Dear Editor,
In Mr Abu Bakr’s three letters on reparations, in the Staboek News, he has raised the traditional European objections normally associated with guilt and indifference, to attempt to argue against reparations. Yet he wonders why I am arguing he is against reparations.
1. Africans sold other Africans into slavery therefore there should be no reparations: Yes, Africans sold Africans to Europeans and Africans practised slavery in some tribes. But it was Europeans who created chattel slavery, which is fundamentally different from African slavery and which has been declared by the United Nations as a crime against humanity.
I further gave the analogy of someone buying a gun in Africa, transporting it to the Caribbean where the gun is used to commit murder, rape, plunder, genocide. I then asked the question: Is the African who sold the gun responsible for the crimes the European committed in the Caribbean? How can anyone make the argument that African chiefs are responsible for chattel slavery, genocide and criminal enrichment?
Justice, morality, international law, commonsense, logic – all say no.
2. Paying reparations to Africans will be favoritism to one ethnic group because as in Guyana, it is a multi-racial society: This is particularly egregious because it tries to create conflict between African and other ethnic groups in Guyana and the Caribbean. Justice, morality, international law, commonsense, logic, honesty would all point to the reality of the genocide of Africans and Indigenous peoples, therefore these are the groups that should be ‘repaired.’
Was this an issue when Jews were paid? Was this an issue when Japanese Americans were paid? It’s only an issue in Mr Bakr’s mind when Africans are to be paid. In reality, wouldn’t Caribbean society be more vibrant, more equitable if Africans received reparations? Wouldn’t all races and ethnicities be better off? Or is the current status quo, just dandy?
3. Discredit the messenger; a famous European strategy: Skilfully Mr Bakr attempts to equate Phillips with Vishnu Bisram who uses false polls and many articles promoting ethnic triumphalism in the hope of helping the ruling political party in Guyana.
Through analogy Mr Bakr hopes he could re-position me as an ethnic advocate instead of me being an advocate of human rights for all.
Mr Bakr should realize this is repugnant as I co-authored the Guyana 21 Plan which benefits all Guyanese; I was the co-founder of the Reform group along with Stanley Ming and Malcolm Chow-A-Chee, Supriya Singh and Jerome Khan. This group called for shared governance and a multiracial, multicultural, multireligious, plural democracy in which all Guyanese have equal rights.
Nevertheless, Mr Bakr has started the important discussion on reparations when others are conspicuous by their silence, including Mr Vishnu Bisram.
I believe Mr Bakr should tell us if he supports reparations for Indigenous genocide and African slavery. Given the intellect Mr Bakr has as evidenced in his flowery language, the public would appreciate his views on whether the slave trade was contrary to international law; whether there were any relevant precedents; whether it all happened too long ago; who would be entitled to make the claim; whom would the claim be made against; what the components of the claim would be; and in what court or tribunal it could be made?
As Mr Bakr cogitates on these matters, perhaps he should be informed by the Lord Anthony Gifford’s book The Passionate Advocate. In his chapter on reparations, this white European lawyer states:
“I continued with words which I stand by today: ‘So it is with the claim for Reparations. Indeed, once you accept, as I do, the truth of three propositions: (a) that the mass kidnap and enslavement of Africans was the most wicked criminal enterprise in recorded human history; (b) that no compensation was ever paid by any of the perpetrators to any of the sufferers; and (c) that the consequences of the crime continue to be massive, both in terms of the enrichment of the descendants of the perpetrators, and in terms of the impoverishment of Africans and the descendants of Africans; then the justice of the claim for Reparations is proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
I hope Mr Bakr’s language is more forthcoming. In Guyana the man in the street tells it like it is, and in local parlance would say, ‘this fish smell stink.’ Perhaps Mr Bakr needs to start over his reparations debate by addressing the issues raised by Lord Gifford.
Yours faithfully,
Eric Phillips
