The Advent of anti-Hindu Sentiments
What happened after the demise of Shawn Brown regarding the criminals was much the work of the phantom. Bodies continue to appear across the landscape of the city and East Coast. But, before one could end making notes about 2003, one would have to mention the Cycle of Racial Oppression by Kean Gibson, a book written suggesting that Blacks in Guyana suffer oppression under Indians, because Hindus are racists due to their caste legacy. She sees Hindu ideology as the heart of the PPP repressive manner of dealing with the Black community. Additionally, she makes the subtle point that Blacks have to rise up in some manner given the voting patterns n Guyana. And, in light of this book, it is easy to see how more young Blacks woudl take up arms against a government seen as "Indian."

Yet, Kean Gibson did not start this view. It was given to her by a few Black intellectuals, ex-banking officials who believe that the PPP (despite its Marxist-socialist leanings) is headed by Hindus. It was gieven to her by people such as Clerence Ellis. Here is Mr. Ellis (and ex-PNC/R member Eric Phillips who left the PNC after the 2001 election) writing in "Power Sharing for Racial harmony"; "The Hindu religion justifies inequality. That makes equality of opportunity as an ideal between Hindus and non Hindus almost impossible. Some acculturation of the Hindu inequality / exclusivity thinking has taken place but it surfaces all the time in everyday activities and is partly responsible for the visceral reaction of African Guyanese to the prospect of a never ending perpetuation of PPP rule. Afro Guyanese know instinctively that such rule means dominance, and that for many Hindus, dominance of those perceived as subordinates is not unjust."

For more on this book, see Kean Gibson's pamphlet,

The PPP and its agents are trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. Your obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those you seek to convince.

The Indian element as usual are pretending that Indians are saints and blacks are the only devils.

1. The Indian vote is shrinking and is now about the same as the African/mixed vote. What do those who PRETEND to be AFC supporters have to gain by angering the black/mixed bloc.

2   Those who pretend to be AFC supporters who focus only on the Indian vote are guaranteeing that the AFC will remain a small party.  They foster the notion in the African/mixed bloc that the AFC is Indo party II, and they will NEVER get the majority of the Indian vote.

So Kishan B continue!

And aren't the bulk of those who lead and support the PPP not Hindu, even of only nominal?    Its like APNU denying that the bulk of its leadership and support are Christians.

The PPP is a crony capitalist party.  We can debate about who the main beneficiaries of its largesse are, but its not Christians.

Caribny no insult here. But I think you should consider following  an ancient natural African religion instead of following Europe's christianity with its European Jesus. 

Lol - Caribny is being goaded by clear racists and you are falling into the pit where they want you to go.

I am a Hindu and I don't support the PPP as a matter of fact I would say most Hindus who really are hindus do not support the PPP; not the ones parading around sending out Diwali greetings and posting Hanuman Chalisa renditions online. I am talking about the ones who live as Hindus by actions not any of their PPP trained propaganda bullshit. These real hindus do not support the PPP in any way shape or form.

Carib is a black man who drapes himself in the glorious identity of the buck man to pour scorn on the Indos. You don't find them more mentally messed up than that. I used to see a lot of that in Guyana in areas where there was lot of inbreeding.

Africa has many natural ancient religions he can consider unless he likes kneeling and bowing to a Euro god.  The same god of the master and his whip.

Talk some sense into this chap Uncle Wallace.

My goodness. U r one messed up guy.

Why don't you tell that to the thousands of Indians who are now embracing the SAME Christianity.  Indeed there are now more Christian Indians than Muslim Indians and one can even debate about how many devout Hindus under 30 y/o exist in Guyana.

In addition let me inform you.

Christianity reached Africa and India BEFORE it reached the British Isles.  Despite what many believe Christianity comes from the same root as does Islam so are you claiming that those who are Muslims are European?

This is apart from the fact that the notion that Afro Guyanese adopt African religions is interesting when the Africans themselves have largely abandoned those SAME religions.

Can you cite when I claimed to be Amerindian.  I am a man of Igbo, Ewe, Akan, and Mandingo ancestry and I am PROUD of it!

