Dear Editor,
I take exception to the last sentence of Dr Melissa Ifill’s first paragraph in ‘History Today’ No.35/2008, SN, Aug 21, which refers to “…the reality that ethnicity was the dominant criteria used by the voting public.” I feel it reduced the thinking Guy-anese population into ethnic tribes voting solely on racial grounds, and feel it is poor for a local historian to facilely repeat a foreigner’s view that ethnicity in 1968 was the dominant criterion.
Did the fact that Dr Jagan appealed to a broader cross-section of the Guyanese population and had mass support from the working-class which made up the majority of the population never occur to her?
The third paragraph was interesting, as the world is still reeling from the sort of ‘expertise’ from the US State Department that would expect Burnham to convert the East Indian masses by recruiting a few high-profile East Indians after those masses were beaten and raped during the riots fomented by the CIA.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
