Dear Editor
NIGEL Hinds has a lot to say about the Guyana situation and the so-called out-of-control racism that seems to be so divisive and surmises that Guyanese are at each other’s throats. The summary statement made by Hinds is that the ruling government is fixated on governing only one group. He means the government caters only for the Indian support base, while the Africans are being ignored and left out. Hinds, I believe, suffers from what certain social classes term privilege and he is thus removed from normal society, since a lot of these so-called activists do not understand the working man’s plight. They situate themselves as champions of a cause, yet, they are removed entirely from the poor society.

Minister Ashni Singh commented on the rhetoric present within Hinds statements and indeed these are avenues utilised by persuasive speakers. Normally, one would see politicians campaigning and using heavy rhetoric in their speeches; rousing substantial emotions around certain issues; spotlighting Guyana, racism is that rousing issue. A sore point in our history for far too long. However, what one should rebel against is the utilising of the rhetoric around racism as a means to an end. The end of which is yet to be revealed, no doubt self-serving in nature. However, I offer some observations about Hinds’s Hyde Park statements.

Nigel Hinds speaks about uplifting a nation and focusing on its problems. He laments Guyana’s tumultuous position of being a racially divided state spurred on by institutionalised racism stemming from two areas, the selection of ministers based on their ethnicities and the structuring of the political parties according to race. The narrative of divisiveness is akin to a plague that has besieged the country, yet he offers no tangible explanations or solutions in attempting to address this. Merely mentioning the issue is baseless without some working solution if one were indeed serious about uplifting a nation.

When Walter Rodney wrote about the blacks, he included East Indians and Africans in the umbrella term black. While blackness represented an ideology of people fighting against white oppression, that being imperialism. But Rodney’s position changed from that of a cultural nationalist perspective in favour of a Marxist perspective which abandoned race and ethnic consciousness, determining them to be limiting factors in a real inclusive society. The latter brand of social consciousness did not sit well with the ruling party and his life was cut short. He represented in many ways an avenue by which Guyanese society could abandon the ethnic prefixes we often use. Ask yourself, what is an Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese? Are we always meant to stratify ourselves against this ethnic and quite racist backdrop? Why do Amerindians not use the terminology Amerindian Guyanese? Simply answered, it makes no sense. Yet, stratification is often used to markedly emphasise ethnic distinction for some exploitable reason.

Curiously, he describes the selection of any one particular minister as premised around either the colour of one’s skin or ethnicity. The conclusion must be based on some quantifiable assessment, none of which was provided. Scientifically, researchers often use race or ethnicity as some measure of distinction; however, culturally, skin colour is entirely a different conversation. It is unclear whether it was a deliberate distinction or it was rhetoric used to exploit more sensitive issues.

However, the continuous momentum among particular individuals to use race rhetoric to engineer a divide can only be seen for what it is: a dangerous tactic, yes, but ineffective thus far.

Yours Truly,
Anson Paul