Obviously you aren't a Muslim because you would know the role that Jesus plays in that religion (he is a prophet) and that Jews, Christians and Muslims basically share the same religion and worship the same good, and even share the same BOOK!  First came Judaism followed by Christianity and then Islam.  Each building on the other.

Now tell me where Europe fits into this?

BTW the Indians who became Christians CENTURIES BEFORE the first European arrived, what of them?  Christianity arrived in India BEFORE Islam.

Southern Jim Crow

Apartheid

transatlantic slave trade

Segregation

Indian indenture system

Colonialism

Holocaust of gypsies, jews and mixed race Germans

Conquest and extermination of Native Americans and Australian aboriginals

Mormon thinking (the colored people are sons and daughters of the Devil)

All brought to us coloured folks by people who followed which religion?

Who is more messed up me or this.

Confused man.  Stupid man.  Ignorant man.

Don't seem capable of understanding that Christianity comes from the SAME source as does Islam.  So how is Christianity a European religion? 

And if we are going to damn a religion because of how some of its believers behave then we can equally condemn Hindus and Muslims.

Unable to understand I see.

The Trans Sahara slavery and that over the Indian Ocean was as big as that of the Trans Atlantic slave trade.  It began before and ended after, and some believe that it still occurs!  Let us look at the barbarous treatment of women in the Arab world.

Let us address caste and wife burning and many ills of Indian culture.  Address the various Indians who did very well from snatching people for "sale" as indentures, carefully selecting the lower caste people who represented no value in the eyes of the Indian elites.

Let us address the fact that there were entire kingdoms and empires in Africa that did very well off the slave trade. And let us look at the fact that barbaric behavior was definitely a feature of the powerful Kingdom of Dahomey where people were buried alive for sacrificial purposes (I guess one of the religions that you wish that I should adopt)..

You are like the bigots who damn Islam just because some primitive nomadic tribes engage in barbarism in the name of Allah, forgetting the very valuable role that it played in the Middle Ages. 

Should I damn every Hindu because of the barbarities of caste, of sanctioned rape, child slavery, and wife burning which are very common and core to Indian culture?  Or should I just blame the evil people who are responsible?

I was going to refer to you as a common every day ass wipe man but I will never lower myself to the pit.

 I am a proud man of color.  Everyone has a right to worship whoever they feel like worshiping. but for me I will never ever ever bow down to some religion that was used to justify serious hurt against my people and their human rights.  So go sing the hymn "I Shall Be Whiter than Snow" in some other part of the Caribbean.

Using one's tongue to do the job is more popularly known as an ass licker.

Hindus and Muslims were major buyers of slaves in Africa.  Yorubas, Ashanti, Dahomey and many other African groups were also major participants in the slave trade.

You really ought to stop because you are making yourself into a jackass at this point.  Really if you want to blame Christianity for slavery why not also blame Hindus, Muslims and those who practiced traditional African religions.

http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/line.htm

Now look and learn.  Note that Christianity reached India long before it reached most of Europe.  Ethiopia became a Christian country BEFORE the Roman Empire.

So why do you give the English credit for Christianity when YOUR INDIAN brothers were exposed to the religion a scant 100 years after Jesus reputedly died?

Christianity reached Indian BEFORE Islam?  Islam arrived in India brought in by the sword and bloodshed, much as it reached Africa!

So should I worship the Yoruba religion when they might have sold some of my ancestors.  Or the Ashanti? Or the Dahomey?  Kingdoms which grew fabulously wealthy off the backs of the Trans Atlantic slave trade.  Kingdoms so powerful that West Africa was the last part of the world, aside from China which was never a colony, that became conquered by the Europeans.

I suggest that you educate yourself and stop revealing your ignorance.

As to skin color.  You come from India where they worship whiteness and have a whole caste system which was responsible.  So should I blame Hinduism for the white skin obsession that Indians have?  To quote an Indian woman, "one can be dark and rich, or light and poor, but one can't be dark and poor and expect to get married!"

