PRESIDENT David Granger’s forthright remarks at a pre-Emancipation Day event at Beterverwagting have been the subject of criticisms by some opponents and political commentators.
At the event held in observance of the abolition of slavery, President Granger delivered the keynote address. The head of state, being astute and straightforward in his observations, said, “Some people are proud that they don’t have work; they always want a raise.” The President advised those persons to, “Go out there and use your talent to enrich yourself and your children; that is economic emancipation.” Emphasising the need for hard work and education, His Excellency said, “We must go out there and use our talents. If we make our living by hanging around the corner and liming at the Guinness Bar, we will be forever poor, but, if we go into our farm, go into our workshop, go into our schools, we will bring prosperity.”
President Granger pointed out that we must have proper priorities. He stated, “Let us put our monies in boats, buses, and bicycles, not in vodka, rum, and gin. Let us put our children first.” Can anyone honestly dispute the truth of those words?
Persons critical of the President’s remarks have attacked the tone of his message, saying it was condescending and too forceful. Political commentator Dr. David Hinds wrote an entire column in another newspaper, captioned, ‘I have some difficulty with the president’s rebuke of Black people on Emancipation Eve’ (KN, August 5).
Dr. Hinds characterised the President’s remarks as a rebuke; a loaded word which appears in almost every paragraph of his article; a word which defines his indefensible position and undermines his later attempts to temper his opinion.
Dr. Hinds wrote: “…the rebuke came from the leader of the country and the political leader of Black people in Guyana.”
The fact is, Dr. Hinds’ critique is fundamentally flawed, as are the other criticisms levelled against the Head of State, since they cannot stand up to objective scrutiny.
Brigadier David Granger’s speech was made in his capacity as President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, not as “the political leader of Black people in Guyana.” As such, his remarks could only be construed as being directed to all Guyanese, not just to “Black people” as Dr. Hinds would have us believe. Further, President Granger has repeatedly stated that he is the President, leader, and servant of all Guyanese, including those who did not vote for his government.
Successful Guyanese who say that the President’s remarks were too forceful would be the first to proclaim that they owe their own successes to strong, assertive, and constructively critical mentors.
President Granger is obviously a successful man; should we not, therefore, heed his advice?
President Granger’s mention of the Guinness Bar was also deplored, with some interpreting the reference to mean one particular hangout spot, forgetting there are countless Guinness Bars in Guyana. Clearly, the President intended to bring home his point by referring to a relatable example.
While it is understood why some may make the mistake of believing that President Granger was directing his remarks to one segment of the population — Emancipation Day is the occasion when Guyanese of African descent observe the suffering of their foreparents under the system of slavery – it is important to analyse the issue honestly, impartially, logically, and contextually.
The President has spent his life in the service of Guyana. He has repeatedly emphasised the need for inclusionary democracy. The head of state has demonstrated his commitment to equality and equity. One can only conclude, then, that his remarks came from a place of love, a conclusion that even Dr. Hinds concedes in his article.
As a people, we may be well advised to think for ourselves and base our opinions on facts. We should listen, acknowledge the truth, however hard it may be, and work to make better lives for our families. And, we may wish to ask why would some of us be offended by the truth?
