Dear Editor,
There are a number of letters in the SN which indicate that people are upset by Mr Bisram’s letter in which he wrote and pronounced on the sufferings of the indentured labourers and the slaves.
The responses were expected. I have no idea why at this time we are arguing about who suffered more or less. I do not understand why we are fostering and probably festering issues that add to the division as opposed to those that could facilitate unity.
I feel that the limited space in the letter columns could be utilised more productively. However it seems that there is a propensity for the editor to feature letters by a few who seem to be treated as if they are columnists for the newspaper regardless of what they write.
Mr Bisram’s letter should not have been printed in the first place. The editor should have exercised some judgement. The position is not one that I and many of us who are descendants of indentured servants find reasonable. While it is true that indentured servants were treated badly, there is no way that I would readily accept the barbaric treatment, the total subjugation of the slaves, the actual treatment of the slaves as a commodity, as just a resource that is owned as similar to that meted out to the Indian people who were brought over here. I repeat the ideas posited by Bisram were not reasonable and the editor should not have allowed them to be printed. I feel that a retraction and an apology are necessary both from the editor and Mr Bisram.
Having said that, the writers who responded to Mr Bisram have reminded us of the method used by the growing capitalist class of Europe to facilitate capital growth. The accumulated capital was then used to employ the freed slaves and indentured labourers and their descendants in an economic system that facilitated further growth and enrichment of those who owned the accumulated capital.
Unfortunately also most of our journalists, editors and many of the prolific writers know very little of the history of capital accumulation and have themselves been conditioned, indoctrinated, by populist writings which have shaped their ideological make-up even though they would argue that they do not have an ideology.
To those who talk about the history of Africa not being emphasized, I would like to agree, but I would also like to emphasise that the history of the working class and its organisations are even less taught and written about. Most of us have no knowledge about our own working class history. Most of us have internalised the ideology of the capitalist class.
We do know however the history of the oppressor class as they own and control the media, the publishing houses, the TV stations etc, etc, and which they use to disseminate their ideas. In this way they exercise hegemony over our minds, over our thought processes and so we see through their eyes, hear through their ears, speak through their mouths conscious of only their world and their perspective.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Bisessar
Editor’s note
This newspaper has on more than one occasion written editorials correcting views similar to those expressed by Mr Bisram on slavery and indentureship. The last time we did it was in response to an article of a similar tenor written by Dr Prem Misir. It is perhaps arguable whether it is better to suppress Mr Bisram’s admittedly untenable statements, or allow them to be published in the certain knowledge that even if other correspondents do not challenge him – which they most likely would – then this newspaper once again would do so in its editorial columns. Such an exchange would seem a more effective way for people such as Mr Bisram to become familiar with historical facts that are indisputable.
