RE: Dr. David Hinds’ response (KN, 01/01/10) to my letter ‘We must eschew the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality in the New Year’ (SN, 31/12/09), if I ridiculed Walter Rodney by referring to him as ‘political naïve’ then so, obviously, did CLR James, who was quoted by Ravi Dev and whose quote I merely emphasised.

Also my references to Rodney were with respect to the political arena in Guyana and I’m rather disappointed that David extracted quotes from their contextual moorings and presented them as absolutes as if to imply that I was referencing Rodney the man and the sum totality of his achievements. I hope that David did not deliberately set out to be insidious, as I believe that he is above this kind of stratagem. I’m even more disappointed about his interpretation of my references to Rodney as ‘as a stupid politician’. Among other things this is rather condescending….a trait I would not have associated with the esteemed gentleman.

Furthermore my references to Rodney were not meant to negate the reality that Rodney was a person absolutely courageous, patriotic, charismatic, magnetic et al, who like Jagan, lived the conviction of his beliefs – unwavering commitment to the welfare of all Guyanese, to nation building and a future that saw the flowering of Guyana’s full potential.

In passing I did mention that Rodney is one of our foremost academic, political theorist, essayist, author, researcher, thinker, et al. I do not believe that these components of the man needed to be detailed as not only are they well known but also my intention was not to engage in a comparison of the personalities of Rodney and Jagan.

My reference to Ravi Dev as ‘almost objective’ stands, as I do not believe that anyone can be absolutely objective. Thus if David wants to see this as a categorisation of Ravi’s ‘detractors’ as ‘almost non-objective’, whatever that means , he is free to so do – my categorisation would be quite different.

My reference to Rodney mistaking crowd attendance for electoral support was borne out by the 1992 election results. Had it been otherwise, then, quite clearly the WPA would have run away with the elections. It is also borne out by historical reality, as other individuals and entities failed to transform crowd attendance into electoral support. So David can put whatever spin he wants on what I said but his spin does not negate the reality, although again I’m rather disappointed that he interpreted what I wrote as “those crowds were morons who risked brutality from the police and thugs and other forms of victimisation to hear some rhetoric and attend a novelty show”, especially since I tabulated a list of reasons that sparked crowd attendance.

Additionally, Walter Rodney’s political legacy is referenced as it relates to the WPA, and while David and other WPAites would want to think otherwise, the reality is that WPA has existed in little more than name, post Walter Rodney. Outside of the WPA, Rodney’s legacy is awesome and needs no itemizing. Also reference to Jagan eschewing violence relates to the acquisition of political power. It would be duplicitous of me to suggest that the history of the PPP is bereft of violence as a political tactic, although it has been argued that in many instances the PPP and its members were being reactive rather than advocatory.

Also the statement, “These Jaguarites pointed to Rodney’s experience to support their conclusions that violence was the way to have gone and refused to accept that Rodney was ‘politically naïve’”, is too explicit to have been interpreted as Boodram characterising Rodney as ‘violent’. So let me spell it out: some members of the Jaguar group, in discourses with me in the early nineties, referenced Rodney’s murder as proof that Rodney was about to engage in violence as a tool to get rid of Burnham and the PNC. In the course of these discussions they also rejected my contention that this tragic outcome was the result of Rodney’s political naivety. In any case David cannot be unaware that some analysts and commentators have pointed out that the circumstances of his death indicate that Rodney may have been considering violence as a political tool and this consideration could not have been an ad hoc gesture, given the calibre of thinker and organiser that Rodney was.

David also points to ‘omissions’ about Rodney as if to say Boodram’s intention was to miniaturise and dismiss Rodney.

