It is possible to be Indian and Guyanese or African and Guyanese

Dear Editor,

There seems to be this emerging agitation for national integration influenced by coalition politics and sloganeering in Guyana’s election season. It is an agitation that suggests that one has to choose between one’s ethnicity and one’s nationality. I have seen these testimonials gain popularity on social media in light of, what I believe to be, Moses Nagamootoo’s seemingly misunderstood denunciation of his ethnic identity, “I am not Indian.” This idea, I’m not my ethnic identity has gained currency in what is widely interpreted to be a society prone to ethnic conflict. What struck me with these emerging testimonials for national integration is their simplicity. This is usually the problem with political sloganeering. It is not inspired by deep intellectual thought. What does it mean to be Guyanese?

The question that these testimonials fail to properly answer, namely, is it destructive to one’s patriotism to be African and Guyanese or Indian and Guyanese? As far as I am concerned, I am African because I chose to recognize my ancestor’s stolen history, culture and language. I am African because I chose to reassert that stolen pride. I am Guyanese because I recognize my right to political determination in this political entity where I was born.

Therefore, is it mutually exclusive to be African and Guyanese or Indian and Guyanese? Democratic societies have facilitated the coexistence of multiple identities, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, heterosexuals, gays, lesbians as well as ethnic identities and nationality. Additionally, humans have always placed such importance on their alignments and identities that conflicts become inevitable. This is an age-old feature of society. The challenge for democratic societies is to establish certain institutional guarantees to maintain peaceful coexistence.

The problem with nationality is that it not readily identifiable. One can proclaim to be Guyanese or American or Caribbean, but unless told I would have no idea. No one can identify a person’s nationality by how they look. Nationality is a pretty modern concept, especially for post-colonial societies. Inhabitants of post-colonial societies came from centuries old polities, rich in history, languages, religions and cultures. Our progenitors did not enter Guyana as Guyanese. They entered Guyana with hundreds of thousands of years of history. With forced migration, enslavement and indentureship they fought and died for the right to maintain their culture. They held onto and passed down that culture to subsequent generations, so that when Guyana became independent, it became a mixture of many cultures and ethnic identities which three hundred years of colonialism could not wide out.

Amerindians were not Guyanese before they were Caribs and Arawaks, etc. Yet the reason they are Amerindian is because they have a culture that connects them. It is this culture which global movements are now dedicated to protecting. So why do we see the need to derecognize our ethnic identity and culture for national integration? In modern progressive societies, the idea of unity is one where all identities exist with respect.

I am not arguing that one should not be proud to be Guyanese. I am arguing, however, that my patriotism should not interfere with my ethnic identity, that I can be both African and Guyanese.

So the question that the coalition’s testimonials for national integration is failing to confront or answer is how can we build a society where we can respect each person’s right to be African, Indian, Portuguese, Chinese and Amerindian.

The question that this coalition sloganeering has failed to recognize is that the reason for ethnic identity conflict-politics in Guyana is because we have never sought to build a society where each is guaranteed certain rights. We have not sought to build institutions where our citizens’ right to political and economic determinations are properly adjudicated. The right to be treated equally, the right to equality of justice, the right to equal access to resources, the right to equal employment, the right to equal recognition under the law, the right equal access to economic determination without discrimination.

A society, which strives to guarantee these rights, is a society that can minimize conflict. So yes, I can be African and Guyanese and you can be Indian and Guyanese, and our cultures ought to be inclusive in this polity, as we as a people seek political and economic determination and prosperity.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Wiggins