Skip to main content

Identity and [lack of) Cohesion

Photo : Ravi Dev

Identity and (lack of) Cohesion

Aug 26, 2018

https://www.icdn.today/post/id...and-lack-of-cohesion

ROAR of Ravi Dev

Three years down the line, the PNC-led government still insists “Social Cohesion” is their official goal even as they have been most partisan in their actions– from unilaterally shutting down the sugar estates to blanking the Opposition from the US Congressional Delegation (CODEL). Unsurprisingly, there have been complaints by citizens who are worried about the end game.

Intuitively, they accept that “cohesion” cannot be a “bad thing”. The Jubilee Independence Commemoration poignantly brought to the fore rueful thoughts about “what could have been” if we had not been as divided as we’ve been. Guyanese do not need experts in sociology or politics to also apprehend that while social cohesion is a desirable state of affairs, there are no silver bullets to getting there. In other words, they understand efforts must take place simultaneously in a whole number of dimensions – at a minimum including social, political, economic and cultural ones, all of which the PNC-led government studiously avoids.

Starting with the last, the cultural problematic is fundamental because it plays such a key role in forming our individual and collective identities and hence, our perspectives. When we were brought to labour in the plantations the Europeans – in our case, first the Dutch and then the English – invented both “race” and “culture” to “keep us in our place,”  which is to say, subservient and second class at best. The Africans were described as “savages” who had no “culture” and as such their “bestial practices” were to be extirpated as a salutary practice. They were to be “thankful” and grateful for being “exposed to civilised culture”.

The problem, however, is that when one is imitating a “standard” that is intrinsically yoked to the physical characteristics of “race”, it becomes absolutely impossible to ever reach that standard. Even those “Coloureds” who - because of the rape of African women - had “half” or “three quarters” white “blood” could never become completely “civilized”. This did not stop many from feverishly trying, even into the present. But this one-sided clash of the dominant “white European” culture with the “African” did produce a hybrid culture – called “Creole” – that was the lived experience of the ordinary African, who stubbornly retained aspects of ancestral culture.

Persons become individuals with distinct identities through their own experiences and inculcated beliefs to form their memories that act as narratives of their “selves”. But man, unlike other animals, is enmeshed in social relations in which his identity develops and in turn those social relations are generally mediated by cultural norms in both the public and private spheres. In a society that is culturally homogenous, these are quite integrated but if the public and private cultures are different and clash, as with ordinary Africans, this can cause dissonances for the individual. Granger’s denunciation of “Guinness Bars” recently illustrated this disjuncture.

For ordinary freed Africans, this strain to emulate white/European culture was much greater than the Coloureds, since the latter were seen by others as an intermediate group. The Africans were relegated to the lowest strata and could only move up by becoming educated, acting “proper” in imitating white behaviour and marrying “fairer” to join the coloured. This constructed identity out of the values and beliefs of the culture form the framework for the individual’s interpretation and organisation of new experiences. This would become very relevant when new immigrants would be introduced into the society to provide cheap labour on the sugar plantations; and form a new basis of comparison.

It is of more than passing interest that when the Portuguese from Maderia were brought as indentured servants they were not then, nor later, classified as “European” – even though they were phenotypically that. They were “Portuguese” to the British and seen by the freed African people and later indentureds as such – never white, notwithstanding the pretensions of the ones who later moved up the economic and social ladder.

While they imitated the ruling British/European lifestyle, their Catholic variant of Christianity also served to distinguish them culturally. Many of the ones in the lower economic oracles intermarried with Africans and adopted Creole Culture. There were very few men among the Chinese who were brought as indentured labourers and most intermarried with locals and adopted Creole Culture even while contributing their cuisine to the new land.

All of them, including lower strata Africans, were to evaluate the “heathen” Indian Indentureds as the new lowest man on the totem pole. Their success create severe cognitive dissonances that lead to dangerous scapegoating – and lack of cohesion.

 (To be continued.)

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Django...who is the ICDN? Is that a Guyanese outfit?

Can you post a bio on dis banna?

Where is the "continued" part of the article?

From reading this, it look like this banna is quoting some unnamed sources that refers to how Europeans saw Afros and Indos, not necessarily his view...especially with words like "heathen", etc...

V
VishMahabir posted:

Django...who is the ICDN? Is that a Guyanese outfit?

Can you post a bio on dis banna?