Mr. Editor, please allow me to address David’s concerns:
“But many will also ask where is the criticism of Dr Jagan whose presence on the Guyanese political stage lasted 54 years as opposed to Rodney’s six.” I am on record as disagreeing with Jagan’s ‘critical support’ of Burnham and of being flabbergasted to learn about the 1985 agreement with Burnham for shared government. I do not disagree with the criticism that Jagan’s embrace of communism led to the British/American machinations that brought Burnham to power and directed pre-colonial western policy, towards Guyana. However, I have argued that this is a hindsight conclusion that cannot be viewed in absolute terms but rather contextually. Many who embraced Marxism in the sixties and seventies were blindsided by the propaganda coming out from behind the Iron Curtain and Jagan was no different; besides the treatment meted out to Jagan/PPP by the British/American axis would have only caused him to tighten this embrace. I have pointed out the paradox of a ‘vanguard’ party whose base has been more ethnic rather than working class across ethnic lines. I did refer to Jagan’s insulation from the day to day workings of the PPP. I am also on record as having pointed out the inherent contradiction of democratic centralism. I do agree that the PPP could have found common ground to work with the WPA post 1992. But was this lack of common ground solely the fault of Jagan?

“Boodram critiqued Dr Jagan’s Marxism but did not give Dr Rodney’s Marxism the same treatment. He did not critique Dr Rodney’s praxis; he simply presents him as devoid of praxis.” That Rodney was an internationally recognized Marxist intellectual and theorist goes without saying. That his embrace of Marxism was neither dogmatic nor akin to a belief system meant that he was free to adapt and evolve on the basis of reality and experience rather than trying to fit reality into rigid theoretical constructs. Thus he strove to use his understanding and experiences of social reality to infer the appropriate theoretical framework to underpin progress. Consequently Rodney impacted a range of changed perspectives from how the World Bank was viewed to the relationship between Europe and Africa, all different from hitherto existing perspectives.

In the context of Guyana, Rodney had returned to a socio-political landscape that had not been duplicated elsewhere in his experience and was quite different from the one he had departed in 1960. Thus his theoretical framework for change and progress was still evolving as he grappled with the complexities and nuances of this landscape. Who knows what could have been had his life not been tragically cut short?

He situates Dr Jagan as part of the Indian culture but presents Dr Rodney as having no cultural attachment or connection to other great African leaders.” Rodney’s profound ‘groundings’ with the Rastas; his popular educational work in the ghettoes of Kingston; his highly awakened black consciousness; his assessment of the situation in Africa; his incisive and clear exposition of the role of the black intellectual and academic; his standing as a pan-African theorist; his confidential missions for the African Liberation Committee of the Organisation of African Unity all speak of his cultural attachment.

Rodney’s interaction with and location among a veritable who’s who of African leaders is no secret: Professor Ali Mazrui, Clive Thomas, CLR James, colleagues in the Dar es Salaam School (Tanzania, Africa), the James Group (London, UK) and the Institute of the Black World (Atlanta, USA), Julius Nyerere and his contemporaries in the OAU…the list is almost endless. That Rodney has earned a place among the pantheon of scholar activists such as W.E.B.Dubois, C. L. R. James, Marcus Garvey, and George Padmore is undoubted.

“He invoked Dr Jagan’s, ignored Dr Rodney’s humanity.” Rodney the person, I did not know in any intimate manner, but I have no reason to doubt that he was warm, caring, humble, sincere, approachable, down to earth, et al. In fact, to suggest otherwise would be to go against all the evidence that exists. Among other things, his work in the ghettos of Kingston and his willingness to return to Guyana to fight against dictatorship and for the implementation of the new society as he envisioned it, testify to a person simultaneously caring, compassionate and humane.

Mr. Editor, I do not expect all and sundry to accept my perspectives. And I do expect individuals of the calibre of Dr. David Hinds to point out actual flaws and/or present alternate points of view. What I do not expect from David is the ferreting out of the two monsters: ‘us’ versus ‘them’ interpretation and ‘a racial bent’ in a narrative that sets out to ditch both. I suspect, however, that until we can begin to take people at face value rather than seeking to ferret out ulterior motives and biases where none exists, we will continue to dredge up these two monsters in each other’s narratives. I suppose though that given our collective historical experiences, accepting each other at face value is a destination only to be reached at the end of a long, hard road. Hopefully David will join with me in giving each other the benefit of the doubt as we collectively attempt this journey.
ANNAN BOODRAM