Dear Editor,
My friend Gokarran Sukhdeo reminded me: “Racial pluralism in Guyana was not an invention of British colonialism, although the British mastered it and practiced it with the greatest expertise, especially in India and Africa, namely, caste and tribal hierarchical delineations. Pluralism always existed. The harnessing of social pluralism, the division of labour, specializations in the production of goods and services, establishment of ownership/management/ruling classes are all derivatives of the capitalist system which itself inherited and adopted much of its traits from its parent/predecessor, i.e., the feudal system.”
Ethnic pluralism and hierarchical dominance of the planter class, for their psychological and economic advantage in Guyana, was deliberately sustained and viciously practiced during colonial times as a policy and, after independence from colonial control, was conveniently copied and propagated since then by the local ruling class to ensure control and continued exploitation of the masses. In order to achieve this and maintain the derived status quo, they found it necessary to stigmatize groups of people as ‘lesser’ so as to justify dominance and exploitation. The exploited were supposedly inferior, lacking in ability to reason, love, and hate. They were presumed lower in the evolutionary tree, needed “protection”, were a “burden” that had to be taken care of through the generosity of colonizers, had to be “Christianized” to make them docile and “civilized”.
There was also science, pseudo-science, promulgated to prove racial inferiority. This included I.Q. testing at the turn of the last century, and the practice of phrenology – that cast the cloud of physical and mental subjugation of Blacks, Chinese, Mexicans, Native Indians, East Indians and others (such as Jews and Eastern Europeans who were administered intelligence and sanity tests at Ellis Island). Because it was decided that the exploited were the inferior people, they were segregated from the ruler class, which averted sympathies and any notion of equality. Indeed, the underclass were not allowed to attend the same church for fear that the equality status in the eyes of God might be inferred. All colonial peoples were thus labeled with taboos, and were stereotyped according to the racial/ethnic/religious group – the ignominious divide-and-rule strategy. The bottom-line for all of this was/is to exploit labor or property for economic gain.
Then and even now, there were/are modern-day racial theorists – individuals with respectable academic credentials – who spew similar prejudicial and bigoted rationalization, in order that a ‘super’ class is maintained, or for a political or religious hegemony to gain ascendancy. Mostly, these academics and intellectuals (and politicians) are on the fringe, extreme in their views, and fundamentalist in their practices. And they are on the rise worldwide. Such rationalization is used to justify social cleavages rather than augment cohesion. Observe this kind of over-zealous and over-reactive behaviour as racial, ethnic, tribal, religious, and indigenous when such consciousness takes shape and form throughout the world. The consequence is the development of a neo-Darwinist social thought that has appealed to some, and indoctrinated them in new concepts, in exaggerated beliefs, in fixity of human characteristics as being primal or primordial, which suggests that humans are unchangeable regardless of time and space. Such kind of pre-ordained concept and immutable belief is anti-Freudian, and does not favour rational and objective dialogue.
“Though the concept of race [and ethnicity] is genuine enough, there is perhaps no field of science in which the misunderstandings among educated people are so frequent and so serious.” For my part, I venture to acknowledge that there is no “pure” stock; that racially speaking, humans are hybrids to a greater or lesser degree; and that the designation to race/ethnicity is primarily a function of constructs, and cultural diversity. There are no better cultures, no chosen people, no superior or inferior people. We are indeed all brothers and sisters. The philosophy of the modern-day Charles Murray (of the “The Bell Curve” notoriety) and the Kiplings and Chamberlains of the past should be purged from our thinking. The sooner we revert to the “brotherhood of man” concept, the better the world would be. “The golden way is to be friends with the world and to regard the whole human family as one,” counseled Mahatma Gandhi. Luis Valdes puts it poetically, “Tú eres mi otro yo.” And the Indian ‘Namaste’ ennobles this oneness.
This “dream” of Martin Luther King Jr will arrive one day, the sooner the better – when we can judge others “by the content of their hearts rather than by the colour of their skin”. I daresay debates will continue…. In Guyana, new Governments are set up with great expectations. Government must seek the opportunity to address the vexing question of the racial/ethnic divide that has been plaguing the nation for too long. It is not a job for the government only. It must also be the special charge of schools and colleges, of business, of all citizens, to address the burning issues with truthfulness and candor. There must be genuineness on all sides. There must be debates and more debates, done with respect and civility – not pontification – to arrive at positive resolve. Unity in the nation is a pre-condition for living together. With unity and democracy, there will be development for all to savor.
Yours faithfully,
Gary Girdhari