Where is the "continued" part of the article?

From reading this, it look like this banna is quoting some unnamed sources that refers to how Europeans saw Afros and Indos, not necessarily his view...especially with words like "heathen", etc...

ICDN  https://www.icdn.today/  is a news outfit in your neck of the woods,seems there are lots of Indo Trinidians and Indo Guyanese contributors.

Ravi Dev is from WCD,he lived in the US for a while,got a law degree.Moved back to Guyana and formed the now defunct party Roar.

Do a search on Google lots of info about him.

The continued part is not finished,it's not on the website.

Django
Last edited by Django

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

FM
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Django
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Being Indo-centrist is not a crime. Being Afro-centrist is not a crime. I have a high regard for Eric Phillips of ACDA. 

FM
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Any Amerindian-centrist in Guyana?

V
VishMahabir posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Any Amerindian-centrist in Guyana?

It's possible for Donald R to be half & half. 

Mitwah
Mitwah posted:
VishMahabir posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Any Amerindian-centrist in Guyana?

It's possible for Donald R to be half & half. 

How about Shoeman,probably one.

Django
Gilbakka posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Being Indo-centrist is not a crime. Being Afro-centrist is not a crime. I have a high regard for Eric Phillips of ACDA. 

Bhai,

itsn't the crime,it's the confusion that is spreading in multi-ethnic societies,especially Guyana.

Django

yuh think the white ppl tell the blacks to hate indians? i think the blacks hated us from day one, they know the difference between us and dem.

Nobody like immigrants, even the emancipated blacks of the time.

I went to a trade school operated by bookers and staffed by englishmen. Founded in 1957. I have never heard one White person ever showing discrimination towards an indian or a black student. 

The whiteman tried their best give opportunities, improved housing and health care.

S
seignet posted:

yuh think the white ppl tell the blacks to hate indians? i think the blacks hated us from day one, they know the difference between us and dem.

Nobody like immigrants, even the emancipated blacks of the time.

I went to a trade school operated by bookers and staffed by englishmen. Founded in 1957. I have never heard one White person ever showing discrimination towards an indian or a black student. 

The whiteman tried their best give opportunities, improved housing and health care.

Siegnet,

I am trying to decipher when the distrust between the East Indians and Africans started.I have found lots of papers from different authors.

The narratives from our historians differs from what i have found.

Django
Django posted:
Gilbakka posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Being Indo-centrist is not a crime. Being Afro-centrist is not a crime. I have a high regard for Eric Phillips of ACDA. 

Bhai,

itsn't the crime,it's the confusion that is spreading in multi-ethnic societies,especially Guyana.

It's the task of educated people to clear up the confusion. The USA is a multiethnic society. When African-Americans proclaimed "Black Is Beautiful" in the 1960s they weren't anti-American or anti-white. Ethnic pride is a virtue. Ethnic prejudice is a vice. Go spread the message.

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Guyana’s unique “racism”

By Ryhaan Shah

Following up on last Sunday’s column on the rise of nativism, Guyana’s rather unique “racism” also bears some investigation.
Racism is an ideology of domination based on the idea of biological and cultural superiority of one or more groups which is used to justify the treatment of others as inferior. Whole societies can be structured along racial lines or there can be, as occurred during the Burnham era, institutionalised racism where African-Guyanese were favoured by the very structure of government and society.
But Guyana does not conform to all the sociological norms of racism. Here, the “racist” term is especially reserved for Indian-Guyanese who speak from their perspective as Indians despite constitutional and human rights guarantees to their identity.
While the Indian communities are the ones that suffer racial/political attacks, in a perverse twist, they are also the ones condemned as the country’s “racists”, and the violence against them is justified by a wide swathe of society including a number of Indian-Guyanese.
The twists and turns that have led to this unique “racism” has its roots in Guyana’s colonial past.
The Indians who were viewed as “acceptable” were the educated professionals like the Luckhoos and Ruhomons. They had converted to Christianity and, in the process, had subsumed their Indian identity. These were the Indians who “arrived” into colonial society.
At the other end of the colonial experience were men like JB Singh and Ayube Edun of the British Guiana East Indian Association. The majority of Indians subscribed to their view that our future lay in honouring the heritage of our foreparents.

