right out of hell

yo buddy gamount king sey is yo birthday today

He is right. If you ever work on a ship, you would know it have two compasses. One is the true compass and the other is 10 degree off. That by itself will guide to accurately when the two compasses are in line. Burnham screw up my DOB four days before I was born, and meh mumma meck me on the 29th of January. Because I have to honor Burnham who is supposedly my mudda man, I celebrated the 25th and the 29th to honor meh mumma man, Burnham, and meh mumma. Shaitan would love to know that my father was a big black African, Congo man.

but ayo two is nah fambly

What family have to do with coolie and black (must) hump each other according to Shaitan laws? 

HEHEHE

Did you just miss the Great Douglarization Debate where i was castigated as a racist for saying Indians should be free to preserve themselves as a group?

I missed a lot of things today. You being castigated on GNI as being a racist is nothing strange. 

all abee ah wan racist

I suppose it can reasonably be said that I do find negro and coolie behavior equally noxious and reprehensible. I'm not so sure that constitutes racism.

Indo KKK conference in session.

Shaitaan you said a whole lot more than that.  Indeed the Afro KKK house is quite happy and have printed out your postings where you say that Indians arent Guyanese and only arrived by accident, and are a separate nation.

Their claim is that they have said that all along, and now await your departure to India.

Indeed, by virtue of being GUYANESE, they share some of the same habits.  They love Western Union.  Love gold in their mouth. Love to disrespect (beat and at times even kill) their wives/baby mothers. Love to demand bribes.  Love to be abused by politicians who do nothing for them, yet they blindly support them.

Then you claim that there isnt any national identity which unites Guyanese.

I graciously concur with the Honourable Gentleman's points!

How is it that you don't work in politics professionally? You have a limitless capacity to lie and exaggerate

Indo KKK Conference? These knuckleheads? These poor poor dunce drinking buddies who have zero power?

At least you can see for yourself from the Minutes of today's Indo KKK Session that I was castigated for being an anti-Indian racist who wants to encourage wholesale douglarization (I think some months ago I had bashed viciously socially enforced endogamy among Indos).

I'm not even sure they'd consider my application for membership. Do you know I've had plenty of opportunities over the years to join the real Indo KKK Club in GT? Always politely turned them down. Even from the Champion himself. I have beliefs. You may disagree with some of them. But they are sincerely held until reason disabuses me of them.

That rejection by your Indian "nation" has created in you a need to prove that you are indeed a "Super Indian".  The biggest dynamic impacting Indians in Guyana isn't interracial marriages/cohabitation, it is migration.

The Indo KKK as quite powerful.  Jagdeo, Ramotar and many members of Guyana's  business elites are members.  Of course they need their drunkards like the poor chaps who babble PPP nonsense on GNI, just as in the US the KKK has to include toothless rednecks.

Ah doan whah fuh tell yuh chap. Most psychologists have difficulty making a diagnosis in person. I don't know how you can make so many online.

I assure you, I have zero need to be a "Super Indian" or any other type of Indian. I'm not so sure I can be easily described as anything really. And I'm perfectly happy with that.

As you can see from today's Indian Civil War, I wasn't exactly courting dem bais

I will pay you the compliment of accepting that your opinions are held out of your sincerity. Not some need to be "Super Negro" or any other such nonsense. I would ask politely that you consider reciprocating.

Assume arguendo that I have beliefs that are indeed guided by nothing more than my experiences, my knowledged (limited as it indeed it), and my personal (once again limited) ability to synthesize this inelegant mass into something coherent and sensible.

In my world, I see stupidity and I point it out. I don't hold to any isms. My abiding beliefs are quite simple. I'm an American. I'm a Westerner. I'm a secular humanist. Those are the only things which approximate a philosophy to me.

Does this Indian Civil War as you describe it, not indicate to you that there aren't sufficient divisions AMONG Indo Guyanese, which are probably as wide as those between Indo and Afro Guyanese.

So why is there some "Indian nationhood" when all there is are rough ties which link various peoples who self identify with their Indian ancestry, but are different from each other in many other ways.  And these differences mainly centered around how they, or their ancestors, adjusted to life in Guyana.

