Dear Editor,
I refer to Brother Eusi Kwayana’s letter, ‘Attack on Andaiye was uninformed and disturbing’ (SN, July 21) in which he took offence at one of my columns in which I bemoaned the lack of condemnation by Sister Andaiye of President Jagdeo’s alleged mistreatment of his wife, Varshnie Singh. Brother Kwayana informed me that she did voice her disapproval. Unfortunately, he did not cite the date of the text (press release or letter in the newspaper). I did not know about that fact. But I am guided by the immense integrity of Brother Kwayana. If he said she did, then that is enough for me. I offer an apology to Sister Andaiye.
There is a ‘but’ however. I believe I can be excused if Sister Andaiye’s comments on the President’s attitude towards his wife were contained in the broader spectrum of Red Thread’s activities. How am I to know what position in the Red Thread leadership Sister Andaiye holds? I have never seen in decades of its existence a list of names of the executives of Red Thread. From time to time, names are made known about its leadership, of which Karen De Souza stands out. It was never my intention to question the impeccable praxis of Sister Andaiye.
Brother Kwayana moves on from the President’s wife to an area of my analysis that I think catapults him onto icy waters. The world has expectations of its citizens. I am not a religious person but I share the insistence of the late Pope John Paul on the need for the world to recognize that there exist values that are absolute. If one accepts the existence of absolute values, then the world community will have expectations of its citizens, especially its leaders and educators. I believe, and inflexibly cling to the perspective, that we can call upon our leaders to make pronouncements on the violations of absolute values. We can go further and question our opinion-makers and leaders as to why they remain silent on an assault on human dignity wherever and whenever it occurs. I do not accept for a fleeting second the position of Brother Kwayana that I may be impertinent to tell people what to write and how to think.
I am sorry, but I do not share that philosophical framework of Brother Kwayana. It is pregnant with ontological, epistemological, methodological and philosophical danger. We have a right to demand that President Obama speak out against discrimination against African-Americans if such a situation exists, because he is a member of that race. Buxtonians should chide Brother Kwayana if he side-tracks the destruction that is taking place in a village he helped to develop. UG students have a right to castigate Frederick Kissoon, if he is silent on atrocities there. You call all of this the expectation people have of each other. As to Nigel Westmaas’s position that he, Andaiye and Alissa Trotz are not captive to my timing and focus is a bad cultural mistake (using culture in a broad sense) not to mention the philosophical weakness of his semantics).
I refer Mr Westmaas and Brother Kwayana to my column ‘Timing, focus and the fate of Guyana’ in the July 22 edition of the Kaieteur News which takes a second look at the subject-matter that brought on the responses of both Brother Kwayana and Mr Westmaas. In all honesty, I am a little disappointed at the attitude of both of them, that when someone asked people that you look up to and respect for their courage and excellent praxis why they aren’t speaking out against dictatorship and the violations of people’s rights, you get an unenlightened response that goes like this: ‘Are you telling people what not to print and what not to say, and in case you don’t know, we are not captive to your timing and focus.’ Something is wrong and was always wrong with the Guyanese psyche (I guess including mine). No wonder our tragedy goes on.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