When Dr Cheddi Jagan entered politics, he might have succeeded as a champion of the working class had the PPP remained whole. However, the split with Burnham refashioned him as an ethnic leader, a role he never relished or wanted for himself.
To the socialist Jagan, the Indian professional and business class was the despised bourgeoisie. He, too, needed to recast his supporters into another image to satisfy his ambition of being a true leader of all Guyanese. To this end, the PPP generally ignored the ethnicity of their followers and the specific issues that came with it. This while Burnham fully embraced being an African leader.
Adding to “racism” in Guyana is the ideology of “oneness” with its jingoism of “love and unity” which is simple-minded enough to enjoy popular support. Within this context, Indians who value their cultural identity are viewed as “racists” for rejecting the sameness required to be “one”. Because the “all awe is one” jingle sounds nice to the ear, no one stops to consider that the message speaks to a clear disrespect for cultural and ethnic diversity just as Brexit does in the UK and Trumpism is doing in America.
It promotes the dominance of “one” over every “other” – the textbook definition of racism.
For Indians to even speak of race makes us “racist” and when the stumbling block to Guyana’s progress and development is the race divide between Indians and Africans, this becomes problematic: how do you address the problem if simply stating it makes you racist?

Many, therefore, say nothing. They embrace the ideology of “love and unity” even when, as exemplified by the Coalition Government, it is nothing but empty rhetoric. But being accepted into the lie is more rewarding than addressing the truth. It leads some Indians to self-hatred and to justify their hate, they need to accuse culturally secure Indians of “racism”.
African Guyanese’s pride in being African is never viewed as racism and they are content with this inequality which shuts out Indians from engaging in the vital discourse on race and racism. Indians who persist endure the abuse of being called “racists”.
In his quest to be a Guyanese leader, Jagan helped to create this inequality. The PPP continually placates African Guyanese in order to win them back, and often at the expense of their loyal Indian supporters.
Independent Indian Guyanese who address Indian issues are seen as political threats to the PPP and the accusation always levelled at them is that they are “racists”, an accusation that is readily picked up by African Guyanese and Indians who continue to support the idea that the only acceptable Indian Guyanese is the colonised “mimic man” who subsumes or forgoes his Indian identity.
It is time to push the reset button and get everyone on the same page where to address the race issue does not make you racist and where the mindless jingoism of “oneness” is accepted for the disregard for diversity that it is.

Source:

Mitwah

Read some old books written by coloreds of that period. Ever so often they penned a few lines of the miseries of Indians in Georgetown.

This hatred was never concieved by the Split of 1955. The Split only made it boiled over into open hostilities. The Portuguese did worst to the Blacks, but for some reason they determined to blame indians for their economic plights.

S

Being Indian In Guyana: The challenges


Posted August 12th.2006 - By Moses Bhagwan


I cannot ever forget the exhilaration I felt and how captive I was, in witnessing, during the1950 -1953 period, the emotions, energy and power of working people emerging from thedark and Indians and Africans of British Guiana, raising their level of neighbourliness to a dynamic political coalition for a new vision of an independent Guyana.Some passages of that great historical moment came to life again in the civilian rebellion of the 1970s and 1980's although in dissimilar political circumstances.


The dream of national reconciliation did not fade because Walter Rodney was assassinated or for the reason that his party, the Working People's Alliance, failed to carry on his work,but simply because in 1992 Indians and Africans, under the guidance of their respective ethnic leadership, became united once again in their opposition to each other in one momentous act of self betrayal.Indians may be excused for returning to communalism in mass in those elections bearing in mind the pain and suffering inflicted by the Burnham and PNC regimes.Perhaps the political directorate of the Indian masses was taken by surprise, for in the euphoria of that election victory, they failed to take note of the fact that the PNC had successfully regrouped and reestablished-if there was any doubt- its electoral foothold in the African community.


The consequences of the signal failure of Dr. Jagan's and the PPP's leadership in meeting the new challenges of the nineties are a matter of history and not a subject of this article.Exactly what national reconciliation has to aim at may be a matter of great uncertainty. It involves, among other things, I believe, a challenge to the colonial hierarchical status assigned to us during the colonial period, research into fact and fiction about race and ethnicity in the history of Guyana, reducing disparities, expanding opportunities and setting up a political system that allows stable and peaceful relations among contending groups in the society.In whatever way Indians of Guyana are to be defined in ethnic or racial terms may also be a matter of some controversy, since there are so many cultural and racial differences within the group labelled Indian. We do know however for practical purposes they are identifiable as a group that has been involved in and subject to conflict in social relations with other groups in Guyanese society.


