I WAS engaged recently to discuss the nature of the masthead of this column, ‘Talking Culture’, and out of that Bourda discussion, I learned a lot of things that I already knew but did not contextualise.
Most of what I have learnt about defining the nature of this realm we call culture was taught to me by Dr. Denis Williams and his visiting cohorts at the Walter Roth Museum, which he created and developed, where I was trained as a Scientific Illustrator. I was never certified, because I was to be sent to Scotland to be trained in animation but the then-Minister determined that I would not come back.
I was enraged. Dr. Williams joked with me that I would still be close to ‘my Pepsi Cola’ as he described my young lady friend working across the road, then at a much more capable GEC. We are still together today. I left the museum, guided by my youthful cultural rage, but until the time of his passing, we remained close. He was always an elder brother to me. I was calm and mature when he explained the profound reality of that training: “Guyana would have still lost you, because, on your return, how would we have accommodated you? There was no animation platform in existence, so you would have had to return to foreign shores to express yourself and earn.” But one of the other things I had learnt that is of importance to this column is the varied nature of culture.
On the East Coast, there lived two – what we call – spinsters; they were sisters. They lived in a moderate home; aback of this home, there was an obviously poor family. Somewhere along their communication, the male would be employed to do menial jobs for the sisters. It was interpreted that upon the passing of the spinsters, their property would be left for this ‘poor family’. Subsequently, the spinsters suddenly died, the police were called in, and confessions were made: They had been murdered.
What could have transpired to have resulted in this sinister occurrence? Even if there was such a hint of possible inheritance, what could have led to such an act? The entire process of cultural communication was in error, if it did occur. It played on anxieties to which the cultural tenets did not exist, to project the possibility of the promise into a possible future reality, and not to hasten its fulfilment by any means necessary.
Most peoples who have been colonised, to their detriment, were progressive and self-contained, and were culturally mature and accommodating, interpreting the other by their own rules of reasonable engagement; a severe misconception. What we must understand about culture is the fact that there is accommodation without acceptance, and that ‘deception itself’ is a cultural trait that is applied at different levels to test the intent of the other, or to lure prey as a hunter would. Thus, other cultures must be explored, including what is sacred, what is common, and what is the innate imagery of the ‘Timeline’.
The foundation of culture is its art, music, philosophy, mystique, and literature. Each person, however, has a localised culture that he/she exists with that sustains circumstances of survival by whatever needs are required, if not related to elder teachings that have developed by the scars of experience, be they right or misguided. That is why children and young adults must be tutored towards positive core values; be able to use comparisons under peer pressure, and know when to be courteous and when to move on. Thus, the being of Culture.
Many things, including true financial shortcuts, that seem comfortably enterprising may not be as simple and workable without succumbing to legal life-changing risks. Culture is not just visible celebrations. To a trained awareness, they constitute invisible realms that can be discerned, suspecting with caution, the other not-so-visible creature that rests and whispers on the other’s shoulder.
