Bakr’s views on Indians as interlopers a fallacy
November 3, 2015 By , Source
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Former Member
I read the letter. Nowhere Bakr mentioned Indians are interlopers. Anyhow, what are they complaining about? Look at all dem stalwart Indo intellectuals like Nehru (aka Pavi), Cobra, Bibi Hafina, DrugB, Baseman, Kimberly Edwards (aka Prem) and all those honorary and imagined doctorates writing daily letters. Some of dem so abstract they can only use pen names like Sultan Mohamed...
Former Member
I forgot to add Demerara_Guy to that long list of Indo intellectuals...
Former Member
The letter referred to above
What is the definition of the Indian they wish to protect and preserve?
0 Shares
Dear Editor,
Dr Baytoram Ramharack, by any definition an “Indian Intellectual” (interesting book on Balram Singh Rai as pro-Indian militant), has written a letter which you published in your edition of October 28, “bemoaning,” and the word is chosen for its connotations, his perceived absence of Indo-Guyanese intellectuals pushing a racial agenda and doing so to national applause. He states that this type of personality and personage is numerous in the Afro-Guyanese section of the society and quotes another Indian Intellectual, the Swami Aksharananda as noting that “a significant number of African intellectuals, scholars and activists” are at work on the other side.
A repeated observation that now forms part of the narrative of some Indian activists. It reminds one of the occasional lists of Blacks cited by writers such as Vishnu Bisram or “Sultan Mohamed”, Vassan Ramrachra, Ravi Dev and a few others who complain that the screech and whimper coming from the Indian side is not sustained enough, ethnic enough, and that it is due to an intimidation.. The letter from Baytoram is a repeat of an earlier plaint from Bisram carried in the Guyana Times on May 19. Bisram wrote “When Indians say they are proud of their identity they face vitriolic attacks from ignoramus and unintelligent people and are labelled racist.” Bisram was attacking Freddie Kissoon.
In other words, these boys need to be free to unfurl their ideas of “identity”, in whatever form it takes.
But when, a decade ago, I asked Dev to list ten things Indians lack in terms of egalitarian legislation or rights of practice ,and therefore, ten things that need to be remedied immediately, the response was a dead silence. In short, what we are asked to suffer is a cry without content, which, like a lot of this type of pleading is permitting the sufferer to void himself of an anguish that may be only tangentially linked to his objective racial or social condition. Rooted, often, in value systems that could be millennial in their origins, or the mere echo of a timeless refrain that defines the being of the Sufferer. Age-old repetitive narratives of deprivation and discontent that have been recorded and remarked upon in sections of the Jewish community or the world-wide Black experience. Often serving to articulate calls for revenge, reparations, self-redemption, privilege.
In response to something that Ryhaan Shah wrote at the time I wondered aloud whether the dominant narrative in some sections of the Indo-Guyanese community is not merely a continuation of a lament that would have had its origins in the caste-based miseries that marked their origins. But then, among themselves the oppressive discriminations continued. Often without comment from the very Indian Intellectuals being asked to condemn outside influence and perceptions.
When one writes of thought and thinkers issuing from the Black side it has to be noted that much of it has been self-critique. And it is not only the Black Intellectuals, but the community’s painters, calypsonians and artists in general have participated in one of history’s remarkable examples of self-examination. But it is not this type of works that Baytoram and others require of the Indian.
What is required by the writers of the Indian Intellectual is that he externalise the causes and consequences of Indian problems. It must be placed outside of the community and attributed to the White Man or the Black Man or whatever it is that will deflect attention from the changes and transmutations they live as they adapt. In short, Indians are the most active proponents of their own de-Indianisation. Not the colonial system, not the PNC with the dhall ban or the ambient Marxism. But the need to jettison forms of Islam and Hinduism or Kali philosophy, or social practice, prejudices and values that conflict with the ideals and styles of the world in which they now evolve. What then is the question?
Africans have also had their essence called into question. The obeah/cumfah religion, much in the range of social relations and definitions of the positive have similarly had to be let go of, silenced or denounced as we live the natural process of migration in space and time. One needs to look also at the positives that Indian coming here have had. From better conditions on the estates than blacks to a political process that permits their social ascension.
One notes however, that in spite of the need or desire to continue the chant, Indians in Guyana have been remarkably resilient and creative in those endeavours that interested them. Berbice may be the suicide capital of the globe, but it would have bred more world-class cricketers than any region of similar size. Things were bad for everyone in its own way. But the Blacks had no monopoly on the discourse of sufferation that is the speciality of some. The scholars, entrepreneurs, entertainers and politicians coming from the midst of the Indian community nail the lie to the caricature of an oppressed minority that the “Indian Intellectual” is being asked to present.
The common error of a lot of the names I mentioned above is that being Indian or Black automatically assumes that you should be singing a song of race-praise or race- defence. These writers fail to understand that, by my own definition, I comment from a Muslim point of view. By no means Afro-Guyanese. As I have written before. Writing in favour of issues based on principles that transcend race. Perhaps it is what some expect of themselves, not the monotony of a race chant that, with periods in government and a relentless creolisation, renders pitiably Aksharanda’s suffering about Hindu/Indian religious or cultural conversions. What is the definition of the Indian they wish to protect and preserve? The matter being promoted needs to be ventilated, or we end up with mere sentimental pleading.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
Former Member
Former Member
MOst recent Response
Indian intellectuals should advocate for an equal space in national dialogue which does not evoke charges of racism
6 Shares
Dear Editor,
Abu Bakr accuses me of “bemoaning” the “absence of Indo-Guyanese intellectuals” (October 30) because I raised the issue, and offered suppositions as to why there exists an absence of voices that can capture the Guyanese Indian imagination. He situates me with other “Indian activists”, though, admittedly, his description was not cut from the same cloth as being the “ethnic chauvinist/triumphalist” of Freddie Kissoon.
Firstly, I must say it was never apparent to me that Bakr was writing from an “Islamic standpoint”. Somehow I missed the grounding of his polemics from the Quran and Hadith etc. Domiciled in France for decades, the separation of distance must have caused Bakr to overlook some other activists, such as Malcolm Harripaul, a former GDF officer and economist Tarron Khemraj, now a columnist for Stabroek News, both of whom served under ROAR’s banner. If Bakr is looking for a national agenda, he would certainly find one in ROAR’s Blueprint, now public record.
Bakr contends that we are caught up in a fallacious argument when we embark upon a comparative analysis of the role of Black and Indian intellectuals in our society – Black intellectuals were more engaged in “self-critique”, he says. This, however, is not borne out by historical evidence. African “self-critique” of their plight has been situational, specific and was reflective of reactions to subjective, as well as objective conditions, often accompanied by a plan of action to remedy the situation. Such has been the case with the Black intellectual movements, within Guyana or the greater Caribbean, whether it be associated with Negritude, Garveyism, Pan-Africanism, Rastafarianism or the Black Power Movement.
