Dear Editor,
I refer to Ms Anna Correia’s letter of September 30 in SN and the subsequent exchange. It seems that generally available information about Guyana and revelations about other countries’ trajectories over the last 50 years have apparently passed her by. Her position no doubt reflects the thinking of a large part of the Guyanese society who would prefer a certain narrative – a narrative of victimhood for the Guyanese people.
The outlook seems to explain why Guyana is a country largely with two groups of people who seem to rely on godfathers in political office and power to share out plums. So if their particular godfather is not in power they are very, very unhappy. Mike Persaud touches upon this though that was not his intention when he said he believes in “real independence”.
Ms Correia says, “If the US Embassy wants to make a valuable contribution to the Guyanese people, they should start by being honest (as incredible as it sounds) and share information which enlightens us. For instance, declassifying documents on CIA covert operations and how they supported the Jagans being jailed, might be a good start.” I am interested in the Russians declassifying their documents on Cheddi and Forbes and all those of that period. Does she think we have a chance of seeing any such documents? She knows the answer. The Russians don’t declassify anything. So why the double standard?
Her simple narrative goes something like this: Nice Grandpa Cheddi had just embarked upon building a country when up came this great ogre, the USA, and installed a big dictator ‒ Burnham. Children like fairy tales. To see an adult repeating a fairy tale after so long is something special.
Ms Correia should know that the oceans of information coming our way since the days when the headmaster was the brightest man in the village have made all who would look get a different perspective.
She said we fought for our independence. First of all, we have no independence of spirit. Our leaders taught us to depend on a political system to get by in life. In a real sense it was a natural consequence of the political path we took.
They trained our eyes upon the wealth, the positions that were already there, the sugar and bauxite to be taken over. In so doing we created nothing lasting. And in creating nothing lasting our best are forced to go abroad to get economic meaning in life.
She says we fought for our independence. But whom did we fight? How many of the British died for our independence. Hers is an interesting perspective. I am sure it has gained currency in some Guyanese political textbooks. The truth of the matter is that we saved the blows for each other in a conflict that was too all too sordid. If she wants to know about fighting for independence she should look up the Haitian Revolution. Napoleon’s troops were floating in the water around Port-au-Prince. What fight is she talking about?
During those times while acolytes of a certain political perspective were learning the theories of victimhood, the South Korean story was unfolding. One of the main players was a dictator named Park Chung Hee. He was a real dictator. You crossed him and you ended up at the wrong end of an electrified wire. And you know what? When he died they could find no hidden bank accounts; he did it all for the development of his country. And please do not conclude that I fancy dictators. What I am saying is that dictatorship is not necessarily a hindrance to development. No more than fighting for independence guarantees it. Look at Haiti today.
What we have learnt since those days is that throughout history there are always big powers competing for influence. It was going to be easier to stop tomorrow than to stop communism in Benn’s playbook – not the US. They considered this their backyard. And they were going to stop it taking root here by any means necessary. Now, the nature of that influence and the means employed to keep countries in line varied from place to place. But I don’t hear the Dutch crying over the Spanish occupation, or Indonesia crying over the Dutch occupation, or India crying over the British occupation. Today every educated Indian speaks English.
Another thing we learned since those days is that weak and small men blame others for their troubles – great men blame themselves.
We can continue to whine about the Americans. It obviously suits the political programme of some with a victim psychology.
But what is truly pathetic about the sentiments expressed in the letter is that it comes four years after Freddie Kissoon enlightened all of us about the existence of a book that should probably be mandatory reading for those who want to represent their understanding of Guyanese history in print or audio. It is a book called the Invisible Red Stain by Dr Mohan Ragbeer.
From the website we find, “Subtitled ‘Destruction of a Tropical Paradise’, the two volumes seek to explain how the ‘tropical paradise’ called British Guiana, now known as Guyana, was ‘destroyed’ through Cold War politics which subsequently led to racial strife, instability and mass migration of its most brilliant minds.
Dr Ragbeer, a very close associate of Dr Cheddi Jagan and one who had first-hand knowledge and experience of the politics of pre-independence Guyana, explains how the hard core communist agenda of Dr Jagan isolated the country and hindered it from pursuing a path of development within the context of its geopolitical realities.”
Maybe Ms Correia should read that book and come back to us.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Collins