People who live in glass houses mustn't throw stones.

Now please go to India and tell them that in 2014 being the country with the LARGEST slave population is very barbaric.  Should I blame Hinduism and Islam for that too!

The last Christian nation abolished slavery in the 1880s.  The West African kings were extremely angry when that happened!

Mr Singh spread he racism like Mr REV Dev Bisram. 

my goodness.

Good for you Wally. Never be afraid to stand up to some of the dirtbags on GNI.

Seignet I do respect you for your positions on human rights and other such important issues. You are a good human being. 

But Seignet instead of shouting "my goodness" to me you should have shouted "my goodness" to places like Bob Jones University, a non-denominational Protestant Christian university in South Carolina, that prevented their students until recently from dating persons of other races.   

And what about "my goodness" to Muslim countries where raped females are then slaughtered by their families as an honor killing.  Or in Hindu Indian where a caste system sanctioned by that religion has confined large numbers to lives of extreme poverty, humiliation and oppression.

No disagreement with that Carib. It is all wrong.

None of those African kingdoms had a choice. To say a spear is equal to a cannon in a fight is just plain naive or dumb.

It goes to show that men of all religions are not perfect.

At the end of the day Judiaism, Christianity and Islam are the SAME and Palestine is NOT in Europe so NONE of them are European religions.  They are South West Asian religions.

Bull shit.

1. They had guns and in fact sold slaves to buy MORE guns.

2. They confined the Europeans to the coast because they wanted to control the supply of slaves.

3.  The Europeans had no stamina for European diseases, so until medications were developed in the 19th century, were not able to fight against the well armed and politically sophisticated African kingdoms.

Stop reading the white man's history where he told you that West Africans were primitive and so unable to defend themselves.  This is why West Africa was the last place to be colonized by the Europeans.  It was only by the 19th C that the Europeans were strong enough to conquer them, having under gone the Industrial Revolution, which put them way ahead of the Africans. 

Of course 1,000 years of selling the strongest people, first to the Arabs across the Sahara, and then to the Europeans on the Atlantic coast also weakened them. A self inflicted wound that the West Africans brought on themselves.

BTW it was the Muslim Arabs who taught the Europeans that Africans wwere quite willing to sell each other for profit, even though the long term effect was quite damaging.

So no the Africans weren't forced to do anything.

Do you know that when the British ended the slave trade some African kings wrote angry letters demanding to know why they were interrupting their livelihood?

Doh is true bai...doh is true. 

This sounds like a bunch of European slave trader Propaganda.  African kingdoms may have had guns and gun power but it was the European powers that were supplying them.  Just like when the Soviet Bloc collapsed and the Eastern European countries dug themselves out of a downward economic hole by trading AK-47 rifles/ammo for raw gold and diamonds from African warlords.

Soon Carib will be tell us that the black man made a slave out of himself and it is the European Christian that freed and rescued him.  Some fools on this site will agree with him. 

Carib listen here I hope you are not working with these European countries to send the Reparations bill to these West African countries for them to pay. 

Where are all the PNC dirty Indians.  They are the ones who are giving the PNC some clout to make fire balls.

Moses and Khemraj were last seen at the gas station with 5 gallon cans buying gasoline.

Hey hey hey...dey helpin foh prevent communis style PPP gov.

What communist, you azz?  The PPP is a tiefing government, there is nothing communist about that.

You know what is the white man's version of the slave trade?  That dumb and stupid African chiefs used to sell their OWN people for a bottle of rum and glass beads.

They were not given guns,  They BOUGHT the guns.  The slave trade was about empires expanding their territories, and weakening neighbors by snatching their best people, and using guns bought from the Europeans to defeat and control groups in the interior who had less access to guns.

You operate from the premise of the "poor little primitive African who was too dumb and stupid not to be controlled by the African".

Indeed the slave trade was quite lucrative when they traded with Arabs over the Sahara.  Very wealthy empires developed out of the trade in gold and slaves.  The Mali Empire was one of the WORLD's richest empires in the 13th century and indeed was the seat of the renowned Timbuktu university, a HIGHLY regarded institution of that era.