Black political entrepreneurs like Dr. Walter Rodney was a product of this shared intellectual paradigm, one clearly reflected in Rodney’s theoretical understanding and his political praxis, evidenced by his “groundings” in Jamaica or his opposition to Burnham’s authoritarianism. Rodney, a Marxist revolutionary, quite appropriately defined himself as “a Guyanese, a black man, and an African” and saw no contradiction in his acceptance of these terms.
By contrast, for Cheddi Jagan, ethnicity was an unwarranted anomaly, a temporary epiphenomenon, which was to be consumed in the class struggle. His political career, despite his dogmatic attempt at uplifting the working class, is replete with examples of painting Indians, even “moderates” and their organizations (JB Singh, BGEIA) as “racists” that stood in the way of his utopian dream. The point being, while a substantial body of experience exists for Africans to draw from, there is no hang up about addressing causes central to their existence, regardless of what “others” might think, the Indian has to check himself at the door, often because he weighs his actions against the reaction of his Black counterpart.
We are told that Indians “externalize” the causes and consequences of their problems even though they have been “remarkably resilient and creative in those endeavours”.
This sounds like a justification for their predicament and their resilience and creativity requires that they know their place in society. The cultural pluralism that shaped the Guyanese Indian experience becomes solidified when events like national elections exposes the fragile fabric of our “being Guyanese” or the Nettlefordian creolized culture, reminding us ever so often of the predicament of our plural society as our shared values and organic solidarity threatens to destroy the notion of “one nation of people with a shared destiny.”
Indians may be guilty of forgetting that enslaved Africans have moved “100 million tons of dutty” to humanize the Guyanese physical, political and cultural landscape to uplift us all from a plantation wasteland. But have not African Guyanese also forgotten that it was only an economic enterprise of the magnitude of the sugar industry that could have convinced the colonial power to invest in the later hydraulics to keep our coastland viable and that it was the willingness of Indians to work for wages lower than that of the departed ex-slaves that made the enterprise viable?
We all vehemently deny the labels of being anti-Indian or anti-Black as we mold ourselves into political correctness and avoid the label of being stuck in the past. Yet, as we move closer to celebrating our 50th anniversary of freedom from the White Man, both Indians and Africans still credit each other for initiating the racial and ethnic conflict which has become politicized since the 1950s. The goal, frankly, has been to keep each other from exercising control over the political state.
If confession represents the sacred truth, Bakr must know that the PPP has played little or no role in constructing the intellectual foundation that has contributed to the shaping of the Indian imagination (one would think that loyalty dictates this much).
The PPP continues to subsidize the problems facing Indians and the party’s core leadership is devoid of an intellectual tradition outside of a vulgar Marxism. We may have to dig deeper into the bowels of history and re-examine Clement Seecharan’s exposure of the Indian imagination embedded in the writings of Joseph Ruhomon or an obscure rebellious letter writer advocating on behalf of indentured Indians, a Bengali who signed his name as “Bechu”, to locate that intellectual tradition.
In fairness, what the Indian intellectuals should advocate for is an equal space in the national dialogue, one which does not evoke charges of racism or suspicions of a racial agenda by the other. This is not Bakr’s call, nor is the task his to define.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
Ow Lord, these people bright fuh stupidness. Dey have a country and most of the citizens are poor no azz. And yet they find faults in a race of people who had no choice in their creation.
Former Member
Dear Editor,
I would like to sincerely thank Ms Scheherazade Ishoof Khan for reading and responding to my letter, as well as for her call to refrain from what she interpreted as “the ethnicization of legitimate academia” (SN, November 2).
Ms Khan, who currently serves on the NCN Board of Directors for the coalition government, has outlined a number of fallacies associated with a partisan approach to, as well as the dangers associated with “ethnic interpretation” of knowledge and scholarly research. There is no need to repeat them here. However, for the record, this was never the intention, and, unless this point is lost, this was not what my original letter advocated. Nor was I suggesting that there were no Indian intellectuals.
A re-reading of the letter, may convince Ms Khan that I was merely echoing a call by another letter writer who raised the subject matter regarding the need for Indian intellectuals to provide guidance on matters that are potentially divisive within our multicultural mosaic.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
Former Member
Refrain from promoting the ethnicization of legitimate academia
18 Shares
Dear Editor,
Although I managed to read the entirety of Dr. Baytoram Ramharack’s letter that was recently in the dailies, I paused often as refutations came regularly to mind.
However, in the interest of brevity, I wish to address the most pressingly vexatious issue he mentioned. The supposed lack of an intellectual tradition amongst the Indian immigrants in the Caribbean.
Prefixing the term ‘intellectual’ with a particular ethnic identity is wholly and utterly to be rejected. At once, it diminishes and demeans anyone with a formidable intellect who may have a shared genetic heritage with a particular group. Does their orientation and ability to innovate and develop complex explanations and solutions outside of their ethnic identity not matter? Why should their engagement in intellectual pursuits be inexorably linked to race or culture? It is a subtle devaluing of that person’s credibility as a thinker to presume that it is only within the ambit of their culture or ethnicity they should have value.
Dr. Cornel West is a brilliant thinker, he is not a brilliant black intellectual, as being Afro-American has nothing to do with the quality of his academic credibility.
We do not describe Dr. Steven Hawking or Dr. Simone de Beauvoir or Dr. Bernard-Henri Lévy as prominent white intellectuals. Female intellectuals are regularly tagged with the moniker of ‘woman’, as though their gender plays a prominent part in their cognitive abilities. Scholars such as Hannah Arendt, Maya Angelou, Susan Faludi; do we question that their intellectual tradition stems from the combination of ethnicity and gender and race? Should their pursuits be further limited to issues pertaining to culture and identity? Outside of those defining and restrictive parameters, they would still be some of the purest intellectual minds anywhere.
Mr. Ramharack’s letter exposes exactly where the fault lines lay in his analysis of Indian intellectual tradition. Rather than consider that historically, many, many people of Indian descent have pursued higher education, encouraged to do so by their very Indian families. Granted, they are not all necessarily engaged in self-examination or scrutiny of the role their history and ethnicity plays in the development of a complex cognition, but, I reject that they are somehow less intellectual for not having incorporated their ethnicity as an important aspect of their intellectual pursuits.
As a child, my own parents would regularly quote the likes of Fanon, Tagore, Shelly, random Sanskrit sayings and Hadith, in equal measure. Unusual perhaps, but the lynchpin of their encouragement to always be engaging one’s intellect, even if all it grants you is greater insight that may appear to be obscure and seemingly purposeless. What would one refer to that as? These “Indians” as my parents and ancestors undoubtedly were, did not encourage a linear inward-looking outlook. That our culture had value was not in dispute. However, the cultures, philosophies, scriptures, and literature distinct from our own history had equal validity. And were worthy of being considered and analyzed and inculcated.
Suppose one were to consider Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s prodigious research and significant academic contributions to planetary science. Do we wonder why he has not provided us with a black intellectual’s perspective on the cosmos? Do we expect him to? Should being black have anything at all to do with his body of work or his intellectualism?