I do not have to be Indian to be in sympathy with Indians in the deprivation, insecurity,
agony and frustration they have experienced over the period of the 50 year war between the two main ethnic groups. Nor do I have to be African to be equally distressed by the turbulence within and the withering away of African communities and Africans' sense of despair and marginalisation.Nor do I have to be Amerindian to be aware of the historical injustices to these sturdy first owners of the land which we now collectively claim.From 1963 I began to feel quite uncomfortable "being in office" and in a party objectively fighting to keep black people out and treating them as an enemy. By 1964 I had had become settled in my view that nothing short of a new constitutional arrangement will be enough to make peace between the two major ethnic groups.


I was invited by the government of Mr. Forbes Burnham to attend the London independence conference in 1965 and there to present my rather radical views. I did not attend but proposed that the independence constitution should contain a provision that any Government sworn in should command at least 65% support in Parliament.
In 1965 I opted out of the Indian political collective and joined no other and have since
been engaged in finding a solution rather than helping to prosecute the war.
Being in that position, I like many others, need to define myself in the face of the ethnic hostilities around us.Being Indian, it becomes even more necessary to say something to Indians in answer to the question always there: On whose side are you? Or to explicit abuse: You are traitor to Indians (but since the civillian rebellion when we (WPA) did so much for Indian collective security I haven't heard much of this).None of us is without race or ethnicity. It is inseparable from our being. Therefore an attack against a person's race and ethnicity is really an attack on the essence of her/his being human.


Ethnicity is not an isolated factor of our social existence. The very term ethnicity speaks of its social nature, that is, the existence of groups that are in some ways different from each other.We need to consider what race or ethnicity does to us, and to our capacity to deal with this principal challenge of inter group relations. I simply would say in its biological and cultural impact that it enhances or embellishes our distinctiveness in our being human. At least it ought to. When it does there is a condition for relating to other ethnic communities with supreme confidence and conviction and without loss of pride and dignity. And you are not fractured in personality in aiding any ethnic community, your own or another, that is discriminated against or deprived. And then you are not afraid of doing it.Because, however profound the diversity in and impact of race and ethnicity, the essence of our being is human.If you are Indian and know the feeling of the misery and shock of being victim of ethnic abuse, deprivation and discrimination, then you should be no stranger to the emotions of another ethnic group that is similarly a victim.


Two great Indians (of India) epitomise this kind of person: Rabindranauth Tagore and
Mahatma Gandhi. I am surprised how little of their political culture has been in evidence in the Indian collective and their leadership.The moral argument is not telling in times of conflict, but the argument of necessity is. That necessity is common survival. It is something you cannot run from. Only exceptionally is partition a way out.
Indians will never prosper in Guyana if Africans become impoverished and they will never live securely unless Africans are secure.


The PPP Governments of 1957-1964 were educated to that fact at great cost. (Mr. Burnham discovered the truth in its corollary). The PPP Governments of 1992 to 2006 ignored that fact and the nightmare continues.Indians are the majority ethnic group. I am of the view that it is a fundamental obligation of a majority ethnic group in a multi-ethnic society to relieve other ethnic groups in the society of the fear of ethnic oppression and insecurity.Indians are not now culturally oppressed under a colonial power. They have become a power and are in a position now to reverse or reorder the ethnic hierarchical status in the spirit as a colonial power would. Or they could abolish ethnic hierarchies as a liberated revolutionary force would.
Indians, who have been magnificent in their historic contributions to the making of Guyana,should not occupy any inferior position in guarding the integrity of the state and acting patriotically to prevent the dismantling and diminishing of the nation.
Indians are unable to fulfill their role and destiny because they are disabled and paralysed by the dynamics and strictures of Indian communalism in its confrontation with African communalism.


The drive, industry and sense of fairplay of Indians have been neutralised by their
overpowering fear of Africans.Indians are in a pitiable state. They are attacked from within (internal decay and stagnation in population growth) and from without (revolt of the black population and terror of armed criminal gangs involved in ethnic oriented crimes). The rise of brutal, armed, mainly African gangs, is very unsettling to Indians in particular.They have lost much of their dignity and self assurance and have placed themselves in great peril by remaining silent and tolerant in the face of rampant corruption in the ruling political directorate, the compromise with organised criminality and a resurgence of authoritarianism in governance( evidence of insecurity and moral and political crisis in the leadership)..As the political directorate has grown more powerful in the state, the Indian collective has lost the capacity and will to control the leadership.