You have no idea of how this all worked.

1.  Planters in the Americas placed orders for slaves from certain regions (each had their stereotypes) or slaves with certain skills. 

2.  The traders had to quickly fill these orders and so focused on the regions where the system of slave trading was most developed.  There is a reason why 1/3 of all slaves came from what we now call Nigeria/Benin/Cameroon. That is because there were highly organized systems of slave trade.  The ship couldn't waste time in a region where the locals refused to trade in slaves (and some of these areas did exist), so focused on empires where the slave trade was a huge part of their economy.

3. Empires always sought to expand their territories and conquer new peoples.  The coastal empires were the most successful because they generated wealth from the capture and trade of people snatched from interior locations, transported to the coast and sold to the Europeans.

4. Had the coastal empires not kept the Europeans in the ships or trapped in their forts, these people would have gone into the interior to seize their own slaves without paying for them.

5. Despite the tremendous value of the slave trade, which would have provided an incentive for the Europeans to conquer these West African, the Europeans were UNABLE to conquer any part of West Africa until after the slave trade ended. 

They were instead having to bargain for slaves with very shrewd African traders who played off the Europeans against each other, prevented Europeans from accessing their own access to enslaved peoples, and with held slaves if a particular slave ship captain tried to drive a hard deal.

6.  Certain cities within the Yoruba kingdoms were as large as and CLEANER than many European cities.  Unlike most European cities, where human waste was dumped in the streets causing devastating plagues, in these Yoruba cities it was transported to agricultural areas for conversion into manure.

So save me with your condescending bull shit about the West African kingdoms being the "victims" in the slave trade.  Even today in Ghana, Nigeria and Benin there are still certainly families EXISTING, who derived their wealth from the sale of slaves. 

These Africans were every bit as sophisticated as the Romans in knowing how to negotiate trade deals which were lucrative, how to manipulate the various European powers against each other, and how to ensure that they had the UPPER HAND in the negotiations. As these Africans became aware of how valuable the slave trade was the charged more for these slaves.

TWO lies.

1.  The Africans were defenseless people who let the white sailors (most sick and/or drunk by the time they reached Africa) to enslave them.

2.  That African chiefs were simpletons who sold their own villagers for a bottle of rum or a mirror.

THAT is the narrative of the white planter who needed ti develop an image of the primitive African to justify slavery.

The victims in this are the poor unfortunates who were traded to the Americas, and this included Africans AND the Irish.

BOTH Africans and Europeans benefitted from the trade.  And as Africans sought to weaken each other by enslaving who they could capture, so too did the Englsh attempt to break the Irish by selling them as slaves to Barbados and North America.

YOU ALSO BELIEVE IN THE PRIMITIVE AFRICAN!

FACT: when the trans Atlantic slavery was being under taken ALMOST EVERY SINGLE HUMAN CIVILISATION ENGAGED in slavery.  So Africans Europeans, the Arabs, Persians and Indians who all engaged in this trade saw nothing wrong with it.  And indeed the Europeans ENSLAVED EACH OTHER for shipment to the Americas!

This Carib just like Mars.  He proper like white man.

So if I say that Burnham was a bad man I like white men.  I guess I ought to praise Burnham and blame all his faults on the British and the CIA.  That is OK for you?

Why don't you go through what I wrote and discuss what aspects of it are wrong?

YOU CANNOT because you know NOTHING on the subject!

Guy you are mixing me up with some man who learned about African history by reading two books on the subject in his garage.  As an undergraduate I took courses on the subject at a leading international University.  Although history was never my focus of study as an undergraduate;nevertheless, I took African history courses from some of the leading Professors in the field. Professors who worked with the likes of Rodney, Mazrui and Davidson.  I was never a brilliant student in the subject but I passed each of my courses with a solid C grade.  I never failed even though I was in classes with some of the best students, on the subject, in the world. During my studies I wrote research papers on Sweden's role in the transatlantic slave trade.  The Arab slave trade and African salt mines was another area that I examined.