Venezuelans to fleeing to T&T as refugees.

Really!  What has changed is "alyuh dayzz now"!  Haven't you noticed?  And the piper needs to be paid!

FM
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  

Do you?  So tell us some faults about Jagdeo.  Tell us why so many of the Jaganite cronies harbor extreme hatred towards him.

Some of the  "Jaganites" do not like him because they believe in the same old, same old. They are stuck in the culture of 1951. However, times have changed.  There is a new Global World Order that neither Burnham nor Jagan could have survived.  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.  Had Jagdeo gone back to the Jagan policies, he would have failed also.  Instead, he stepped out of the box, embraced the changing world Around him and produced the greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

How tight did you hold you nose when you wrote that?

FM
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Do not take two sentences out of my comment and twist it out of context.

What context?  Clearly you mean "blackman a kill ahbe".

What is there about Granger which reminds you of Burnham?  Hoyte maybe, but NOT Burnham.

Now continue with your brown KKK squeals.

That's their problem they are trying very hard lump Granger with Burnham.

Django
ba$eman posted:
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  

Do you?  So tell us some faults about Jagdeo.  Tell us why so many of the Jaganite cronies harbor extreme hatred towards him.

Some of the  "Jaganites" do not like him because they believe in the same old, same old. They are stuck in the culture of 1951. However, times have changed.  There is a new Global World Order that neither Burnham nor Jagan could have survived.  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.  Had Jagdeo gone back to the Jagan policies, he would have failed also.  Instead, he stepped out of the box, embraced the changing world Around him and produced the greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

How tight did you hold you nose when you wrote that?

List the greatest economic developments under the PPP,noticeably their family and friends have economically developed themselves.

Django
Django posted:
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Do not take two sentences out of my comment and twist it out of context.

What context?  Clearly you mean "blackman a kill ahbe".

What is there about Granger which reminds you of Burnham?  Hoyte maybe, but NOT Burnham.

Now continue with your brown KKK squeals.

That's their problem they are trying very hard lump Granger with Burnham.

That jury is still out!

FM
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

And the things is that this poor PPP slave cannot even tell you what development did Jagdeo engineer.

Does she mean bankrupting Guysuco, to the point when the new coalition gov't had to find cash to rescue them from closure, within days of assuming office?

FM
ba$eman posted:
Django posted:
 

That's their problem they are trying very hard lump Granger with Burnham.

That jury is still out!

Yes, the KKK did think that there was no difference between MLK and the Nation of Islam.

So no wonder why you think that Granger is the same as Burnham.  One black man is the same as another, unless he is an Uncle Tom....that being your line of thinking.

FM
Django posted:
 

List the greatest economic developments under the PPP,noticeably their family and friends have economically developed themselves.

We have been asking the brown bai KKK since last year, and still cannot get answers.

When pressed the demand to know why we harass Jagdeo, when he is no longer president.  Yet they still whine about Burnham, who died 31 years ago!   In fact last year their entire lament was that young Indos didn't know who Burnham was, and so might be tempted not to vote race.

FM
ba$eman posted:
Django posted:
 

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

How tight did you hold you nose when you wrote that?

I see that even you aren't so much of a liar to deny that fact, so you write nonsense.

FM
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  

Do you?  So tell us some faults about Jagdeo.  Tell us why so many of the Jaganite cronies harbor extreme hatred towards him.

Some of the  "Jaganites" do not like him because they believe in the same old, same old. They are stuck in the culture of 1951. However, times have changed.  There is a new Global World Order that neither Burnham nor Jagan could have survived.  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.  Had Jagdeo gone back to the Jagan policies, he would have failed also.  Instead, he stepped out of the box, embraced the changing world Around him and produced the greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

It took the PPP 12 of those 23 years to dig themselves out of the $US 4 billion plus debt left by the PNC.   The current PNC government is on track to equal or better that record.  Granger is going to make Burnham look like a star.

Bibi Haniffa
Bibi Haniffa posted:
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  

Do you?  So tell us some faults about Jagdeo.  Tell us why so many of the Jaganite cronies harbor extreme hatred towards him.

Some of the  "Jaganites" do not like him because they believe in the same old, same old. They are stuck in the culture of 1951. However, times have changed.  There is a new Global World Order that neither Burnham nor Jagan could have survived.  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.  Had Jagdeo gone back to the Jagan policies, he would have failed also.  Instead, he stepped out of the box, embraced the changing world Around him and produced the greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

It took the PPP 12 of those 23 years to dig themselves out of the $US 4 billion plus debt left by the PNC.   The current PNC government is on track to equal or better that record.  Granger is going to make Burnham look like a star.

Correct, these ingrates have no shame!

