Dear Editor,
After reading Nigel Hinds’ interesting letter titled ‘We should use “African Guyanese” not the word “black”’ (SN, June 10) I wondered why the one-word descriptor ‘Guyanese’ is not enough.
I grew up hearing and believing that Guyana was a land of six peoples (African, Amerindian, Chinese, European, Indian, Portuguese) and after Independence we were socialized to embrace the concept of one people, one nation, one destiny ‒ all Guyanese!
Am I wrong in thinking that a logical extension of Mr Hinds’ postulation is that Guyana is now a land of ten peoples, having regard to the recent ‘migrations’ to our land (ie alphabetically: African, Amerindian, Brazilian, Chinese, European, Haitian, Indian, Surinamese, Portuguese, Venezuelan); thus we will have in addition to African Guyanese: Indian Guyanese, Amerindian Guyanese, Brazilian Guyanese, Venezuelan Guyanese, Haitian Guyanese, etc, etc.
Would this not add to our already deleterious, dangerous divisiveness and detract from what should be a commitment to the cohesiveness being pursued by the government and hopefully all Guyanese?
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