This compromise in essence is of the same nature as that of the black population under the Burnham regime. The difference is only a matter of degree. But score one for the black people. Thousands stood up against the PNC regime and during the civil rebellion the three leaders assassinated were all Africans.This paralysis, however rationalised (don't rock the boat), lowers the quality of the Indian and makes her/him an accomplice and reactionary.Indians have been led to believe that as black people were "in power" for 28 years it is their turn. Quite an ugly turn in political morality. That's the political case. There is also a constitutional argument. That is that the PPP has won fair and free elections and should therefore not be destabilised in office.This is a subject by itself. Here are a few positions I have. The stability and strength of a society depends on universal acceptance and support of the fundamental law and constitution.

This position does not exist in Guyana. A constitution needs to realistically reflect the contending racial, ethnic interests and social forces in the way its orders the allocation of state power. Many nations went through great historical struggles until they arrived at a consensus on their constitutional framework.Our independence constitution was imposed by the British; Burnham's constitution wasimposed though a fraudulent referendum. The PPP has done a patchwork on Burnham's constitution (and only after intense pressure from critics). The exercise for fundamental reform stands in limbo.
We still are trying to work this out as a fledgling nation. And we should be careful about criminalising legitimate movement for ethnic security. That is what Burnham tried to do Indians during his tenure.The other factor too as is very evident in Guyana is that political office does not equal political power. The PPP discovered this in 1960's and the PNC learnt their lesson in the late seventies and eighties.


Multi ethnic societies present a real challenge and the conventional systems will not work if the races are equal in power even though unequal in numbers. This is not a moral argument, although there is one. This is an issue of making the system durable and stable.A political system is democratic only to the extent that it allows change, mobility in public opinion and the real likelihood that people may feel free to turn to the opposition as an alternative government.In democratic systems this is the critical fundamental feature that gives safeguard to the people against oppressive or poor government.The political culture of fixed ethnic constituencies is the antithesis even to conventional democratic practice. Under the present system any majority ethnic group given entrenched communal solidarity will shut out minority ethnic groups from office. In the present system in Guyana, Africans are condemned permanently to the opposition benches unless they are included in a coalition government and/or there is a new kind of constitution.Such a situation breeds conflict and revolt and also deformities within the ethnic collective and its leadership.It is not that it is politically immoral for ethnic communities to unite and vote out of concern for the welfare of the ethnic group- if historically the bases for this exist. But the constitutional instruments need to be tailored to meet the concerns and to have built in a process of conflict resolution.Or the society must brace itself for chronic disorder, damaging confrontations and possibility of conflagration on a very wide scale.
The space in the middle is far too narrow and elections so far have not yielded any
parliamentary results that are significant enough to exert sufficient influence to promote ethnic reconciliation. (There is now a view that the mood has changed and that the mighty ethnic blocs will crack sufficiently to give third parties a "balance of power." )


Indians expect dividends from the guaranteed support they give to the PPP. This in our multi-ethnic society leads to discrimination and is a source of tension.
Indians expect that their party will hold a restive African community in place.
How can they?The Africans are not persuaded that Messrs Sam Hinds, Lumumba and Jeffrey represent power to black people. At the same time to strengthen their position in Government and to change the political equations in their favour they need to capture control in places within the State structure, government media, heads of departments, committees, security forces,the legal system, etc where Africans have occupied important positions. Another source of conflict.If Africans protest, demonstrate, revolt, then Indians expect their leadership to suppress them. Another area of conflict. And in the case of the inability of the security forces tocontrol crime and violence, the political directorate makes pacts with criminals and armed
criminal gangs of drug barons to carry out vendettas and selective killings. A highly
dangerous development threatening the safety and integrity of the state.
So if the Africans want in and the Indians want them out, it is hell for all of us.
The fact is that given such a long conflict both Indians and Africans can make out quite a case in their own self-defence.


