NEITHER the continuation or communication of Guyana’s civilian progress since the 1930s, at least, can occur without an admittance that such a topic is a necessity within the news media. Yet, everyday, local newspapers and television reports continue to present what is implied to be all the evidence of national and civic progress.
Of course they have to, since these reports focus mainly on what is happening now, or in the past year, or even a handful of years ago. They may not intend to, but it leaves the impression that no useful evidence of forgotten or abandoned progress exists in prior eras, or merits both our focus and rebuilding.
What is the impression and opinion of people receiving only such contemporary news? An answer may not even be desired if it is already assumed that such contemporary public reports automatically convince everyone that what is written about and shown is the ‘general’ truth about their society’s past, present, and potential future progress.
And who will assume the communication of such a notion? The responsibility falls on journalists, reporters, editors, television and film producers, of course.
The truth which may be missing is a truth bigger, more fertile and progressive than those in their reports. Why? Because this truth belongs to the society as a whole, but manifested by its professionals in various fields or disciplines, its people, and overflows or exceeds the communicative choices of fluctuating governments or political factions, whose priorities are already restricted by their own perspectives and choices.
So in order to rebuild or continue Guyana’s civilian progress it is necessary to look beyond the present, into the past century, which no amount of sophistry can reinterpret only as a ‘backward’ undeveloped period, etc, to the belittlement of Guyanese society, which, if seen as a whole, has already achieved, and in many aspects lost (to the detriment of its present generation) much valuable qualities, and needs to become aware of again of this  via the focus of its news media, then actual constructive activities.
I should add immediately that this reference to the ‘past’ has nothing whatsoever to do with various racial and political disturbances which occurred in such an era.
One has to realize why generalized views of the society’s past seen from the perspective of later periods of time, combined with the organized agendas of its various historical ruling powers, are inadequate to singlehandedly collect and communicate the real everyday progressive truths created by the ambitious creativity of citizens by their own motivation, intelligence, and skills, which differs from being part of political or ideological power groups.
For example, if we read, hear, and believe the accounts of a number of 18th century British historians and travel writers on Guiana during its Dutch colonial period between 1580 and 1812, including the two years of French occupation -1781/82 –  when the Comte de Kersaint and the Marquis de Lusignan ousted the first British invasion and began to rule as allies of the Dutch, we might tend to believe that the British colonial powers were better than the Dutch ones, and that British Guiana was in all aspects, a better development for the future of  Guyana and Guyanese. We are encouraged to believe this by the condemnation of these writers of Dutch/Flemish colonial administrators who ‘disgraced’ Europe by taking ‘tawny’ wives and mistresses from among Native Indians, Africans, and racial mixtures, then allowing their offspring with these people to inherit land and property while slavery was still on the books and Guiana was still a ‘labor’ colony, with the necessity that such ‘subjects’ remain stagnant socially, with no motivation towards self-sufficient economic civilian freedom.
We are encouraged to believe that the almost 200 small Dutch estates in Demerara and Essequibo alone in the late 18th century, involved in diverse agricultural crops and products like cabbage, citrus, rice, cocoa, coffee, spices, balsam, cotton, Indigo dyes, timber, poultry, dairy products, etc, would be more useful as huge amalgamated British sugar estates, changing Guyana’s future economy into a dependent 90% one-crop economy.
Among other views, we are led to believe this from Anglo-colonial writers because, obviously, they had to justify their quest to stealthily succeed the Dutch (who invited them in) in original Essequibo, Berbice, and Demerara.
Similarly, the 20th century rise of local anti-colonial political parties naturally focused their criticisms, and directed their governmental changes, against the previous exploitive, racially prejudicial and status oriented European colonial powers, especially the most recent one of British Guiana.
Later, closer to today, local parties while separately in government would use their communicative media to emphasize their own developmental agendas, while criticizing those of prior regimes they had succeeded.
What is usually missing from this simplistic ‘tit-for-tat’ political game? The reportage of an enormous achievement by civilian professional constructive acts independent of political programmes which, since the era of Dutch and British Guiana, had perfected a style of local wooden architecture, imported and designed casual fashions which beautified the appearance of local human society by being seen everywhere, managed international film programmes and cinemas of the highest quality, published fortnightly and quarterly magazines on high quality creative writing, opened private art galleries of intelligent creative scope, acquired artists works appropriate for public spaces and social centers, created community centers and neighbourhood social clubs, created radio programmes of the finest classical music, modern jazz, and Pop music, held regular law abiding house parties, opened bookstores with the world’s best writers, past and present, opened cafes and nightclubs of relaxing cultured ambiance, etc.
All such activities remain a topic to be focused on and communicated publicly for their exciting national reconstructive qualities.