FM
Last edited by Former Member
caribny posted:
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

And the things is that this poor PPP slave cannot even tell you what development did Jagdeo engineer.

Does she mean bankrupting Guysuco, to the point when the new coalition gov't had to find cash to rescue them from closure, within days of assuming office?

The new coalition Gov't had to find cash????  Guess From where???  Dem still spending the money the PPP left for them.  Both the sugar and rice industries are about to be wiped out while they are spending on baccanal!

Bibi Haniffa
Last edited by Bibi Haniffa
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

And the things is that this poor PPP slave cannot even tell you what development did Jagdeo engineer.

Does she mean bankrupting Guysuco, to the point when the new coalition gov't had to find cash to rescue them from closure, within days of assuming office?

The new coalition Gov't had to find cash????  Guess From where???  Dem still spending the money the PPP left for them.  Both the sugar and rice industries are about to be wiped out while they are spending on baccanal!

Dem goa know money done when dem open dem wallet one day digging around for lil loose change!!  Typical PNC, never creators, always destroyers!

The current program is another mass transfer of wealth underway!

FM
Bibi Haniffa posted:
Django posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:
caribny posted:
Bibi Haniffa posted:

Well said Kari.  We all know what the faults were of our past leaders.  

Do you?  So tell us some faults about Jagdeo.  Tell us why so many of the Jaganite cronies harbor extreme hatred towards him.

Some of the  "Jaganites" do not like him because they believe in the same old, same old. They are stuck in the culture of 1951. However, times have changed.  There is a new Global World Order that neither Burnham nor Jagan could have survived.  Look what is happening to the Granger administration who went right back to the Burnhamesque policies.  They are failing.  Had Jagdeo gone back to the Jagan policies, he would have failed also.  Instead, he stepped out of the box, embraced the changing world Around him and produced the greatest economic development ever seen in the history of Guyana.

23 yrs in gov't...and the country still at the bottom of the ladder in the western hemisphere.

It took the PPP 12 of those 23 years to dig themselves out of the$US 4 billion plus debt left by the PNC.   The current PNC government is on track to equal or better that record.  Granger is going to make Burnham look like a star.

Where you pull that from ?? you lacked credibility,i have noticed the side kick tagging along,the ERP started under Hoyte and all the PPP did was fulling their pockets and fooling their support base.


http://www.guyana.org/features...dence/chapter18.html

Embassy of Guyana in Washington, D.C.

Jan 1, 2007 - Guyana's economic decline during 1985-1991 ... the "rehabilitation" phase for 1990-1991, and "recovery and growth" for 1992 and beyond. .... Guyana's foreign debt by the end of 1991 amounted to US$2.1 billion with debt ..

Django
Last edited by Django
Kari posted:

Jagan's anti-colonial creds were born amidst the turmoil of the civil rights fight in the US while he was at the all-Black Howard university. Burnham's was more personal at the UK university he attended. Jagan's was more raw and visceral; Burnham even being Black probably never felt racism in the unvarnished way that Cheddi experienced it.

Right there you could see the divergence of the two men's approach to the anti-colonial and post-colonial struggles. Burnham's would have a more individual stamp while Cheddi's would be for the masses. While one cannot give a value judgement as to the better approach, you have to see the evidence of history to evaluate their impact.

Burnham was driven more by a vendetta against the white colonialists than an urgency to lift Guyana to its potential. That's why he was less enamored of the white Soviets and more driven to China's leaders and that of North Korea. He had no patience for the South-south movement that was a home for Walter Rodney.

When Cheddi's political leanings had a contribution to the US intervention (cajoling the British to change the election system to PR to favor the anti-PPP forces - the British Labor party and JFK's Democratic party were kindred spirits, though Kennedy was more to the right in the foreign threat of the Soviets). So chalk this one down to Cheddi's foreign policy posture. To embrace Burnham on Independence and then the 1973 critical support were clearly strategic blunders borne out of Cheddi's non-individualistic approach.

You have to wonder if the PPP had mobilized after the 1964 elections (though he had no legitimate basis for doing so and Burnham had not yet revealed his cards other than to cozy up to the Americans and British in the anti-Soviet fight). The 1973 elections could have been a turning point, but instead Burnham turned Guyana into his personal fiefdom to drive Guyana to a basket case. Cheddi's inaction then was inexcusable. That's why there's this antipathy for both of these "founders" of today's Guyana. You have to see Seignet's rants in this light and the contrast with non-political civic leaders of the 50s and 60s whose vision of a Guyana was a market driven economy that would eventually free Guyana from being the primary producing country it is still today.

 

 

Good article by Kari. It is much better to read Kari and Seignet than the top ranking BS propaganda of Royal Ralph (Emperor of all things gourmet).

Prashad

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×