As I initially set out to say, it borders on the absurd that as a consequence of the recent disagreement about the official dates for a Hindu religious holiday, ‘Indian’ intellectuals should step forward to provide clarity or whatever. Not all Indians are Hindu, as being Indian could mean membership in any one of dozens of religious groups, or even to be an atheist. None of the rest of us non-Hindu Indians would have an inkling as to what the Diwali date should be.
With all due respect, I would urge Dr. Ramharack to refrain from promoting the ethnicization of legitimate academia. Rather than call for ‘Indian’ scholars to address the Diwali issue, he should have simply exhorted the nation’s Hindu scholars and pandits to enlighten and educate those of us who are unacquainted with what the facts are in this dispute.
Yours faithfully,
Scheherazade Ishoof Khan
Former Member
I am no supporter of Dr Bato and I have profound differences with him but I think that Scheherazade misses his point completely. The world is always better expressed from the view of those within a tradition. It is a matter of understanding the critic and their context.
I noticed she mentioned Dr West ( grown to be a clown these days) but she failed to grasp why he was given a chair at Harvard or why we have scholars like Randall Kennedy, Louis Gates, Shelby Steele writing from within a tradition about the distorted view of it.
Note there are entire schools of thought about these things ie critical race theory which takes it from the view of the distortions emerging from the legal tradition and the Negritude movement about the legitimacy of who can tell the stories of their struggles best ie, Sedor Senghor, Fanon and Leon Damas, Amie Cesaire etc or the Harlem Renaissance etc.
We also have in philosophy the question of perspective and legitimacy. Is something philosophical because it was written down or not? If traditions can be viewed as philosophical and if it is to be transcribed into text what form should it take, dialectical ie traditions and criticisms, or as narratives ie Uncle Remus, Br Nancy and the Aesop fables? Who best can put traditions to text.
This calls into question many of the scholarship of Europeans about others handed down to us. One must interrogate every text itself for its authenticity and accuracy. The intellectual is not merely a writer of within the tradition but understands intimately the pitfalls of writing scholarly works about a tradition and from within the tradition. One sees Margret Meade created a whole discipline from a short visit of the south seas and for decades it was the seminal world view until probed and discovered to by haplessly flawed.
We need scholars from within a tradition writing about the tradition and critics of the traditions ( creators of text) to have some intimacy with the real world ( knowing the real world or the context by being of it). One meets Edward Said and note he turned the world upside down. Yes, there can and must be ethnic identified scholars and there can be such thing as ethnic scholarship without running into the accusation one is being prejudicial.
Former Member
Originally Posted by TK:
I read the letter. Nowhere Bakr mentioned Indians are interlopers. Anyhow, what are they complaining about? Look at all dem stalwart Indo intellectuals like Nehru (aka Pavi), Cobra, Bibi Hafina, DrugB, Baseman, Kimberly Edwards (aka Prem) and all those honorary and imagined doctorates writing daily letters. Some of dem so abstract they can only use pen names like Sultan Mohamed...
Oh Gosh...how could I forget to include our high caste Brahmin Yuji in that long list of Indo skallas? My apology.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
I am no supporter of Dr Bato and I have profound differences with him but I think that Scheherazade misses his point completely. The world is always better expressed from the view of those within a tradition. It is a matter of understanding the critic and their context.
I noticed she mentioned Dr West ( grown to be a clown these days) but she failed to grasp why he was given a chair at Harvard or why we have scholars like Randall Kennedy, Louis Gates, Shelby Steele writing from within a tradition about the distorted view of it.
Note there are entire schools of thought about these things ie critical race theory which takes it from the view of the distortions emerging from the legal tradition and the Negritude movement about the legitimacy of who can tell the stories of their struggles best ie, Sedor Senghor, Fanon and Leon Damas, Amie Cesaire etc or the Harlem Renaissance etc.
We also have in philosophy the question of perspective and legitimacy. Is something philosophical because it was written down or not? If traditions can be viewed as philosophical and if it is to be transcribed into text what form should it take, dialectical ie traditions and criticisms, or as narratives ie Uncle Remus, Br Nancy and the Aesop fables? Who best can put traditions to text.
This calls into question many of the scholarship of Europeans about others handed down to us. One must interrogate every text itself for its authenticity and accuracy. The intellectual is not merely a writer of within the tradition but understands intimately the pitfalls of writing scholarly works about a tradition and from within the tradition. One sees Margret Meade created a whole discipline from a short visit of the south seas and for decades it was the seminal world view until probed and discovered to by haplessly flawed.
We need scholars from within a tradition writing about the tradition and critics of the traditions ( creators of text) to have some intimacy with the real world ( knowing the real world or the context by being of it). One meets Edward Said and note he turned the world upside down. Yes, there can and must be ethnic identified scholars and there can be such thing as ethnic scholarship without running into the accusation one is being prejudicial.
Your point is noted. However, I think what Ms Khan (I happen to know her & husband) was saying is there are many problems that are not unique to East Indians or Afro-Guyanese. For example, one cannot study marginalization without understanding its historical roots in Guyana. This thing is much more complicated than some people make it to be. The bauxite industry: that's not an African problem. When bauxite don't kick all sectors of the economy don't perform well. Sugar: that's not an East Indian problem. The failure of Guysuco is a major drag on the entire economy. Everyone is worse off. If you look at a lot of the ethnic based studies of East Indian contributions you tend to ignore African contributions. When I read the works of Clem Seecharan I get the feelings of a true East Indian scholar in action. When I read Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa..." I see important omitted variable biases (primarily geography). When I read Rodney's "History of Guyanese Working People" I can feel a giant of a contribution, even if I don't agree with his Marxist methodology. While Rodney identifies with Africa struggle, I cannot help but observe how much pain he takes not to blame anyone or group in Guyana. At times he even praises some of the White planters while talking about the negatives of other planters. In my personal work, how can one study Indo or Afro theory of monetary policy, exchange rate, economic growth, etc? This is not to say that ethnicity does not matter. But one cannot do serious scholarly work without modeling their strategic interactions and feedbacks. East Indian scholarly work must be careful not to perpetuate the victimhood mentality: blackman bad and Indo always good.
Former Member
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
I am no supporter of Dr Bato and I have profound differences with him but I think that Scheherazade misses his point completely. The world is always better expressed from the view of those within a tradition. It is a matter of understanding the critic and their context.
I noticed she mentioned Dr West ( grown to be a clown these days) but she failed to grasp why he was given a chair at Harvard or why we have scholars like Randall Kennedy, Louis Gates, Shelby Steele writing from within a tradition about the distorted view of it.
Note there are entire schools of thought about these things ie critical race theory which takes it from the view of the distortions emerging from the legal tradition and the Negritude movement about the legitimacy of who can tell the stories of their struggles best ie, Sedor Senghor, Fanon and Leon Damas, Amie Cesaire etc or the Harlem Renaissance etc.
We also have in philosophy the question of perspective and legitimacy. Is something philosophical because it was written down or not? If traditions can be viewed as philosophical and if it is to be transcribed into text what form should it take, dialectical ie traditions and criticisms, or as narratives ie Uncle Remus, Br Nancy and the Aesop fables? Who best can put traditions to text.
