Dear Editor,
I think it was Isaac Asimov who first related the story of the psychiatrist who drew a triangle on a piece of paper, passed it to his patient and asked him what it represented. “Sex,” was the patient’s unhesitating re-sponse. He then drew a circle which the patient also associated with sex. The patient gave the same response to other figures and squiggles drawn by the psychiatrist who in an exasperated tone told the patient that he obviously had a one-track mind.
“Me?” bellowed the patient, “who is it drawing all those filthy figures?”
This story came to mind upon a reading of the hysterical statement issued by the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) in response to the publication of a cartoon in the Sunday Stabroek of June 15, 2008.
After listing in great detail all of the features of the cartoon the IAC vehemently concluded that they are all highly offensive and constitute a negative portrayal of Indo-Guyanese.
The IAC contends that the old East Indian woman is portrayed as a Hindu “belonging to a past era historically.” This portrayal is interpreted to mean that Indo-Guyanese are a backward ethnic group.
Apart from the tautological classification of past era as historical, the conclusion is a classic non sequitur. I am sure that the IAC does not consider that the retention of the identified traditional garb and jewellery by elderly Indian women renders Indo-Guyanese members of a backward ethnic group. After all, at Arrival Day celebrations the elderly Indian women so dressed are given places of honour.
The real reason for the negative conclusion seems to be that “the woman is drawn in the act of peeling an unidentified agricultural product with her hands”! (gasp) The IAC interprets this portrayal to mean that Indo-Guyanese are technologically backward. Presumably, the cartoonist mischievously omitted to portray the woman employing that computerised unidentified agricultural product peeler which is a standard feature in the home of every old East Indian woman of the present era (historically)!
In its minute listing of everything depicted in the cartoon the IAC overlooked the presence of some peels which missed the basket and are lying on the ground by the feet of the woman. A glorious opportunity was thereby lost to further castigate the cartoonist for portraying Indo-Guyanese as litter-bugs who care nothing for the future of our planet!
The IAC also takes exception to the portrayal of the old woman wearing an “I love Guyana” badge on the ground that this suggests that Indo-Guyanese are not inherently patriotic.
The complaint seems to be that she ought to have been portrayed as the Indo-Guyanese of the current era who display their inherent patriotism by wearing “I love NY” caps and Niagara Falls t-shirts.
The IAC then contends that the interrogation by the interviewer was calculated to evoke a negative response to the question: “How do you feel about a black man being President?”
This portrayal is interpreted to mean that Indo-Guyanese are alarmed at the notion of having an Afro-Guyanese as President of Guyana.
The cartoon accurately reflects and depicts a facet of the harsh reality that, by and large, members of the two major races in Guyana would prefer to have one of “their own” at the helm of government.
This racial preference was vividly demonstrated in an address given in New York in June 1997 by Moses Nagamootoo, then Minister of Information. The text of the address was reproduced in the Guyana Chronicle just two days after the publication of the cartoon which the IAC finds offensive.
In his address, Minister Nagamootoo disclosed that Sam Hinds, in a speech at Linden, said: “When I joined Dr. Jagan in 1990 and decided to become a candidate, people said that the coolie will use you and that you will not become Prime Minister.” Sam Hinds is then reported to have said that he is gratified to become President because some good Indian people had to step back and make way for him. He then told the audience: “I have crossed the line – Why can’t you?”
Is there any doubt that the notion of having an Afro-Guyanese as President is viewed with alarm by most Indo-Guyanese and vice versa?
The “stepping back” by the “good Indian people” was an act of political expediency which would not have been tolerated for an extended period by those who would not, or dare not, cross the proverbial line.
The IAC contention that the cartoon “can stir up feelings of social hostility against Indo-Guyanese by promoting and perpetuating negative stereotypes of Indo-Guyanese” is far fetched. Laws in every civilised society guard against incitement to racial or ethnic hatred in circumstances where such incitement is intended to, or can reasonably be foreseen to lead to violence or other criminal acts.
The cartoon in question is a powerful piece of political satire which comes nowhere close to offending against the race hatred laws.
The protest by the IAC raises another important issue of freedom of expression. This freedom is precious and it must include the freedom to say what the IAC or anyone else believes to be false, and even what many other people may take to be offensive.
Freedom of expression must include the freedom to ridicule as well, and it is sometimes necessary to use a little humour to prick the egos of sanctimonious persons and groups in the society.
In a free society, every sphere of life must be subject to debate, commentary, critique and even ridicule. Our democracy will not survive if editors, writers or cartoonists capitulate to the threats and railings of misguided organisations or even vigilante mobs. If this newspaper bows to the preposterous protest of the IAC that the cartoon is offensive to Indians, it would then hesitate to publish anything controversial that might offend someone. The paper will then not be worth publishing.
The IAC erroneously considers that any criticism of the Indo-Guyanese community, express or implied, demonstrates a lack of respect for that group. It is a fallacy that respect means refraining from criticism. Respect in fact entails criticism.
In order to respect a group one must take it seriously, and taking a group seriously sometimes means finding fault with it.
In its release, the IAC noted that in the cartoon the interviewer first asks the old woman: “How do you feel about a black man being President?” and after a pregnant pause added: “…of the United States of America, of course!”
The old woman then finally exclaimed: “Oh! The United States!… Well…” In this instance, the cartoonist was being overly generous to the Indian woman in suggesting that she will adopt an expansive attitude and accept the notion of a black American President. Anyone with his nose to the ground will acknowledge that Indians in Guyana and in the diaspora do not share the excitement of the prospect of having a black man in the White House. Conversely, Africans in Guyana and in the diaspora welcome such a prospect.
We do not have to go through the tortuous formality of commissioning a Bisram poll to make this obvious reality even more so. The respective preferences for candidates in the United States elections are motivated more by herd instinct than by reasoned comparative assessments of the platforms. No consideration is given to the fact that the next occupant of the White House, whoever he may be, when answering the telephone in the Oval Office at 3 o’clock in the morning, will instruct that the retrograde US foreign policy which adversely affects both Indians and Africans stay on course.
Fidel Castro was once asked whether he preferred the Democrats or the Republicans.
His response was that was like asking a sardine whether it preferred to be fried in butter or in oil!
The IAC has sent its release to the political parties. We know what to expect… politicians will never take a rational stand on utterances from race based or religious organisations, regardless of how grotesque or harmful those rantings may be!
Yours faithfully,
Vidyanand Persaud
