A respect and awareness of self above no one else

WE CAME out of colonisation fragmented and padlocked in stereotypical pens. As colonials, we looked to everywhere else for inspiration and judged ourselves in very narrow terms for expectations that nurtured esteem. At least most of the post-emancipation population that included indentured immigrants that naturally morphed into self-defining rather than collective identities, and based on the periods of our journey here disparities evolved that became entrenched through our treacherous local politics; that enhanced transported prejudices, that were then forged into divisive placebos against the collective consciousness that could be described as the Soul of the Guyanese Identity, which is not a mythical religious theory, but just coming to grip with who we are.

This at no time must be identified with any kind of uber alles nationalism. But when a citizen by documentation is determined to aspire to public office in this country, a notion of identity, outside of one’s ambitions of acquiring wealth beyond any known era before with some collective timelines, is the sole impetus and occupying space here towards that end is all there is. Thus, that individual should be quizzed on things nationally Guyanese, to explore the loyalty and whether trust can be attributed to managing the national identity and its assets with loyalty to the nation and not to overseas accounts and Real Estate. What am I talking about with this quiz? Simply, in a conversation, they need to know and be able to publically deliberate on their place of birth, its history from inception. To be able to answer questions on the evolution of this country from especially the post-emancipation period, with supporting references. How they can interpret this backdrop of past social events labelled History in their perspectives towards the modern relative evolution, which must be encouraged from the exposed expertise available.

For as a nation we hardly manage our proven national expertise in a meaningful way, instead, we trade institutional knowledge for the popular sentiments of fresh blood. Such a conversation must evolve and be conducted from an empowered national institution. The President’s initiative for a Heritage Commission would be the perfect entity to conduct such a quiz-conversation, what we now have are charlatans, plagiarists, and tragic characters cast upon the stage by the metaphoric- callous opportunistic political director, whose priorities are narrow and self-centred “Dance to meh music and ah gon give yuh a Bribe.” There must be a vetting ground.

November 14, 2018, in Henry Jeffrey’s column ‘Future Notes’ he penned; ‘Guyana has never been the home of all Guyanese’, though a political article its main gist was shared governance. As a founder member of ACDA, shared governance has been our mantra, the APNU-AFC Coalition has proven it can work; their achievements tangible and intangible have out weighted the PPP by lengths, though they have left in place many opposing personnel to which APNU subordinates have protested at times unreasonable actions.
The reality, however, is that more expertise was brought to the functional table, though I agreed in principle with Jeffrey’s article he spoke with a context of ‘National reconciliation’ though he nor any of the advocates of such have ever advocated the details of the mechanism that would facilitate such a reconciliation. In keeping with the concerns of constituencies, all proposals must develop around the pulse of the masses, whose interpretations and perceptions be they misinformed, imaginary or emotional, are still rooted in a percentage of truth, that has to be deliberated with. But because Jeffrey is a politician, his aspirations are rooted in political mechanisms, which will contribute in a great way towards involvement, save that a history of the practice of political deception and sabotage must be intercepted through strong laws. He did not, nor has it been ever reflected upon, that the underlining problem rests with choice separateness from the ‘Identity of Guyana’ and none have developed the argument for the even more crucial aspect of interfacing with the expanses of the myriad national consciousness.

By exploring the active and subliminal realms of the nation’s historical and cultural knowns and unknowns towards liberation through appropriate methods of dissemination, here the arts will play a most pivotal role. This will impact and disintegrate the volumes of stereotypical doctrines that exist and have been made real by political cultism. I can refer to select aspects of our political and social history, which the late Lionel Peters referred to as ‘Our Sordid History’ conveniently misrepresented, or by a stretch of optimistic imagination, I could say that the writer did not know, and neither did his editor, or the editor did not care.

Misrepresented articles on A-‘Racism in the Police Force from its beginning’, B- ‘Massacre at Wismar?’ which I heard reverberated by a loud, rich and intensely ignorant public business character with access to audience, but devoid of real comprehension of the subject topics exploited, historical articles that leave out the contributions of certain ethnic groups. To think that Guyanese still believe that Queen Victoria had anything to do with the abolition of slavery; the lady came to the throne in 1837. There is an awareness deficit that exists where the media itself have to become the class teacher, providing, they have the editorial expertise.

The ‘Identity of being Guyanese’ can only be realised when public policy entails that all about ‘us‘ be known by if not all, then by most of us, will help in the clarification of misrepresented political conflict engagements, and not allow far and in between embellished references to be launched to nurture discord and the obsessive worse.
Guyana can be a comfortable collective home for all, in some cases rejection of what Guyana is, is itself a projected complex, becoming a choice, driven by conscious or unconscious innate bigotry manifested in resentment.  Stabroek News 3, April 2004 Amar Panday penned a letter to my colleague Abu Bakr titled  ”Indians don’t want to embrace Creole Culture”. The impetus of the letter was not racism, but rather the ultimate fear of change and cultural metamorphosis, which Africans, Amerindians Chinese, many Indians and Portuguese have evolved through, survived and Creole Culture has manifested. That today is the cultural foundation of all New World peoples. The irony is that the writer wrote it in English, and I suspect was living in the New World when it was written. In closing, the cultural and Edutainment path towards the ‘Identity of being Guyanese’ has to commence, the future is now and is indifferent to all procrastination.