This calls into question many of the scholarship of Europeans about others handed down to us. One must interrogate every text itself for its authenticity and accuracy. The intellectual is not merely a writer of within the tradition but understands intimately the pitfalls of writing scholarly works about a tradition and from within the tradition. One sees Margret Meade created a whole discipline from a short visit of the south seas and for decades it was the seminal world view until probed and discovered to by haplessly flawed.
We need scholars from within a tradition writing about the tradition and critics of the traditions ( creators of text) to have some intimacy with the real world ( knowing the real world or the context by being of it). One meets Edward Said and note he turned the world upside down. Yes, there can and must be ethnic identified scholars and there can be such thing as ethnic scholarship without running into the accusation one is being prejudicial.
Your point is noted. However, I think what Ms Khan (I happen to know her & husband) was saying is there are many problems that are not unique to East Indians or Afro-Guyanese. For example, one cannot study marginalization without understanding its historical roots in Guyana. This thing is much more complicated than some people make it to be. The bauxite industry: that's not an African problem. When bauxite don't kick all sectors of the economy don't perform well. Sugar: that's not an East Indian problem. The failure of Guysuco is a major drag on the entire economy. Everyone is worse off. If you look at a lot of the ethnic based studies of East Indian contributions you tend to ignore African contributions. When I read the works of Clem Seecharan I get the feelings of a true East Indian scholar in action. When I read Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa..." I see important omitted variable biases (primarily geography). When I read Rodney's "History of Guyanese Working People" I can feel a giant of a contribution, even if I don't agree with his Marxist methodology. While Rodney identifies with Africa struggle, I cannot help but observe how much pain he takes not to blame anyone or group in Guyana. At times he even praises some of the White planters while talking about the negatives of other planters. In my personal work, how can one study Indo or Afro theory of monetary policy, exchange rate, economic growth, etc? This is not to say that ethnicity does not matter. But one cannot do serious scholarly work without modeling their strategic interactions and feedbacks. East Indian scholarly work must be careful not to perpetuate the victimhood mentality: blackman bad and Indo always good.
I fully agree with you but I take caution that we being completely immersed in western traditions need to unlearn some build-in biases in analysis to get to the truth of who we are and help with solving prevailing problems.
My problem with Bato et al has been to qualify every social ills. exclusive of any possibility of underlying human universals, to be grounded in some cultural disconnect. However, I am mindful, given recent post colonial studies and clarity given us by people like Said...that we are indeed in a state of victimhood as per the operating paradigm.
Former Member
Originally Posted by TK:
I read the letter. Nowhere Bakr mentioned Indians are interlopers. Anyhow, what are they complaining about? Look at all dem stalwart Indo intellectuals like Nehru (aka Pavi), Cobra, Bibi Hafina, DrugB, Baseman, Kimberly Edwards (aka Prem) and all those honorary and imagined doctorates writing daily letters. Some of dem so abstract they can only use pen names like Sultan Mohamed...
He used to post on GNI. At no point did he mount anti Indian commentary.
This is just the Indo KKK grou8p justifying their bigotry by inventing an African notion of bigotry. Not to say that African bigotry doesn't exist, but it is a completely different nature to that of the Indian. It is NOT based on a notion of African superiority, nor is it based on a notion of complete obsession with Africa.
It is based on the notion of the Indian as an evil being, based on stereotypes of the "crafty Indian who cannot be trusted".
You will note that the entire thrust of this Indo supremacist letter is that of the Indian who is tied to India, happens to reside in Guyana, and who has no ties, nor obligations to interact with other groups in Guyana.
In fact cultural adaptation to a new environment is something that all migrants and their descendants do. First in order to survive by understanding how the new society operates and making adjustments. Secondly exposure to other cultures which might entice.
Clearly Indo Guyanese like Afro Caribbean music. dance and other art forms and have absorbed it into this Indo Caribbean culture.
Clearly Afro Guyanese have not only absorbed many Indian foods, and even some Hindi/Bhojpuri phrases, but do so even without any notion that it is alien to them. How many of them know that when they say "dat girl pagalee" that would only be understand in Trinidad, given its adaptation from a Hindi word (and I confirmed this with an Asian Indian)?
This Guyana Times Indo KKK idiots really need to relax.
Former Member
I read the Bakr letter. Curious to see how any one can construct this as that of an angry African supremacist, screaming that Indians are interlopers, and accusing them of engaging in their own cultural self destruction.
Again the Indo KKK crew, led by Ravi Dev, Jagdeo, and his boyfriend Bobby, are determined to destroy the PPP by ensuring that it remains as a "coolie party", a term used by Jagdeo and endorsed by Rohee.
Guyana becomes more diverse, with the two largest groups shrinking in importance (In 1970 African and Indian identified people accounting for 82% of the population, now only 70%). How can any party play the game of ethnic chauvinism, and expect to win?
APNU is smart enough to know this, and employ language of ethnic inclusion, even though one can argue about the degree to which they practice it (too many old time Burnham black people put to lead, some with questionable competence).
The PPP still screams that "we gun push Moses out of Berbice", refusing to understand that Regions 3 and 4 are more important, that its Indian base is shrinking, and that unless Granger is extreme stupid, APNU/AFC will make inroads into the Amerindian vote, by virtue of being the government, therefore having the ability to buy votes.
So they seem intent to start a race war. They can continue to do so, ensuring that they push the mixed population (the fastest growing part of the electorate) into the arms of APNU/AFC. As people who don't identify as "Indian", nor are considered as such by most Indo Guyanese, they cannot be part of this Indian edifice which Ravi, Jagdeo and Bobby seem intent to preserve.
Former Member
I reject Ramharack’s contention that Indians are seen as backward
Dear Editor,
This is a continuation of my discussion on the cultural context of Guyana. On this occasion we’ll examine Guyana’s cultural context and the way Guyanese communicate. This aspect of our cultural context is very relevant, particularly at this time when there is a public debate on the Indian sub-culture in Guyana. I hope that this letter would add another perspective to the debate. Let’s look at Guyana’s cultural context. The cultural context of Guyana relates to the conditions that surrounds and influences the life of individuals, groups and organizations in Guyana. On the cultural context continuum which shows that cultures vary from low context to high context; Guyana would fall somewhere between the English and North America which is closer to the centre point but more along the low context side of the spectrum. Asian countries are more towards the lower end of the high context side of the spectrum (this is an important point to note in the debate on the Indian sub-culture in Guyana). The European countries are towards the lower end of the low context side of the spectrum (This is important to note as we engage international organizations in development and business).
In the high context culture, interpersonal communication involves developing social trust before engaging in business and work-related discussions, a high value is placed on personal relationships and goodwill and surrounding circumstances are important to interactions. Another important aspect of high context cultures is that, people do more paraphrasing, tone of voice, gestures, posture, social status, history, and social settings are all necessary in interpreting what is being said or the spoken word. Hence, communicating in the high context culture requires more time.