However we need to bring a closure to the 50 year old ethnic war and to give birth to a
Government that can take hold of things, clean up the mess, protect the citizens, their
homes, their business, destroy the armed criminal gangs and organised criminal network ofthe drug barons, guarantee the fundamental freedoms, unite the people and be fair to all,strengthen our river and sea defences, safeguard our territorial integrity, arrest the rapid depopulation of the country and the debilitating spread of HIV/AIDS, revitalise the communities and implement with urgency a programme of national reconstruction and development.We cannot afford parliamentary games or business as usual after the elections. Guyana is in a condition of emergency. It needs a government that can act democratically and decisively.If the PPP and PNC continue to establish their hegemony in the two main ethnic communities, then such a Government will need to include them both as a starting point,although ideally a new government will do better if it is more inclusive than that.I see the immediate political approach as five fold:

(a) Encourage progressive tendencies, reform and reorganisation within the political collective and its leadership


(b) Help to lift the ethnic collectives from their isolation and encourage communication between the forces of the contending parties


(c) Engage the PPP - being virtually the sole defender of the political and constitutional status quo- in proposals for national reconciliation.


(d) Give recognition of the worth of and work for the expansion of space and freedom for people and organisations who stand outside and independent of the ethnic collectives


(e) Make these elections a forum for national reconciliation/constitutional reform, for the emergence of a united decisive Government and a new starting point for reversing the backwardness swallowing up the entire society.


http://www.guyanacaribbeanpoli...mentary/bhagwan.html

Django
Last edited by Django
seignet posted:

Read some old books written by coloreds of that period. Ever so often they penned a few lines of the miseries of Indians in Georgetown.

This hatred was never concieved by the Split of 1955. The Split only made it boiled over into open hostilities. The Portuguese did worst to the Blacks, but for some reason they determined to blame indians for their economic plights.

Coming winter i will explore some more,got lots of old documents on British Guiana,dating back to Indian Immigration to the colony.

Django
Django posted:
seignet posted:

yuh think the white ppl tell the blacks to hate indians? i think the blacks hated us from day one, they know the difference between us and dem.

Nobody like immigrants, even the emancipated blacks of the time.

I went to a trade school operated by bookers and staffed by englishmen. Founded in 1957. I have never heard one White person ever showing discrimination towards an indian or a black student. 

The whiteman tried their best give opportunities, improved housing and health care.

Siegnet,

I am trying to decipher when the distrust between the East Indians and Africans started.I have found lots of papers from different authors.

The narratives from our historians differs from what i have found.

Your buddy Caribj has the answer.  He said it many times, Indians were brought to undermine the Afro bargaining power and was an instrument of oppression of the Afros.  That's the genesis of the hostility towards Indians.  That is why Afro-centrists like him still do not believe Indians have a place ruling Guyana.  We are a visitor and should go back to India!

FM
Leonora posted:
Mitwah posted:

Prash sounds like him a lot.

I think so too. Ravi was my teacher in Berbice.

Me thinks you mention that,what year ? I heard about him when he went back to Guyana,one of my teacher friend knew him,mentioned some things odd about him,can't recall now,will have inquire from my friend.

Django
Last edited by Django
Keffer posted:
Mitwah posted:

Prash sounds like him a lot.

Oh No ! Prash is harmless; all talk and no action !

Why don't you just admit you created the alias "prashad" so you can talk shit and fight with yourself all day? You and he are one and the same or you are lovers. The drama is never ending.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
seignet posted:

yuh think the white ppl tell the blacks to hate indians? i think the blacks hated us from day one, they know the difference between us and dem.

Nobody like immigrants, even the emancipated blacks of the time.

I went to a trade school operated by bookers and staffed by englishmen. Founded in 1957. I have never heard one White person ever showing discrimination towards an indian or a black student. 

The whiteman tried their best give opportunities, improved housing and health care.

Your "thoughts" mean nothing you twisted old buzzard. Why don't you tell us the difference "between us and dem". Leh we hear yuh wax poetic about yuh racist inclinations!

And while yuh at it, tell we how the BLACK MAN at Bookers teach yuh stupid ass everything yuh kno. Yuh mean he didn't hate yuh black skin indian ass from "day one"? Now yuh come hay cussing and berating black man wid yuh "I think" shit. Gwan suh yuh old crook!

FM
VishMahabir posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Any Amerindian-centrist in Guyana?

There is a bow-foot one in the DC area who struggles to ride his mountain bike straight. He is witty, articulate at times, and very shy to reveal his real self. 

