Snarling at the letter writer (‘The well-being of a people depends ultimately on the masses,’ March 19) with such zeal in the editorial (‘The well-being of the masses,’ March 27), though well written, does not accomplish anything productive. The arguments against the letter writer’s premise are not well thought out and are but vague thrusts to bore holes.
I would lean towards the ‘elites’ who have migrated, simply because for a lot of us Guyanese the world is a global community, and nationalistic sentiments are but nostalgic ‘rum gaffs.’ Ramphal is one of the global leaders in the United Nations-sanctioned organization called the Commission for Global Governance, which drafted a paper called ‘Our Global Neighborhood’; Dr Shahabuddeen served on the World Court in the Hague; ex-Finance Minister Carl Greenidge served as Deputy Secretary General of the ACP; and Shridath Ramphal was Secretary General of the Commonwealth.
My point is that I suspect Guyanese have developed a globalist world view, as opposed to a nationalist perspective. This could have been out of necessity, as we seem to be a migrant nation.
We have large pockets of hybrid-Guyanese all over the world.
This places us as a nation in a wonderful place − to push the globalist agenda. Of course Ramphal is already doing that. Every other Guyanese should be urged to jump on that train and shoot for the global stars. Only then would we truly find our identity in the fabric of global humanity as one people, one nation, with one destiny.
In terms of the ancient distinction of society into ‘elites’ and ‘masses,’ I would urge the Editor who penned this editorial to take off the old tiresome blinkers and look at the new world. The guy on Regent Street is not a member of the ‘masses.’ He is an individual human being. And his place in the global village works wonders for the world. He is on par with Ramphal and Shahabuddeen and Greenidge and Jackson and Jagdeo, who is now flaunting himself in the Middle East.
Shaun Michael Samaroo
It was the letter writer, not the editorial writer who made a distinction between ‘elites’ and ‘masses.’ The editorial said the premise that “Messrs Ramphal, Jackson et al represent an intellectual elite and privileged class intent on preserving the status quo at the expense of the working class… is a curious assumption, especially when we consider that most of us are of humble origin, with our roots in slavery and indentureship.”