In low context cultures on the other hand, there is more a focus on directly addressing the tasks and issues, or problem at hand, high value is placed on personal expertise and performance and interactions are expected to be clear, precise and speedy. The Germans are towards the lower end of the low context spectrum while the Chinese are towards to lower end of the high context spectrum. The English and North Americans are on the low context side of the spectrum but more towards the centre point, with the North American being more low context that the English.
Guyana generally speaking, is higher up on the low context side between the English and North American as mentioned above. This is partly due to its British history and North American influence through migration. However, there is also a strong tendency for the sub-culture among Indian Guyanese to be higher context than for example Blacks who tend to be more low context. This is closely connected to the Asian background of Indians in Guyana, with Asians being more high context generally.
Thus, I wish to refer to Dr. Baytoram Ramharack letters that were published in the SN and KN newspapers respectively, on 28 October, 2015 titled: Clear lack of an intellectual tradition creates a number of challenges for the Indian’ and ‘Where are the Indian-Guyanese Intellectuals’. Dr. Ramharack stated the following: ‘In short, why are Indians not speaking out through a consensus voice and addressing issues germane to their physical existence? The deafening silence has led to two possible conclusions. One, there are few Indian intellectuals in Guyana who are capable of articulating a position on behalf of Indians. Two, Indian intellectuals are afraid to speak out because of the perception that they may be branded as “racists”. They will be accused of not being a “true Guyanese”.’
Dr. Ramharack further went on to state in his letter, that Indians are viewed in Guyana and the Caribbean ‘as a backward, unsophisticated lot, a perception often linked to their Asian, rather than western outlook’.
I beg to differ strongly with Dr. Ramharack’s two conclusions about why Indians are silent in Guyana and also on the notion that there is a view of Indians as backward and unsophisticated, a perception that is linked to their Asian, rather than their western outlook.
I do not agree that there are not enough Indian intellectuals in Guyana who are capable of articulating the position of Indians and that Indian intellectuals are afraid to speak out; my view is that it is more a question of cultural context as I mentioned above. It is more about the characteristics of the Indian sub-culture which tend to be more high context than for example Black Guyanese, who tend to be more low context. This linkage to the Asian outlook of the Indian Guyanese should not be examined in the context of good and bad or right or wrong but rather in the context of the characteristics of the Indian sub-culture in the Guyanese society or from a broader perspective as cultural differences.
Also, I do not subscribe to the view that the Asian outlook is backward and unsophisticated and the western outlook is more progressive and sophisticated, even that perspective is rooted in how we are educated and socialized. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for us to start having a discussion on added value. It is my view that based on the cultural differences of the various sub-cultures in Guyana, that each ethnic group based on its cultural characteristics, brings an added value to the Guyana context that in a very significant, dynamic and beautiful way,helps to complete what we know as the Guyanese society.
Should we not be magnanimous and elevate our discussions on race relations in the Guyanese context to examine whether Indians are better at some things and Blacks are better at some things and the Amerindians are better at some things and likewise the other races; and therefore develop a greater understanding and sense of appreciation for the strengths and weaknesses of each ethnic groups. This better of which I speak, should not be viewed in a superior and inferior or competitive context but rather in a complimentary sense.
Nevertheless, I value the debate but what would be great, is for the debate to be put into a context and focus the discussions so that there are some specific things that can be achieved from them. It is about social cohesion; this is such a rich debate! The intention of this letter was also to address the way we communicate as Guyanese and how the Asian, Western and indigenous influences manifest in those interactions and to look at the unique aspects from the Asian, Western and indigenous influences that we may wish to be aware of and preserve since it holds together to very fabric of what we know as the Guyanese society, however, I will address this area in another letter.
Audreyanna Thomas
Former Member
Another one that misses completely what Batoram spoke of. This is the reason we need these conversations. People are talking at each other rather than to each other.
Former Member
The Indian intellectuals are fighting a losing battle against a natural force
6 Shares
Dear Editor,
A letter from Dr Baytoram Ramharack responds to my comments on his initial contribution decrying the paucity of Indian intellectuals articulating that group’s “dilemma” and asserting its “identity” (‘Indian intellectuals should advocate for an equal space in national dialogue which does not evoke charges of racism’ SN, November 3).
Even upon close re-reading one fails to find in it any definition of the “intellectuals” he sees as lacking, but one assumes what he means is the “public intellectual” who connects scholarly traditions with social activism. And there is a similar elusiveness with reference to the idea of “identity.”
In a note to his letter carried in the online comments section, Keith Williams remarks that Indian culture has been catered to and conferred official recognition through the grant of holidays and inclusion in the national life in many ways, and that Indian owned companies control the media in this country and can so set the tone of the frequency and depth of that self-portrayal the group requires.
In another note Dave Martins wrote, as I understand it, that the past twenty-three years, (which I believe added political control to the perceived dominance in other spheres), was an opportunity that proves only that the question is beyond that of physical, financial or political preponderance. I would say it is a question of a programme that emerges from the dynamics of a reality of cultural evolution on all sides.
The Indian identity is not essential and unchanging. And the character and responses of their co-citizens is also in perpetual mutation. While a political prominence would be a factor in the group’s self-perception and its reactivity in relation to other racial groups, in the end it changes nothing if all Indians are expected to call for is “balancing the armed forces” or repeating the refrains from the fifties and sixties with no examination of the legal and other systems in which we live.
On the question of identity we need illumination. One is reminded that identity is multiple. There is what we really, objectively are. But in addition there is what others think we are, what we want and aspire to be, and what our public profile is in terms of a legal or other administrative/political conception of ourselves. And so on.
That Indian, Hindu or Muslim, is in fact a subordinate in cultural terms is beyond dispute if he is considered as being essentially different from the way in which our laws conceive of him as a citizen.
There is a conception of ‘Guyanese’ in our system that ignores the cultural specificities and traditions of all sub-groups. The Indian traditions and faiths have none but a ceremonial role in the running of things. They are, in public life, often reduced to spectacle and gestures that, on public occasions, concedes his existence. Nothing more. But then so are all groups subject to the codes and regimes we have inherited to govern both the social and personal spheres. It is an area to which rarely Indians or Africans have sought correction.
I have written here several times that, as a Muslim, a religion I share with many Indo-Guyanese, it is unthinkable that divorce laws or inheritance rules, or prayer in schools perpetuate the blind colonial era dominance of the Anglican, as perpetuated by the African-Creoles who would both carry and rebel in their own fashion against, the coloniser’s culture.
It is therefore insufficient for Dr Ramharack and others to be wailing about the exclusion of their culture when they themselves have limited their militancy to an ‘Indian Arrival Day’ and ‘national holiday’ acknowledgement. The calls for recognition mirror in this way, the limitations one often found in the Afro-Caribbean camp. Apart from extremists such as in Trinidad and elsewhere re-changing their names or even refusing to wear clothing or retreating to the Adamic existence of ‘The Hills’, the practical exigencies of inhabiting a modern world impose themselves, given our geographical and cultural proximity to centres of power of an enormous puissance. All formal education is within the linguistic and epistemiological range of these cultures. What we are allowed to retain, is religious or folkloric. What we strive to reproduce is the anthropological particularities (marriage customs, family structure) of the ancestors and some values. Rapidly evaporating under the white heat of the media and the schooling we receive. This hegemony that affects everyone is one thing.