Face it the cultural boundaries which separate Indians from Africans and other creoles have become distinctly blurred.  In fact those who are paranoid about the disappearance of "Indian culture" in Guyana are about as worried by your cultural fluidity (and increasing numbers of Indo Guyanese, especially those in urban areas) as they are by the fact that many young Indians see nothing wrong with intermarriage.

Listen every one knows about the culture war in Guyana between "town collie" and "country collie", so don't pretend as if there is an Indian "nation" in Guyana.  There isn't.

And these are very threatening concepts to traditional Indians like Ravi Dev.  Indeed he lambastes the lack of an African (creole) identity, equivalent to what he proposes to be the Indian identity (identified to the rural Hindu culture),  based on those very concepts. He just didn't understand why people like Hoyte or Trotman didn't put their "Africanness" first and foremost, instead focusing more on a "Guyanese" identity, with their ethnicity being a subset of it.

Yet you will claim to be Indo Guyanese.

It doesn't. The Indian National Group in Guyana like all other national groups around the world have varying political, philospohical beliefs, and subsets and sub subsets of people. I'm sure we can classify people until we all reduce everyone into groups of 1 person specificity. But that's not how the world works.

Indians and Blacks in Guyana do have a shared identity. We are indeed Guyanese. It is a rather soft identity based on a few things. Mostly based on the fact that we live on the same plot of earth and had the same white country rule us. That is not in dispute.

What I was simply trying to point out is that the Indians have a pre-existing "national" identity according to the textbook definitions and the accepted definitions of nationhood. That is all.

You just fight this simple analysis because you think it may impact some argument down the road or perhaps could be used as an argument for Indo dominance or whatever.

Let me openly speculate for once, do you think an Indian national identity threatens the "worth" or substance of an Afro Guyanese identity? I assure you, it doesn't.

actually shaitaan, i think it is you who are hiding behind imprecise verbiage and appeals to "textbook definitions" and "accepted definitions" you never quite identify

I gave the example of the taxi driver who was basically boycotted by Indians, unless they couldn't find any Indian taxi driver.  Now try telling him that this Indian "nationhood" doesn't threaten his livelihood. Why should he go to the airport based on the ethnicity of the passengers expected to be arriving on a particular flight? 

He then extended it from the airport situation to life in Guyana in general.  In his view Indians saw themselves as a separate people and so were disposed to EXCLUDE non Indians.  Within the context of Guyana with Indians being numerically, politically and economically dominant, it reduced blacks to being a subordinated group.

So yes if Indians do perceive themselves to be a separate nation (which I argue that they aren't, even if they like you think that they are) within a context of a multi cultural society where Indians are the dominant political and economic group it does hurt others. It leads to systematic ethnic exclusion of those seen as being part of a separate nation, and therefore OUTSIDERS.

Indeed using YOUR line of argument partitioning is the only solution, because why should one "nation" be subjected to being ruled by another?  This is why Guyana sought and obtained independence from the UK, so that it would no longer be ruled by another nation.

Do you want partitioning?  Because this is where your concept of different nations, sharing only soil and a passport, and not mutual obligations to each other which should TRANSCEND race.  With your view the PPP will be a minority government with a plurality because the Indian "nation" will vote for it as an expression of their Indian national identity.  Not because they are best able to lead.

What I find interesting about Shaitaan is that he as an individual represents my point, and in a positive way.

Shaitaan draws from the full range of cultural experiences and exposures that Guyana offers, and is therefore able to adjust to and interact with a broad range of cultural context.  His nation is GUYANA, which has allowed him to cross so many boundaries of culture, religion and race. 

If Guyanese don't see themselves as a nation of people who represent different cultural, religious and ideological perspectives then we are ignoring an attribute which gives us advantage over mono-cultural people like Barbadians.

Long gone are the days when Anglocentric black and "colored" elites sought to crush any form of African influence from blacks, or exclude Indians because "they are pagan".  Thank God those days are gone.  And gone with it is the need for any ethnic group to be as defensive as they certainly had to be then.

There is no link between whether or not the Indians are indeed a people with a shared identity and whether or not they treat non-tribal members badly. You can say that one of the reasons we treat non-tribal members badly is because we perceive them as an outsider of the group identity we have. That's a fair line of reasoning.

