Dear Editor,
It’s amazing that in this age of transparency and honesty that the practice of printing letters from individuals with false names continues. This is especially true in Guyana where this practice has been used to influence the ethnic and political divide. M Maxwell has been privileged by certain media houses to write under a pseudonym. Perhaps a public protest against media houses that practise this dishonesty might be necessary before this changes. Self-regulation seems to have failed even though the new Cyber Crime Bill will change some of this political nastiness. If Stabroek News and other media want to continue printing letters from M Maxwell then they should also have the common dignity to state his correct identity. I would have to assume that since editors understand this and that the main reason the practice continues is because it is another way for editors to state views they agree with.
For M Maxwell’s clarification, let me repeat my statements because he seems to practise the common strategy in Guyana of attempting to confuse the public by changing the subject and misrepresenting what has been said. The subjects are social cohesion, crimes against humanity and reparatory justice. Guyana is pursuing social cohesion as a national policy. Slavery and Indigenous genocide are “crimes against humanity”. And reparatory justice is based in international law and is a global practice.
Jews have been offered reparatory justice for their holocaust while Africans have not yet been accorded the same in Guyana and elsewhere. There are over 30 examples of reparatory justice, many of which are land based.
First, Mr Maxwell has a problem with Africans receiving reparatory justice from the state even though there was an African Holocaust or MAAFA in Guyana that resulted in the genocide of thousands of Africans. They were killed so that Guyana could be developed. This criminal enrichment of Europeans is well documented. Africans in Guyana worked free under the brutal conditions of slavery for over 200 years. Anyone who sees social cohesion as necessary or is just, would easily understand and support the idea of Africans in Guyana being provided reparatory justice in the form of lands for “crimes against humanity” committed against them by the state.
Second, Mr Maxwell tries his three card monte game by arguing I am against Amerindian nations receiving lands. Anyone who read my first letter would remember these opening words: “The Guyana Reparations Committee wishes to extend congratulations to the new government in accelerating the land titling programme for Indigenous Guyanese.”
Another reason for my letter at this time was to speak to the Wapishana leadership. The Wapishana should be contented with the lands granted to them in the Amerindian Act. Having received part of the 13.8%, why is the Wapishana leadership demanding additional land? They need to be careful about outside influences.
Ms Teixeira like Mr Maxwell argues I am misusing the Caricom Reparatory Justice mandate. Here again their misrepresentations are obvious. Caricom’s mandate is about African slavery and Indigenous genocide. But both know there was no Indigenous or Amerindian genocide in Guyana, unlike what happened in other Caricom territories like St Vincent and the Grenadines with the Garifuna.
Mr Maxwell even tries to make the claim for reparatory justice a broader issue in Guyana by stating that indentured workers should receive reparations. But Mr Maxwell fully knows that unlike indentureship which was contract based (but which was part of the same colonial regime of exploitation) slavery was a criminal enterprise supported by European governments, their private sector, the Church and civil society. Justice is due for both Africans and Indians but one is for a criminal act while the other is based on contract law. Additionally, the difference between the two systems of oppression can be seen by the genocide of thousands of Africans during slavery and a relatively small number during indentureship.
If Mr Maxwell wants to debate this issue, then let Moray House set up such a debate.
Finally, I hope the authorities in Guyana who oversee the industry would address the integrity issue associated with fake names; we have the distasteful practice of “Peeping Toms” and M Maxwells.
Yours faithfully,
Eric Phillips