Another is the natural tendency of people living together to exchange, share, adopt and adapt. Slowly we become ‘one people’. Hence, all over the world, in all times in history, people sharing the same geographical and linguistic space become and are perceived as ‘a nation’, a culture, a ‘people’, despite the differences they see and fight over. So Dr Ramharack and the Indian intellectuals are fighting a losing battle against a natural force.
Dr Ramharack let it be known that for him the ROAR blueprint represents a national agenda. It is, beyond its analytic side and diagnostics, a document written at a certain moment in the group’s history and one I know of solely for its call for federalism. The Bantustanisation of the Republic it proposes would see an exacerbation of differences and isolation. The Muslim Indians would have to be given a separate space from the Hindus sensitive to cow slaughter. It would start a process that would, with minorities proliferating about us, lead to spaces according to the mixtures in their origins, I suppose.
Dr Ramharack, like the others, needs to move beyond a self-pity that reveals itself instrumentalised for political ends, and give Indians in Guyana their due. They are far from being the suppressed failures portrayed. The versification of perceived insult and offence that led to some Indian intellectuals brandishing the despised “douglarisation” and “kick down the door” as the only manner of interaction between two peoples, is not only the exaggeration of a falsity, it ignores the supportive role of generations of Afro-Guyanese nurses, teachers, policemen and artisans who worked with Indian communities and individuals to bring us to where we are. Each race here needs to develop a discourse that acknowledges the positive contribution of the other races. As a first post- independence government sought to do. A letter is now due from Dr Baytoram on the dangers of culturally programmed ingratitude and from ROAR refining further its apartheid idea.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
Former Member
Where are all of you cultural conscious indian scholars....lets hear your views. Time to contribute to the discourse rather than cuss and talk crap all day. Nehru is not invited. He has nothing to contribute.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
I reject Ramharack’s contention that Indians are seen as backward
Dear Editor,
In the high context culture, interpersonal communication involves developing social trust before engaging in business and work-related discussions, a high value is placed on personal relationships and goodwill and surrounding circumstances are important to interactions. Another important aspect of high context cultures is that, people do more paraphrasing, tone of voice, gestures, posture, social status, history, and social settings are all necessary in interpreting what is being said or the spoken word. Hence, communicating in the high context culture requires more time.
, there is also a strong tendency for the sub-culture among Indian Guyanese to be higher context than for example Blacks who tend to be more low context..
Audreyanna Thomas
This is indeed a fact and in line with what I have been saying. The result of this is that Indians are more likely to deal with who they know within their community (however they define this community). Given taht ties are often based on friends and family, and there is an ethnic dimension to this, Indians are then likely to be ethnically EXCLUSIVE. They have a definite notion of the "insider" and the "outsider".
I will even expand on this by saying that rural Indians, especially Hindus are more high context than are Muslim or Christian Indians. Maybe because the latter two are universal in context, whereas being "Hindu" is very closely tied to being "Indian".
Blacks tend to be more inclined to focus on institutions and are more likely to feel entitled to fair treatment by these institutions. Note that the APNu/AFC honey moon was brought to an end by entities linked to APNU, when they became enraged at the lack of transparency in how APNu/AFC managed the salary increases. This on top of what they also see as a lack f responsiveness to their constituency.
Within the PPP such open conversation isnt allowed. I will say with confidence that this reflects as much the African domination of APNU and the Indian domination of the PPP. Africans are very individualistic in orientation, whereas Indians are more communal.
In fact even as we speak there are differences WITHIN the Indian population, with the "town vs, country "coolie"", distrust. UIrbanized Indians operate within a multi cultural context, and therefore will be more low context than those in rural areas. Hence they become accused of being "dirty Indians", "self hating Indians", and other epithets.
For these to have any relevance as Indians they then have to adopt a "super Indian" persona. Kari couldnt present himself as some one who operates confidently as an Indian, but having an equal competence n operating within the broader more multi cultural contexts.
No, he had to focus on proving how Indian he is. He then felt forced to attack my characterization of him, even though he knows exactly what I am talking about. TK may have similar constraints, though is more competent in avoiding that trap. Others avoid the trap by avoiidng the discussion, and yet others do so with one sided attacks on Africans, who point this out, while remaining silent when Indo bigotry is on display.
This because of the high context strategies of the Indo vs. the Afro, which forces those from the first group to not alienate the tribe for fear of being excluded from it. Afro Guyanese do NOT have the same constraints.
Nigel Hughes can discuss how racist the PPP was, and also discuss the self inflicted pathologies WITHIN the African population, yet no one is calling him a stooge, and he is easily the most popular AFC leader among the African population (in fact a potential threat to Granger)/.
Former Member
Lets get out of the PPP/PNC bull shit for a bit. Indians can define themselves whatever way they want as long as it is not in ways that castigates others as substandard. The idea that there cannot be an indian identity outside the Guyanese identity is absurd. I think what is more absurd that there is a Guyanese identity. That pertains to nationalism...communal expressions of love for country not love for ones cultural emergence as a people. I hope as an amerindian my Amerindian Identity helps me become a better Guyanese and not that it is subservient to that view for my cultural view to be essentialized.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
. The idea that there cannot be an indian identity outside the Guyanese identity is absurd
So given that we cannot have an identity of being Guyanese, which acts as a bridge unifying all its constituent parts, why don't we just divide the land mass into tribal parts, so each can live in their isolated lives in bliss? That way they wouldn't have to care about other groups, aside from chasing them out.
India becomes an excellent example of this, with the inability for Hindus and Muslims to unify around being Indian. So we had the blood thirsty division. This is where Guyana will head if people continue to spit on the concept of being Guyanese as being an over arching concept which unites all of its various parts.
Being Guyanese DOES not suggest that there is one way to be Guyanese, just as there certainly is NOT one way to be American.
This is why national identities are important in societies which are diverse. The USA is very diverse, but we are all united by virtue of being American, at least those of us who are US born.
So if Indians, Amerindian, and Africans shouldn't be united WITHIN a Guyana project, then there is no need for a Guyana to exist.
In fact better yet. Just engage Venezuela, Brazil, and Suriname and let them deal with the fact that Guyanese don't want to engage with each other.
I leave you with this. Trinidadians are very proud of their tremendous cultural diversity. In fact they show MORE proud in this culture diversity than we do. WHY? It is because Trinidadians are also EXTREMELY proud to be Trinidadian, and the very definition of being Trinidadian is boasting of a society which draws from its Afro Anglo creole, its Afro French creole, its Indo creole, its Latin creole, the fact that its peoples come from all corners of the globe.
ONLY in Trinidad would there be soca chutney parang, which draws from its Afro Caribbean, Indo Caribbean, and Latin Caribbean musical traditions.
You would have each group sulking in their corners, watching what the other groups are up to, as we really don't have a concept of what the roles and responsibilities of being Guyanese is.