That we (Indians) are "clannish" is largely true. I wouldn't doubt that. I agree with you that Indians need to learn that this behavior is harmful in a multicultural society. And we should proactively seek to mitigate it's impact on other groups. I'm not convinced we can extinguish it because it's deeply ingrained and not an unknown form of human behavior unique to Indians.

And "Guyana" was not a nation that sought independence from another. We were British ruled by the British. You have a peculiar talent for your own facts.

In the 1960s, two races fought to control the new state that was arising because the old state sought to partition/divorce us from it's polity.

"Guyana" was never a subject nation of the British Empire. It was terra incognita that changed sovereigns a few times and was then finally added to the Empire. India was a subject nation of the Empire. Your parents and grandparents were British. Not "Guyanese."

I assure you, I do not hide. Why would I? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't have some hidden agenda or uniform narrative like the other posters here.

Secondly, I just don't feel like lecturing people on "textbook definitions" and  "accepted definitions" because I'm too lazy to do so and I find it eminently patronizing to do even if I wasn't so lazy. So I allude to them and trust you all know what I mean because we have some shared intellectual language and background.

With the exception of our Gold Teet Brigade and GNI's Moon Cult, I pay you all the compliment of not needing the benefit of a lesson in this either from me or anyone else. If you have forgotten certain key concepts (as we all do at time) google will suffice to refresh you adequately for this very very basic argument.

i prefer you pay me no "compliment" and make your case instead . . . i have no need to utilize search engines on so simple a matter

i've paid attention to your posts on this topic, and your concept of an Indian national identity (in the Guyana context) is a poorly constructed, floating one

hence, there are no "textbook definitions" and  "accepted definitions" valid here

i have a very twitchy bullshit detector . . . arite?

Explain to me why British Guianese weren't a subjugated people who felt colonized and abused by a foreign nation.  Both India and British Guiana were subjugated and neither were sovereign nations.  Both those who lived in India and those in BG had very well developed notions of rule by foreigners, and a lack of opportunity to determine the direction of the colonies, and even to enforce basic human rights.

Do you really think that the inhabitants of BG really thought that they were British in the same sense that they saw the English of being,

In 1962/3 when the British soldiers arrived even I, as a little boy, knew full well that these were a different people from all of us (African, East Indian, Chinese, Portuguese, mixed, even local whites). 

Even I knew that these were the people who ruled us, even though lived thousands of miles away.  So in the midst of African vs. East Indian strife, and despite the skin color tensions which were rife in G/town at the time, I knew that the English were different from ALL of us.

So don't tell me that the adults didn't attach a political significance to the fact that BG couldn't determine its direction as a society without the permission of the British gov't as represented by the governor. The events of 1953, when the democratic rights of Guyanese were trampled on, would have surely informed them of this.

I agree with you completely. There is a reality of black exclusion and/or marginalization in Guyana. And to acknowledge so is not racist at all.

Many Indians (yours truly included) agree with you on the above. We do not however agree on this full blown narrative and/or Theory of Indian Supremacy. Probably because we wish to keep our individual hands clean and unsullied. Who knows. I will allow for some Pontius Pilate hand washing. What you seem to do is to draw a bright straight lines connecting very unrelated dots of casual Indian race favoritism, instances of actual Indian racism, Indian group behavior, racial voting, nepotism, etc into this grand Theory of Indian Supremacy. No one thinks less of the PPP than I do or loathe them more (to the point I'm accused of hating Indians though I am one) but I cannot equate them with the KKK or other such extreme concepts. Also, you have to limit the usage of the word "racism" to actual racism. Don't include things which may seem racially uncomfortable or kind of racial or kind of ethnocentric. You can easily say many things are ethnocentric without reaching into the kit for the word "racism." To overuse the word robs it of it's meaning and it's power when it is actually used and may need that power.

Now, I can understand how this all paints a very bad picture. It does. But it's not some deep rooted philosophy of racism we're dealing with. It's disjointed things which just look bad when looked as a whole. Now, I don't expect the average human to make such a fine Solomonic effort to tease out or even care about these subtle though important differences. To the average black Guyanese, Indians behave this way because they're just racist. That's just who they are. I just cannot let the educated get away with drawing similar simple conclusions.

Lastly, you're absolutely correct. It doesn't benefit Indians to ill treat the excluded minorities as we are approaching electoral irrelevance soon. But this kind of goes back to the fact that there is no intelligent Indian group behavior at play. There is just the parasite that is the PPP Elite firmly latched onto our group brain that is driving the body even to do things against it's own long term benefit.

