Carifesta and criticism

Dear Editor,

I acknowledge Barrington Braithwaite’s rather clumsy, inelegant and still uninformed attempt at exiting a debate that he unwisely started.

1. Mr Braithwaite says that he isn’t a mercenary, yet his initial letter was an attack on me in defence of Ms Paloma Mohammed, someone he has advised not to respond on issues she can easily clarify for the public.
2. I cited Dr Mohammed’s failure to offer even constructive criticism of the Caribbean Press and that she had three books published. His response was that he consulted with her and it was only one book, to which he no doubt refers to the publication of her play, Duenne. Yet multiple reports coming out of the press included two other books at least slated to be published, including a short story, Marlee the Manatee, which was reported, in July, 2013 to have been in the process of being released. Now, considering the complete lack of transparency by the Caribbean Press in what was published or not, perhaps the onus is on the authors, including Dr Mohamed, to clarify for the public record. Did she or did she not submit at least three books to be published to the Caribbean Press, and what is the state of publication of these books?
3. Mr Braithwaite completely ignores Dr Mohamed’s connection to the disastrous Carifesta X (2008), instead going back to my editorial of 2005 and ludicrously questioning whether my criticism of what Carifesta in general (not Carifesta 1) had become was inspired by Walcott’s attitude or not. That is a red herring argument. Carifesta had then and has now its critics and the editorial was in line with such criticism. When Mr Braithwaite, or Dr Mohamed, wants to discuss the disaster that was Carifesta X, including the Creative Director’s shortcomings on consultations leading up the festival and management of the Festival itself, I’m ready and willing.
4. In his original letter, Mr Braithwaite insinuated that I was somehow politically compromised by working at Chronicle when I did. I responded by saying that that insinuation implied that it was impossible to be professional and work at Chronicle, citing several professionals who were there at the time. I further challenged him to highlight any editorial or other work that I did then that could be construed as biased. His response now, after being able to cite a very specific word in an entire editorial, is for people to check the records of the paper at that time, and to engage in the empty rhetoric of asking whether the people I spoke about supported my Carifesta editorial. I repeat, to support his insinuation, let him provide a single paragraph of politically biased writing that I have ever done at the Chronicle – that includes producing, in its entirety, the very editorial that has caused him so much angst.
5. Mr Braithwaite asks whether I am “aware that the Caribbean Press evolved out of Carifesta 8?” Carifesta 8 was in Suriname, in 2003 – I should know since despite winning the Guyana Prize that very year, a memo I wrote to the Office of the President decrying increasing attempts at further political control of the editorial department of the Guyana Chronicle earned me the distinction of being blacklisted from every Carifesta since; in fact, because those very gatekeepers of the previous administration are being relied upon by the new administration, the ludicrous debate is currently going on regarding whether to involve me in (the planning of) the upcoming Carifesta XII slated for Haiti in August. The Caribbean Press came out of Carifesta X (2008) when Derek Walcott, who finally decided to visit a Carifesta, reiterated his criticism of the festival and government priorities on white elephant projects at the expense of the investment in the arts. Then President Bharrat Jagdeo committed to providing US$100,000 to establishing a regional publication mechanism. If Mr Braithwaite were more research inclined he would have known that the first person to warn against the bureaucratic political control of such a mechanism was yours truly, as captured in a letter published in Stabroek News in August, 2008.
6. Mr Braithwaite outlines his history of publications etcetera, and his encounters, successful and unsuccessful, with successive previous administrations. I have expressed no interest in that. I did not call into question his credentials, he did mine, and from his inability to further argue that I am unqualified to speak on cultural policy because I have not ventured out of the apparently restrictive confines of writing, I can venture to say he has now been duly educated on that score.
7. Mr Braithwaite cautions about my approach and puts the onus on me to contact people, like Dr Mohamed, before public criticisms. I’ve been consulting with such people for years, including gatekeepers for the previous administration, even when such courtesy was not afforded to me.

I have no obligation to assist anyone in sustaining their self-created myth of reticent objectivity even as they have been critically involved in a system designed to suppress and alienate reasonable criticism. Let the public good be argued in public, not with meaningless gestures of ‘resistance’ on one hand while the other props up the oppressive system being ‘resisted’.

Mr Braithwaite ends his letter with the following, “The fat lady can sing now, as I have concluded this discourse, with nothing left to be misconstrued.” No, she has not. What has happened is that Mr Braithwaite recognizes that his response, as was his original letter, was weak at best and he has taken a rather disingenuous exit of declaring himself understood and conclusive.

If he is ready to seek further clarification on any of the issues I’ve highlighted, he can raise them in the public domain. The same goes for any would-be defenders of any other cultural gatekeeper, or those gatekeepers themselves if it is that they wish to contextualize their gatekeeping.

Yours faithfully,
Ruel Johnson
Janus Cultural Policy Initiative