Former Member
And please cease with this nonsense of Amerindians living in some idyllic land of bliss before the Europeans came. Their battles for territory were so fierce that some even sought alliances with Europeans to protect themselves against more aggressive groups.
Even the notion of being Amerindian is EXTERNALLY enforced as the various groups have had to craft an identity to allow them to engage with both the colonial and post colonial entities which dominate them.
So Amerindians are no more entitled to Guyana than are any of the groups which arrived afterwards. It is always a matter of who the victors were, whether it was the Caribs prevailing over less aggressive groups, or the people who arrived afterwards.
Former Member
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
. The idea that there cannot be an indian identity outside the Guyanese identity is absurd
So given that we cannot have an identity of being Guyanese, which acts as a bridge unifying all its constituent parts, why don't we just divide the land mass into tribal parts, so each can live in their isolated lives in bliss? That way they wouldn't have to care about other groups, aside from chasing them out.
This is why national identities are important in societies which are diverse. The USA is very diverse, but we are all united by virtue of being American, at least those of us who are US born.
So if Indians, Amerindian, and Africans shouldn't be united WITHIN a Guyana project, then there is no need for a Guyana to exist.
In fact better yet. Just engage Venezuela, Brazil, and Suriname and let them deal with the fact that Guyanese don't want to engage with each other.
I leave you with this. Trinidadians are very proud of their tremendous cultural diversity. In fact they show MORE proud in this culture diversity than we do. WHY? It is because Trinidadians are also EXTREMELY proud to be Trinidadian, and the very definition of being Trinidadian is boasting of a society which draws from its Afro Anglo creole, its Afro French creole, its Indo creole, its Latin creole, the fact that its peoples come from all corners of the globe.
ONLY in Trinidad would there be soca chutney parang, which draws from its Afro Caribbean, Indo Caribbean, and Latin Caribbean musical traditions.
You would have each group sulking in their corners, watching what the other groups are up to, as we really don't have a concept of what the roles and responsibilities of being Guyanese is.
As I noted many times previously....you are in your own world. To me and for Americans as for brits....nationalism is separate from their personal identity. Being A Brit does not prohibit being a Welch or Irish or Scott. One does have to be Scott, welsh, Irish to be British....since it is community and geographical identity.
I am Amerindian even if I were not Guyanese. I am Guyanese because I believe in its unit as a state, my location in the world, my patria, sacred soil father/mother land etc is by being there and our various communities created a communicable ambiance that makes us Guyanese.
You can believe what you want that is what is the prevailing understanding about identity and nationalism
Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Being A Brit does not prohibit being a Welch or Irish or Scott. One does have to be Scott, welsh, Irish to be British....
I will tell you something. Being British is a whole lot more than just having a UK passport. Ditto for being an American. Take a black and white American outside of the USA and their bonds aren't merely the passport and allegiance to a flag.
In addition you are conflating a nation where the subsets which you describe have territorially based identities. So where is Africa land and India land in Guyana? Scotland can secede from the rest of the UK, if it wishes. So where can Indians secede? What is their territory? The Indo KKK claim Berbice, but then 70% of the Indian population doesn't live there, and 30% who do aren't Indian.
Here is why Trinidad doesn't have the extreme polarization of Guyana. Because Trinidadians have a CENTRAL identity as Trinidadians, which means that there is MORE interaction between the various groups within Trinidad, LESS paranoia, and more sharing of cultures.
Guyana is like South Africa. All we need to do is be honest and draw the borders. So let us fight for India land and Africa land.
Rest assured that once Amerindians no longer have to deal with the rest of us, they will resume their historical inter tribal animosities. It is only external forces that have created an umbrella Amerindian identity.
http://www.guyana.org/features...astory/chapter4.html
FACT. There are no ethnically based territories left in Guyana, aside from the small areas set aside for the Amerindians.
Now if some people think that all that matters is a passport and a flag, then Guyana is DOOMED, because we will remain not trusting each other, being afraid of each other, and assuming the worst of each other. We need an umbrella identity, to which we can emotionally identify with, as we do with our ethnicities, and cultures. Sorry people do NOT emotionally identify with a birth certificate or a passport.
Look at the direction that the QC initiative for the Diwali Parade went on GNI. Because we do NOT have a strong umbrella identity as Guyanese, allowing space for various constituent parts to interact, even this initiative was seen through the specter of race. Could never be Guyanese celebrating a Guyanese event, and in doing so celebrating the cultural diversity that being Guyanese should represent.
Being a Guyanese should mean the passport, the birth certificate and the flag. But it should also mean a multi ethnic, multi cultural and multi religious identity where each part is celebrated and respected by ALL, whether we directly identify with this or not.
An Afro Guyanese shouldn't wonder about whether they will be welcomed at a Diwali or not, and having to have the endorsement of an Indian to be there. Neither should an Indian feel the same about going to a kwe kwe. This is the case, unless one is invited by a friend, and then they friend will have to ensure that they are accepted by the group as a whole.
An Indian classmate of mine died several years ago and a group of us (blacks) went to his Hindu funeral rights. We got looks of pure hostility from many there, a few even asking us why we were there. This should NOT be!
Former Member
Personal identity is simple; what one say they are. Nationalism is the 18 century phenomena of drawing lines and establishing legal boundaries. We are bound to that concept legally and geographically and in our case it is as artificial as hell since colonial powers decided where it was. We inherited that and our collective sharing of the same social contract obliges us to co exist, live and respect each other in the space. The sharing and communal living forms the national identity. It does not bears on who we are as individual groups. That is completely different.
Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Personal identity is simple; what one say they are. Nationalism is the 18 century phenomena.
And you will note that since the invention of nations fewer tribes slice each other to pieces.
In 2015 the most violent societies are the tribal ones. The societies with poor concepts of nationhood. Check the Middle East or sub Saharan Africa, or the Balkans if you doubt.
Look at South Sudan. No concept of nationhood, so the tribes disembowel each other, and rumors have it, even encourage cannibalism.
Let Guyana remain tribal and civil war is a certainty as each tribes battles each other for resources. Just as the Caribs did to the Warraus 500 years ago.
Former Member
Originally Posted by TK:
I read the letter. Nowhere Bakr mentioned Indians are interlopers. Anyhow, what are they complaining about? Look at all dem stalwart Indo intellectuals like Nehru (aka Pavi), Cobra, Bibi Hafina, DrugB, Baseman, Kimberly Edwards (aka Prem) and all those honorary and imagined doctorates writing daily letters. Some of dem so abstract they can only use pen names like Sultan Mohamed...
And the honorable nutty professor surfaces for some much needed sunlight.
Former Member
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Being A Brit does not prohibit being a Welch or Irish or Scott. One does have to be Scott, welsh, Irish to be British....
An Indian classmate of mine died several years ago and a group of us (blacks) went to his Hindu funeral rights. We got looks of pure hostility from many there, a few even asking us why we were there. This should NOT be!
Imaginings in your racist mind, you see what you want to see. Maybe they know of your racism. I've been to many weddings and funerals where Blacks attended and never treated differently, especially a funeral. You are so racist that whenever you are among Indians, you feel guilty and afraid it shows through. It's all in your little racist mind my man. seek help.