The PPP is a parasite on Indian people. They are not our friends. They are not interested in Indian Supremacy. They're not interested in Indians at all except Indian votes. You know any Indians happy with the PPP?

The excuse which you peddle is at least 10-15 years out of date. Accusations of marginalization have been made for a long time.

There has been enough time for sizeable numbers of Indians to become vocal on this topic, if it really interested them.  Instead we get accusations that it doesn't exist, and that the blacks who make mention of this are racist trouble makers who cannot stand the fact that Indians are ruling (ignoring of course that the notion of a single ethnic group "ruling" flies in the face of fairness in a multi ethnic nation where they are merely the largest MINORITY group).

Its the same sense of "nationhood" which causes Indians, other than those like Freddie Kissoon, who of course will tell you that his only "nation" is Guyana, to ignore these complaints.

Even as it has reached scandalous levels, any comments from the AFC Indians, who will claim that they also want African support?  NO!!!! 

APNU shies away from it as they fear being painted as being anti Indian.  So it is left for Afro Guyanese who live OUTSIDE of Guyana, or those who don't care, like David Hinds (his income being mainly from outside of Guyana).  Even Eric Phillips has gone silent, since the PPP vindictively punished some of his programs.

So don't tell me that it isn't systematic. 

Don't tell me that this situation bothers most Indians.

It is systematic because it is obvious.  It is systematic because this problem has been drawn to the attention of the PPP and their Indian elite friends for a long time.  It is systematic because the majority of Indians refuse to engage in this topic.

Where are the Indian Walter Rodneys, the Andaiyes, the Clive Thomas's, the David Hinds, and many others who were quite vocal about the ethnic exclusion which occurred under the Burnham regime? 

Aside from Freddie Kissoon. SILENCE, except when people like me refuse to shut up, they jump and scream I am racist.  Look at what Mitwah and others are up to, and he will tell you that he doesn't favor the PPP, but apparently isn't bothered with the obvious ethnic exclusion that is occurring today in Guyana.

Since 2002 I have been vocal on this.  Any changes.  Yes it is now WORSE!

The vast majority were in 2011, and will display this again in a few months.

The people who walk passed that black taxi drivers aren't the PPP. They are regular Indians, most possibly quite apolitical.

So quit pretending as if this is only due to the PPP, or that it will end if the PPP loses.  The only reason why it will end if APNU wins is that blacks will cease to be powerless and folks will be terrified that they will want revenge.

I already told you that I don't think that the majority of the Indians who conduct a racist boycott of the black taxi drivers do so out of a conscious hatred of blacks.  Or the Indians riding minibuses who would rather a crowded minibus, packed with blacks, but where the driver and conductor are Indian, than an empty minibus where the driver and conductor are black.

This sense of a separate "nationhood" schools them into viewing the blacks as outsiders and therefore not to be supported.  Its the same way that if my brother has a business I will patronize him instead of some one else.  However these aren't people who know each other, their only bond being RACE.

So forgive us if in a nation where Indians are the numerically, politically and economically dominant group we draw attention to such behavior. Especially in light of the fact that Indians frequently level accusations of African racism towards them, and have become quite adept at peddling "black man bad, Indian man good, so black man has to apologize".

This is why I am warning that this sense of "Indian nationhood" which you advocate is DANGEROUS in a multi ethnic society.  Lebanon, Cyprus, Fiji, Iraq, and other places are quite indicative of this fact.

Now you're being disingenuous. Your arguments do not need to be supported with these obvious untruths.

I'm sure you know how apolitical Indians are. They cast a vote for the PPP and they are done for another 5 years. The average Indian does not expect anything from the PPP and the PPP generally keeps to this standard of no expectations. Indians have never viewed politics as something that is a vehicle of Indian advancement. That is a black view. I think you know that.

Indians are a conservative capitalist lot. Yet they will cast their vote for godless Marxists quite comfortable with the language and rhetoric of communism.

Indians generally vote for the PPP because the alternative is the PNC. I personally am very fond of Brigadier Granger. I'd like to see him become President.

