Dear Editor,
Rajendra Bisessar closed his letter appropriately captioned ‘Why are we arguing at this time about who suffered more’ (SN May 13) with the thought, “We do know however the history of the oppressor class as they own and control the media, the publishing houses, the TV stations etc, etc, and which they use to disseminate their ideas. In this way they exercise hegemony over our minds, over our thought processes and so we see through their eyes, hear through their ears, speak through their mouths conscious of only their world and their perspective.” While I absolutely agree that these thoughts represent a factual account of the historical monopoly and use of information by the imperial and colonial class to sustain hegemonic control, I am somewhat taken aback that Mr Bisessar is not as chagrined over a similar pattern of behaviour in Guyana. What is so different between the political monopoly and use of information that is exemplified in the situation with the publicly financed media apparatus in Guyana, the denial of licences to some segments of the population to own and operate a radio station, and the discriminatory practice of apportioning national revenue in the form of state advertisements to some private media interests and denying it to others. I mean we all pay the taxes from which such revenue is generated, don’t we? I mean why was it wrong when ‘they’ did it then, and seemingly right and OK for it to be done in Guyana today?
Guyana has become a nation of convenient truths, following a pattern of selectivity that must make George Orwell struggle in his grave in order to give himself a pat on the back. We no longer, as a nation, make judgments and form conclusions based on what happened, on what was done. No, our model today for truth has retrogressed into questions of who it happened to, and ‘who done it.’ We can point fingers at will at the common oppressor and wax indignantly about his historical abuse of democracy, of information et al, while ignoring an accusatory thumb that is indicating that maybe we should begin by checking ourselves. Charity begins at home, but so too should examination of right and wrong.
Fairness and balance in analysis and the formulation of opinions and conclusions are not old fashioned habits. We should not cherry-pick when it comes to right and wrong. All of us will be right from time to time, and all of us will be wrong from time to time; after all we are only human. Our weaknesses in discourse are not about being wrong sometimes. Our weaknesses in discourse are resplendently apparent in the tight-ropes we walk in order to let truth and reality become what we partisanly and egotistically wish them to be, rather than what they actually are. That was the nature of Mr Bisram’s presentation. That becomes the nature of any commentary or analysis of how information was monopolized and used to sustain subjugation of our historical ancestors, but ignores the frightening, albeit miniaturized version, of that very pattern of information control that exists in Guyana today.
Yours faithfully,
Robin Williams