Former Member
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Being A Brit does not prohibit being a Welch or Irish or Scott. One does have to be Scott, welsh, Irish to be British....
An Indian classmate of mine died several years ago and a group of us (blacks) went to his Hindu funeral rights. We got looks of pure hostility from many there, a few even asking us why we were there. This should NOT be!
Imaginings in your racist mind, you see what you want to see.
Why would some one who hates Indians will go to a place with ONLY Indians.
In fact an Indian friend asked me why I didn't tell him that I was planning to go, and I asked why he thought that this was necessary.
He was offering the same safety path that whites do when they wish to shelter their black friends from racism.
Maybe those blacks at the funeral came from the same village and so were known, but black not known would report a different experience.
Any way YOU scream that blacks are violent and lazy, and swear that this isn't racist.
Former Member
When does ethnicity transform into nationality?
0 Shares
Dear Editor,
In his riposte to my comments regarding the lack of guidance from Indian intellectuals who can shape the Indian imagination, Abu Bakr pushes the discourse into a new direction (‘The Indian intellectuals are fighting a losing battle against a natural force’ SN, November 5). Bestowing the concern as our “dilemma” (not a Guyanese dilemma?), he points to an overarching natural force quietly at work, shaping our notion of the “Guyanese”. Our “wailing”, “militancy” and “self-pity” (his words) amounts to nothing more than a losing battle to protect “spectacle and gestures” of a sub-culture. Demystifying his narrative, we are left with a mere question: When does ethnicity transform into nationality?
Our nationality, ‘Guyaneseness’, if you will, like the notion of ethnicity, can only be defined through shared cultural values, Blacks, Amerindians, Indians, others. It is not a new ‘entity’ borne out of a sudden revolutionary act that negates entirely the acculturated experience and culture-sharing of the past. Rather, there is a duality of forces at work. There is manifestation of this national transformation, as well as the other.
We never denied that there exists a move towards an organic culture of ‘one love’ in Guyana. This is essentially the goal of nation-building. But, a country made up of multiple ‘nations’ has its challenges to the zeitgeist of a popular culture. More so in this world, constantly being transformed by globalization, information-sharing and time-space compression. Our difference is that Mr Bakr seems to be arguing that we have long past this turning point, and emphasizing our cultural differences threatens to shatter this paradigm.
Our experience has shown that obstacles and setbacks become evident in our diverse culture and geographically fragmented state, embracing intervening obstacles to that end, like national elections, national policies, who gets the largesse of the state, etc. Yes, we are bound by tradition, laws and citizenship. But the folkloric aspect of self continues to raise challenges in both communities. Nation-building can be a time-consuming political struggle with its many nuances. But, does not our Guyanese culture have to take into consideration the elements of our many sub-cultures, Indians, Amerindians, Blacks, others?
While we have indicated that this should be the national goal, Mr Bakr should know that, given his ability at scrutinizing past events in Guyana, facilitated by the internet, ROAR’s calls for a structural rearrangement of the political state (devolution) was coupled by recommendations that serve to incorporate far-reaching distributional changes that went beyond “balancing the force” and calling for “religious and folkloric” holidays.
What possible illuminations does Mr Bakr need to confirm identity? The marketplace in which we interact on a daily basis is more complex and multicultural today, a result of nation-building within the organic state. Yet we still cling to what makes us unique, while sometimes rejecting the driving forces of assimilation, popular culture and forced cultural appropriation.
The question, as we have argued, and Mr Bakr knows this, is how do we move beyond the current divide to a national cultural celebration of being truly Guyanese? Cultural transformations cannot be promoted when one side dominates and controls the parameters of the discussion. The current national divide does not allow us to fast forward with a national force that drags us into a melting pot. It is a question of effective leadership, availability of opportunity and careful social engineering that can move us closer to this reality. Perhaps the kind of discourse like this one that can alert us to such a plan to create a more organic state and forge a genuine multinational culture.
Fifty years of tongue-in-cheek attempts by political gamesmanship make some wonder ‘when?’ while others roll our eyes to high heavens and suck their teeth when they hear of words like ‘social cohesion’ and ‘national unity’.
Interestingly, Mr Bakr admits to selectively borrowing from a Stabroek News “blogger” who endorses his argument, while revealing to us that he (Bakr) writes because he is on a “mission” to provide “reasoning and arguments for another generation”. All the while, Mr Bakr ignores another adjacent blogger, who, while supporting his thesis, advocates that Indians should “catch a plane to the land of India”.
Undoubtedly, we have a bit of a journey ahead of us.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
Former Member
No sensible person is discussing some "New Guyanese Cultural Identity". They merely refer to the fact that by virtue of being "Guyanese" one is multi racial, multi cultural, multi religious, etc.
Do Hindus and Muslims in India have the peaceful coexistence that they do in Guyana? Can one have in a single family Hindus, Christians, and Muslims, ALL sharing in each major religious celebrations?
Is there any where, aside from Trinidad, and Suriname, where decent numbers of people of African descent engage in Diwali, or Phagwah celebrations, which are public, and therefore more easily accessible to others than are the Eid holidays which are more private?
How often does a Guyanese not have a party where one can expect foods of Creole, Indian, Chinese, Amerindian, and European origins. Does black pudding from Guyana (and other parts of the Caribbean) taste the same as its equivalent in Europe, or in the Appalachian regions......no because it has been modified to adjust to the tastes of Africans, and now Indians.
What of the Indo Guyanese whose base language, Creolese, will be understand in Sierra Leone, and in Nigeria, but NOT in India. Imagine the irony of a Nigerian and an Asian Indian in RH, and the Nigerian having to translate what the Indo Guyanese person is saying.
THIS is the essence of what being Guyanese is about. Should some African purist damn blacks for eating roti, for calling the peas "channa", and for playing Phagwah, he will be damned as weird.
We are NOT separate nations, existing as monolithic groups, isolated from each other, except sharing a single geographic space.
Bayto and his Indocentric clowns can scream as much as they want, but the horse left the stable long ago and most Indo Guyanese kids love dancehall, and soca, for some even MORE than they like anything of Indian origin.
Former Member
And in ironic contradiction to what Bayto says, Guyanese have largely mastered how to interact with each other on a day to day basis. There are very few instances where there is cultural conflict or intolerance. We are definitely NOT ignorant of each other's cultures, and in fact ALL of us incorporate aspects of the cultures of others.
Where we fall down is at the INSTITUTIONAL level. We do not have a sense of "Guyaneseness". We fear power in the hands of other ethnic groups, so seek to make sure that we have it concentrated within our own ethnic group. We do not trust people from other ethnic groups to be fair when it comes to economic opportunities, or political inclusion.
THIS is at the level where we have a problem. Guyanese are not five nations, or even two nations (African and Indian). WITHIN both the African and Indian communities there is as much variance as there is between the two.
So why does he continue to perpetrate the myth that Guyana is merely a geographic space, and that all being Guyanese means is a national flag, and a passport?
Add Reply
Sign In To Reply
210 online (0 members
/
210 guests)