But even I'm leery of a vote for the PNC. I can only imagine how much simpler and less philosophical it is for the average Indo in Guyana who remembers the PNC in power. The choice is not hard and very understandable.

And yes its an African view that Indians vote race out of spite to keep blacks down, even if it means that they starve,.......

Indeed what confuses Africans about the supposed Indian apathy, and yet, aside from the last election, they vote in higher numbers than do blacks.  If they indeed were apathetic, and convinced that the state doesn't matter, then why vote?

 Two minority groups can do lots of damage against each other.  I wonder why Indians are so oblivious to the gathering storm, like last time when crowds of blacks allegedly screamed "we tired of di collie rule". 

I wasn't advocating anything Sir. I was stating the obvious. The Indians are a national group. They must also share my misapprehension about their national identity because you and I agree that they do appear to act like a national group.

Indians act, think, and have the symbols of being a national group. Lots of modern states are composed of more than one national groups (depending on how you choose to define nation). The only thing we're missing is probably our own flag but I guess the PPP party flag might suffice. Hell, you probably even include our racial support of the PPP as further evidence of our national group behavior.

A definition of nation would also include/ensnare many African national groups in sub-saharan nation states like the Xhosa and the Zulus who also are nations themselves. And would clearly be examples of what I was talking about.

When you place several "nations" within a given territory there will be conflict.   Indeed you suggest certain African nations, so ought to know how dangerous this can get.  Even relatively developed Kenya, not that long ago,  descended into an orgy of violence as separate "nations" fought for control.

Is this what you wish, because nonIndians are NOT going  tolerate by being ruled by an Indian nation, which considers the remaining 60% of the population to be outsiders to their nation, and therefore ethnically excludable.

I don't wish anything. I was stating a fact. The root of the problem is that we have more than one national group in Guyana with strong identities that seem to supersede the relatively new and very fragile and somewhat ill defined "Guyanese" identity. We need to craft a system of government that accounts for this. Or we can continue to deny it and fight like crab daags every 5 years for control of the State by our respective group.

Yes, several nations within one state is a bad idea. That's why multinational states rarely succeed. They spend most of their energies in inter-community strife. From Belgium to Kenya. Applying theories of nationhood, India would qualify as a multinational group with many constituent nations.

Guyana since 1964 has been one big struggle between two national groups for control and dominance of the State. The blacks held it for a time. Now the Indians do.

Pretending "all abbe ah wan" or there is no Indian identity equaling a national group is just fooling ourselves.

APNU has too many ex-soldiers in their camp. That is very very troubling knowing what the PNC was like in the past. I maintain, Guyana needs  a very strong Third Party.

There is one ethnic group, sizeable numbers of which think that they are a national group whose only connection to the rest of the population is a birth certificate and a passport. INDIANS!

The problem is when most of the rest of the population see themselves foremost as Guyanese, and then as black, mixed, Portuguese or Chinese (I will not pretend to know Amerindian views on this topic) then a conflict arises.  Indians will be often seen as people benefiting from what Guyana has to offer without fulfilling their obligations to the population as a whole.  Unfair assessment I will agree, but unavoidable.

Afro Guyanese do NOT see themselves as a national group.  There isn't even common agreement on the name of this ethnic group (Afro Guyanese, African, black, negro) or who constitutes this group (Granger says he is black, Trotman say he isn't).  So for you to suggest that Afro Guyanese see themselves as a national group is BS.  Some endorse a connection with Africa. Some wish nothing to do with Africa, and the majority think that there are more important things to discuss, like being treated fairly.

So if you want to suggest that Indians CONSIDER themselves to be Indians first and foremost, and see Guyana only as a piece of real estate, and don't see any bonds tying them to the remaining 60% then just accept the description of Indians as a clannish group. 

Accept that the rest of the population will not indefinitely tolerate this. Also accept that as the Indian population dwindles, they will live to regret this attitude.

  In 1971 16% of the population identified neither with Indian or African/black/negro.  By 1991 this number had increased to 20%.  By 2011 indications are that this group has now increased to 30%.  This is a polyglot group with all sorts of fluid identities, and as we can see is growing rapidly.

So what system of government do you envisage that encompasses these people, aside from an obvious one which assigns Regions 5 and 6 to all those who think that they live in Indesh, with every one else living in the remaining 8 regions called GUYANA?