Billy Ram Balgobin
Billy Ram Balgobin posted:
VishMahabir posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Any Amerindian-centrist in Guyana?

There is a bow-foot one in the DC area who struggles to ride his mountain bike straight. He is witty, articulate at times, and very shy to reveal his real self. 

Bai Billy, the resident Guyanese Buckman has issues with coolies. He does not see himself as a person of mixed races, he sees himself only as a buckman. You mean we can run straight through his legs and not even touch his skin?

FM
seignet posted:

And yuh still say you are not here for over 20 years. As usual, a skont of 20 years back and stil the same skont today.

Kudos to you fuh stick round hay fuh 20 years. I ain't got dat much patience. Yuh come fresh outta chuch yesterday and 2 nasty cuss come out yuh stink mouth. Yuh nah shame? Damn old hypocrite. Yuh shud change yuh name to SKONT-NET.

FM
skeldon_man posted:
Billy Ram Balgobin posted:
VishMahabir posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Any Amerindian-centrist in Guyana?

There is a bow-foot one in the DC area who struggles to ride his mountain bike straight. He is witty, articulate at times, and very shy to reveal his real self. 

Bai Billy, the resident Guyanese Buckman has issues with coolies. He does not see himself as a person of mixed races, he sees himself only as a buckman. You mean we can run straight through his legs and not even touch his skin?

The other day he was  a PPP stalwart now he is something else. I don't know he will be next.

Billy Ram Balgobin
Billy Ram Balgobin posted:
skeldon_man posted:

There is a bow-foot one in the DC area who struggles to ride his mountain bike straight. He is witty, articulate at times, and very shy to reveal his real self. 

Bai Billy, the resident Guyanese Buckman has issues with coolies. He does not see himself as a person of mixed races, he sees himself only as a buckman. You mean we can run straight through his legs and not even touch his skin?

The other day he was  a PPP stalwart now he is something else. I don't know he will be next.

The man is like dry goat shit. He blows with the wind. He might even be in Guyana organizing the Amerindian political party. If he is, good for him and the people there. Let's just hope he doesn't poison their minds against coolies.

FM
Nehru posted:

The article is obviously over Django's head. I have been suspecting that he is a Kindergarten drop out!!

You are cluless,choice of words in ones dissertation on ethnic identity can be detrimental.

Django
Baseman posted:
That's the genesis of the hostility towards Indians.  That is why Afro-centrists like him still do not believe Indians have a place ruling Guyana.  We are a visitor and should go back to India!

Well if in fact life in a multi ethnic/cultural/religious society bothers you, and you don't try to figure out your place in it, then maybe you do ought to follow your advice.

The mere fact that my demands that the PPP should have ceased their racism towards blacks leads to this reaction from you is precisely the problem.  You think that Indians (38% of the population) should lead Guyana.  You don't seem to have any consideration for the remaining 62%.

And in fact that remaining 62% are seen as OUTSIDE of the Indian ethnic box. And hear comes Ravi Dev ridiculing Africans because we don't seem to have an ethnic box with clear cut boundaries so not all of those who don't self identify as "black" exist outside of our consideration.

And the fact that you are dismayed by the fact that I don't follow ethnic tribal drums with uncritical support the Burnham legacy bothers you. You see you cannot put me into that ethnic box. When I said ill things about Granger recently you were similarly confused.  

Now I have said that BOTH Indians and blacks have been guilty of exclusionary behavior and that BOTH have suffered from this also angers you.  It frustrates you that you cannot cite a post by me that suggests that I think that the 29% African identified and the 20% mixed identified should have exclusive governance of Guyana.  You cannot when I lambaste BOTH Burnham and now Granger!  And refuse to endorse Eric Phillip's claim that Africans should have 15k square miles allocated to them for no one reason other than being black.

Here is the problem. Even Eric Phillips cannot identify who in Guyana is "African/black" because that identity is fluid with very weak ethnic boundary markers.  So who is going to get this land, should he succeed. A "Portuguese" with an African great grandmother?  People like you get very upset at this lack of an ethnic box.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Mitwah posted:

Prash sounds like him a lot.

Mits, the way I see the difference between Ravi Dev and me may be this. Ravi Dev wants Federalism. East Indians will have a province within a state. I want an independent Sovereign Country where any Guyanese can live as long as they support the survival of the East Indian culture on the South American Continent and respect the human rights/dignity of the East Indian people of Guyana.

