To balance the void of historical and cultural awareness of our tribes and castes in parliament

THE Heritage Commission is as necessary and as important as GECOM is. There is evidence that most of our national festivals, through years of zombie adherence to fixed templates, have now allowed private adaptations and mimicry that lack local symbolism and significance, but must be allowed due to citizens’ efforts, where a void exists, to appear with optional default justification on the national stage.

The history of the 19-20th Centures has demonstrated that ideologies cannot transform into collaborative progress without the deeper understanding of cultural and historical considerations and the addressing of the perceptions, imaginations and the mythopoeia-mystique that though denied will become tools, detrimental from any holistic fact-finding analysis to all involved.

No political ‘ism’ can govern a country without oppression if the government is outside of the culture of its citizens; a culture that envelopes history customs, value systems and aspects of the sacred memory. The government that cannot function in this capacity becomes an intrusion; an occupational entity that must rely on the element of bribes that most prevalently manifest in allowing and empowering the criminal nature of those outside of the social grid and those sleepers within, to whom sustaining their class structure and daily pretentions are more valuable than values, morals, integrity or the most basic of the principles of right and wrong. We must all understand that the judgement of ‘Circe’s Brew’ is to demonstrate our common links to the other realms of nature. Those who drank her brew underwent a biological metamorphosis into different types of creatures, from the noblest mammal to the common rodent and insect.

The first recognition in Guyana that there needs to be a guardian entity for efforts made on substantial grounds to build formidable institutions came to light for many of us in 2007 with one of the then regular Jamaican shows at the Guyana National Stadium by a group calling itself GT Entertainment. The name of the show was the ‘Guyana Music Festival’. This name should have rung a bell with anyone managing culture within the Ministry of Education. It did not, the artistes were Jamaican; Third World and Buju Banton among others. It was disruptive to the hard work done over some 30 years to establish a local brand that seems to have gone unnoticed by the then administration, now in opposition. One would wonder if they had paid any attention to anything Guyanese that developed outside of the grudging crusade for political power within the borders of Guyana.

To justify this statement, some years before in the late 1990s, Sydney Poitier— then Ambassador of the Bahamas— came to Guyana and was snubbed, not intentionally, but on the grounds that his contribution to Guyana through his leading role in the late E.R. Brathwaite’s book ‘To Sir with Love’ as a movie was deserving of a commendation from the highest office in the land. That highest office was found wanting, but the then Mayor Hamilton Green saved face. I was not in the country back then, but was relieved that some interception had occurred. I read the presentation of the motion for a Heritage Commission presented by then leader of the opposition, now President Granger, and that of the response of Madam Gail Teixeira.

There was a recommendation by then Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport to change the name from National Heritage Commission to National Commemoration Commission. To me, ‘Heritage’ cannot be replaced by ‘Commemoration,’ because heritage envelopes explanations, accountable definitions of events; heritage explores the timeline and backdrops leading to where we are today, and in its totality eliminates political propaganda and stereotypical myth-making. Heritage studies are a necessary compass for a young nation. On the other hand, commemoration is a political photo-moment ideal, cutting ribbons at a monument while onlookers remain oblivious to whatever substance has led to the monument. Every serious cultural practitioner should read this parliamentary document. They would understand why we protested the location and imagery captured in the current 1823 monument overlooking Thomas Lands, when historically the slaves who were close to Georgetown were advised by the conspirators to not be informed of the non-violent East Coast insurrection.

The idea mentioned in the exchange by the then Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport that “that policymaking should be the business of the executive” from this writer’s experience presents a flawed notion, especially when it was obvious that that minister, too, was completely out of his depth with respect to understanding the aesthetics, guiding and guarding value and economic worth of all that a Heritage Commission would constitute. The next phase of that parliamentary exchange of utmost interest lay with Madam Gail Teixeira, who presented an outpouring of a variety shop of anticipated related items that the lady assumed was worth mentioning, with a subtle rejection of the idea of a formal centre for Heritage studies. She highlighted references of specific national ‘timelines’ against others, if any would be, or could be ignored. Inserting what periods (18th &19th century) we should forget and reject about ourselves. The intent seemed directed at confusing and hopefully, subtly brainwashing us into believing that what is relevant to Guyana is only what is as old as our independence time-chart.

Much of what was said was definitely not immediately related to the potential of a Heritage Commission, but would demonstrate to the persons whom I suggest should read this document, who would then quickly conclude that parliament, especially the opposition’s contingent is not by any means equipped to even understand the immediate, much less the wider need of a ‘Heritage Commission’, its relevance and purpose especially to the arts and culture and to a larger extent developments in cultural industries, where ideas for biographical documentaries, for dramatisations based on real events, but needing historical heritage background, for artistic renditions relevant to both entertainment and edutainment would require support from such a commission.

I have cited before the ACDA Black History month experience at the Dolphin Government School, Charlestown, in 2010-11, where the students could not identify Fort Nassau nor the folk characters presented to them on five by four-foot posters. The teachers blamed the social studies syllabus. Parliament needs to involve practitioners from special niche economic groups when it recognises expertise deficiencies among its political participants. Towards innovative ideas like the Heritage Commission motion, that was passed in 2013 with a walkout by the PPP. The Historical-Heritage foundations and museums that are essential to the growth of national and public awareness, and creative industries in first-world countries, which were mostly developed during the age of colonisation, cannot easily be replicated here, but efforts at a mature entity like ‘The Heritage Commission’ are truly a giant step forward.