Dear Editor,
Having read P Harris’s letter in Stabroek News (‘Why can’t we?’ 25.06.08), I must admit that the response he hopes to solicit by asking “would you or would you not?” in relation to the racial allegations being levelled against his cartoon in Sunday Stabroek of 15.06.08, is not pellucid. I can only assume that the question is related to the publishing of similar material.
The cartoon, whose interpretation(s) will invariably vary per individual, is seemingly attracting lots of attention. Its interpretation of being racist has been raised by the IAC and a complaint made to the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC). In my opinion, given this particular interpretation, it is inconceivable and even preposterous for the immensely talented Harris to suggest that it be “put” aside in his quest to garner reactions as to whether the caricature should have been published. Maybe in fairness to him he should be given the benefit of explaining his intentions.
His obvious dependency on “one eloquent and enlightened mind” to vindicate his work was short of his expectations. It therefore begs the question that if the “eloquent mind” had indeed vindicated him, would that have been a reason to imply that the cartoon’s racist tone as expounded by the IAC was extraneous and unjustified? I am again forced to note my opinion that a lack of vindication is tantamount to the fact that the cartoon can never be seen only through Harris’s eyes. As alluded, there are copious interpretations.
It brings me to the point and use of Barack Obama’s quest for the White House as depicted in the cartoon in the form of a question. Obama must be held in adulation for his unprecedented achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee for a major political party in the United States. The euphoria surrounding him becoming president seems to be increasing exponentially with every passing day.
However, ‘red herring’ seems, appropriately, one interpretation from Harris’s use of Obama in his arguments.
Harris noted that East Indians and Africans and other races here may find it inconceivable that a black man could be President of the United States. I would like to remind him, even if his assumption is to be accepted, that African Americans would have considered it an unthought-of American dream less than a year ago, given the history of the United States that led to the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King Jr, one of the strongest advocates for civil rights there, was assassinated just forty years ago, a lesser period than an independent Guyana.
Further, as it relates to his efforts in defending the political innuendoes of the cartoon in a Guyanese context, Harris should be reminded that in over two hundred and thirty years of the United States being an independent nation, only one ethnic group of Caucasian extraction has had the privilege of being its president. In forty-two years of an independent Guyana we have had presidents of Chinese, African, East Indian and Caucasian extractions. Where is the message more relevant, the US or Guyana?
Yours faithfully,
Felicia Persaud
Executive Member, IAC