Prashad
Last edited by Prashad
Prashad posted:
Mitwah posted:

Prash sounds like him a lot.

Mits, the way I see the difference between Ravi Dev and me may be this. Ravi Dev wants Federalism. East Indians will have a province within a state. I want an independent Sovereign Country where any Guyanese can live as long as they support the survival of the East Indian culture on the South American Continent and respect the human rights/dignity of the East Indian people of Guyana.

There is already such a place. It is called Guyana. Suh that is not what yuh "sovereign country" must be about. Tell we de truth na?

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Prashad posted:
Mitwah posted:

Prash sounds like him a lot.

Mits, the way I see the difference between Ravi Dev and me may be this. Ravi Dev wants Federalism. East Indians will have a province within a state. I want an independent Sovereign Country where any Guyanese can live as long as they support the survival of the East Indian culture on the South American Continent and respect the human rights/dignity of the East Indian people of Guyana.

So you want a country like Israel where some exist as sub humans subject to being excluded because of their culture/ethnicity. At least Ravi Dev is honest.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
caribny posted:
Prashad posted:
Mitwah posted:

Prash sounds like him a lot.

Mits, the way I see the difference between Ravi Dev and me may be this. Ravi Dev wants Federalism. East Indians will have a province within a state. I want an independent Sovereign Country where any Guyanese can live as long as they support the survival of the East Indian culture on the South American Continent and respect the human rights/dignity of the East Indian people of Guyana.

So you want a country like Israel where some exist as sub humans subject to being excluded because of their culture/ethnicity. At least Ravi Dev is honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJbnnmxwioU

This is why Prash wants Indesh.

FM
caribny posted:
Baseman posted:
That's the genesis of the hostility towards Indians.  That is why Afro-centrists like him still do not believe Indians have a place ruling Guyana.  We are a visitor and should go back to India!

Well if in fact life in a multi ethnic/cultural/religious society bothers you, and you don't try to figure out your place in it, then maybe you do ought to follow your advice.

Don't gaslight what I say, you are the one with the issue.  You are one of the Afroist mentals who believe Indians are 2nd class in Guyana and have no right to political power.  Stop with your pretense!

FM
Gilbakka posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Being Indo-centrist is not a crime. Being Afro-centrist is not a crime. I have a high regard for Eric Phillips of ACDA. 

You have evidently never met Eric Philips; he is a 1000% fully committed racist !! How do I know ? I attended Queen's College in the same years with him and my impression of him from the time we entered QC after completing common entrance was that he oozes racism with every breath that he takes !! Do you really believe his suggestion that Afro Guyanese be given 150,000 square miles of land was based on decency, generosity, charity or kindness ? If you do, please be advised that I have a ton of gold that I will sell you for only $1.00 !

K
Last edited by Keffer
Keffer posted:
Gilbakka posted:
Django posted:
Baseman posted:

Ravi Dev is the voice of truth.  You may not like what he says, but he says the truth.  

He is like Trump, except he does not tell little White lies, he tells the honest truth!

I read his piece, he did not insult Afros, he gave the perception the colonists created to sow divisions and disunity.  Guyana today is a product of that.  

Bhai,

Ravi is an Indo-Centrist

Being Indo-centrist is not a crime. Being Afro-centrist is not a crime. I have a high regard for Eric Phillips of ACDA. 

You have evidently never met Eric Philips; he is a 1000% fully committed racist !! How do I know ? I attended Queen's College in the same years with him and my impression of him from the time we entered QC after completing common entrance was that he oozes racism with every breath that he takes !! Do you really believe his suggestion that Afro Guyanese be given 150,000 square miles of land was based on decency, generosity, charity or kindness ? If you do, please be advised that I have a ton of gold that I will sell you for only $1.00 !

so, you met  Eric Philips in 1st Form at age 11

i don't know the guy; my brother did

how exactly did he ooze racism "in every breath he takes" in those early pre-teen and teenage years

the guy was a legend by the time i got there, and i never heard anything supporting your claim in my years at QC 

and i know Stanley Ming

and i don't support ACDA's positions for reparations or land

btw, it's 15,000 sq. miles not 150,000

needless to say, your "impressions" are suspect

FM
Last edited by Former Member

Add Reply

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