Dear Editor,
Despite the unprofessional declaration of anonymity, some would not have difficulty in identifying the author of the letter in Stabroek News of April 27, `Skeldon estate management must be complimented for `walking the talk’’ which seeks, however obliquely, to impugn the easily proven historicity of the sugar industry’s consciousness of its heritage since the 1980s.
It seems possible that the ad hominem harangue was offered without reference to SN’s earlier editorial to the effect that there was little or no evidence of such a heritage.
My own effort was merely to minimize this misinterpretation and, in the process, identify the preeminence Skeldon Estate always held in this retrospective journey, however faltering.
So that in the apparent blissful ignorance of the context of a contribution that was intended to be totally complimentary to Skeldon Estate, it is sad that the one who in the process inveigh on the integrity of another does not recognise, albeit, a conflicted reflection.
Incidentally it just occurred to me – how could a ‘heritage’ be ‘current’?
And why do I have the impression that the particular Estate Manager had a more positive reaction to my intended support?
Yours faithfully
E. B. John
