This article highlights important dynamics often ignored in conceptualizing diaspora. Many immigrants’ attachment to their country of origin is symbolic or emotional. Others have a more practical, committed relationship through economic investment or philanthropic activity. The latter may be referred to as transnationals.
The creation of a vibrant community officially named Little Guyana in the borough of Queens, New York, USA officially launched in May of 2021, offers an opportunity to showcase and recognize the home country. It also highlights a point of view about defining diaspora, its role in the engagement process and potential contribution to homeland development. The pride of the neighborhood where Little Guyana is situated and celebrated is certainly revealed and understood. It is described as an Indo-Guyanese enclave which attracts numerous nostalgic goods shoppers from within and outside the neighborhood. It also serves as an epicenter for religious and other Indo-Caribbean cultural activities. According to one of its founding members Dr. Dhanpaul Naraine, although there are those who question the name Little Guyana, the choice was widely supported. The coining of the name was influenced by the increasing number of Guyanese owned businesses, although some in the business community felt slighted because they were not consulted in the renaming decision.
A non-Guyanese visiting writer, Neil Biardino stated that despite being from South America, the Guyanese in Little Guyana are not Latinos, nor are they black, white nor Asian… So what are they? I’m not sure, except they are a colorful and a distinctive blend, like the neighborhood. The West Indian connection accounts for the Bob Marley accent here in Little Guyana. American Journalist Ray Cavanaugh who also visited that community wrote, Guyanese are a people who look Indian and yet speak a Caribbean inflection of English. These descriptions through the eyes and observations of the beholders obviously represent an impressionistic, incomplete description of what is considered the Guyanese diaspora. From another perspective, drawing from Caribbean anthropologist Dr. Kumar Mahabir’s thoughts about pooling resources, it seems to represent a vision for a place and space in the future for a particular group. While there are those who see Little Guyana as a diverse community, others view it as representing the Indo-Caribbean diaspora.
The implications of renaming a community with miscalculated foresight and without consensus could inadvertently create an undercurrent of misperception and tension. Consequently, a range of emotions and actions can be evoked. According to Loop News (8/31/2022) the Little Guyana Sign-Post was unlawfully removed. Politicians are also suspected of driving a wedge between religious and ethnic groups in the community. While the decision to choose that name may seem logical and appreciated by many, unintended consequences emerged. The founders of Little Guyana may not have considered the complexities and nuances of ethnic relations, identity issues, the merits of inclusion and potential for underlying tension. Perception and representation of the diaspora are essential factors, particularly when the originators of such an idea (i.e. affixing a new name) emigrated from a multiethnic society. Is the name intended to bring to mind a similar cultural marker of place attachment (to country-of-origin) as “Little Italy”, “Chinatown” or “Little Haiti”? Regardless of how this phenomenon is understood, interpreted or perceived, this question seems logical because of the diversity and sensitivity of ethnic representation of Guyanese in the diaspora. The long-standing political and ethnic divide has led some observers to ask if there are two separate Guyanas. By projection, this begs the question: Is there really one Guyanese diaspora or several diasporas? Notwithstanding ethnic cleavage (i.e. the tendency of a group to share the same geographic and cultural space by preference or tacit force), the name Little Guyana invites speculation.
Despite the fact that a significant number of Guyanese populate the diaspora, concepts and ideals such as “One Guyana” and “One People, One Nation, One Destiny” do not have the same resonance as in the home country, although “social cohesion” can be desired in their home away-from-home. In this regard, the dynamics of interculturality, i.e. interaction between sub-cultures need to be reconsidered. In the case of Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese, the logistics of settlement patterns in the host country were determined by the early arrivals in the 1970’s (among Indo-Guyanese) who established their own immigrant communities such as Richmond Hill or in the case of Afro-Guyanese, generally integrated into proximate ethnic communities. It is important to note that the other Guyanese ethnic groups, namely Indigenous peoples, Portuguese and Chinese tend to be marginalized within the diaspora. Regardless of ethnicity or political affiliation, the level of emotional and economic attachment to the home country varies among members of the diaspora. People in the diaspora do not have a collective, monolithic interest in identifying with the home country. With varying interests and concerns, they may offer support for fundraising activities for nation building. Depending on the circumstances of departure and the level of integration in the host society, immigrants’ allegiance to their country of birth do vary. For some the homeland becomes another tourist destination, while others see no reason to return because as one diasporan stated: “I do not have family living there anymore.”
It is essential to think of these matters critically. The extent to which immigrant enclaves contribute to social, political and cultural separation that mirrors or presumes ongoing ethnic divide in Guyana is one issue to explore. Visiting public officials from the homeland are well aware of this, as they attempt to balance their itinerary when courting immigrant communities for political or other support. While diplomatic representatives feel duty-bound to promote a unified diaspora with assumed similar needs and experiences, the realities of resettlement dictate otherwise. The intent here is not to disparage the integrity of the founders, entrepreneurs and supporters of Little Guyana; their labours in making visible the contributions of residents to a vibrant community are to be applauded. Nonetheless, renaming any community should not be an enigma, but the intended representation or symbolism may miss its mark.
The chosen name may be committed to an “idea”. It is partially influenced by posterity, the desire to have a strong identity with ancestral or county-of origin roots. However, to what extent are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants considered an integral part of the diaspora? Do they identify with their parents’ or grandparents’ cultural orbit, particularly with regards to continuing traditions? Guyanese anthropologist Dr. Gillian Richards refers to “rediasporization” to describe the continued practice of Guyanese culture as a way of retaining a country-of-origin identity. This occurs in varying degrees among members of the diaspora. Connections within the diaspora and between the diaspora and home are maintained through the activities of individuals and non-profit hometown associations, representing various ethnic and social groupings. These include cultural organizations and alumni associations.
An objective examination of communities such as Little Guyana brings attention to critical socio-cultural issues central to the characteristics, challenges and diversity of the diaspora. There is no consensus among scholars about the definition of diaspora. There are those who use the term to refer to any group residing outside of its place of origin. Others emphasize the level of engagement in transnational activity or retention of traditional practices. As we navigate the complexities of identity and ethnic relations, knowing how Guyanese in the diaspora are perceived and represented is important. To that end, field research would be helpful in supporting the conclusions drawn in presentations such as this one. However there may have been a missed opportunity. Notably, statistical data on the Guyanese diaspora that were collected and submitted by the International Organization of Migration (IOM) in 2017, have not been utilized as intended. The objective of that research which was exorbitantly funded by the government, was not only to have a clear understanding of the distinguishing qualities of the Guyanese diaspora, but to use the information to streamline and effectuate the diaspora engagement process. Unfortunately, the report was never officially released to the public, causing frustration and disappointment among many in the diaspora.
In order to have effective transnational engagement, it is not only essential to encourage open dialogue, but to also have a good grasp of diaspora demographics, structure and capacity. Some insight into the diaspora values, skills and other attributes bodes well too.The launching of a Facebook Page and the “Diaspora Highlights” program hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are welcome. Nonetheless, I hope that whenever the long-awaited diaspora engagement strategy is implemented, it will also consider the analysis and conclusions in this article. I suggest cautious optimism.
