Dear Editor,
Dr. Tara Singh’s letter of 29th March, 2023 in Stabroek News in support of another writer’s contention refers.
There is a tendency in many of the analyses I read to overlook some vital aspects of a subject. This is especially as it applies to race and ethnicity. In this case it is as basic as to, in effect, sabotage the validity of the entire analysis. What makes it more problematic is that this is not an issue that has not been mentioned in several letters before. The issue is the question of definition. That is why it is so basic. Who is an ethnic African or an ethnic Indian? Dr. Vince Adams pointed out in a letter some months ago, when he had to correct a certain politician, that his mother was Indian although he looked African.
So you say “well, you just defined it for the purpose. Anyone who looks African is an ‘ethnic African’”. Until you get down to a little more granular examination. I know a mixed couple (one is apparently African and the other apparently Indian). And here is the problem: when it was time to apply for a house lot the wife made herself appear more Indian. Why did she feel she needed to? But more importantly – the appearance could lie! During the crime wave after 2002, it was reported that some of the Indian bandits were cutting their hair low to appear African. So you say “Well, turn it or twist it, the one who looks African is African and the one who looks Indian for this analysis. Even if there are some who are deceptive, the presentation of the appearance pattern is valid when looking at a large number.” We still have another problem (even if you ignore the question of whether the sample is large enough to swallow what we might call exceptions).
In a certain prominent workplace, several years ago, the CEO was told that it appeared that there were too few Indians being employed. He decided to do something about it. It was discovered that for whatever reason, not too many “Indians” were applying in the first place. But here is the more relevant point: During the Diwali celebrations, some “Africans” walked in dressed in their saris quite confidently, to the bemusement of many. Then is when they learned that those persons had one parent who was Indian. Now here is the point: When taken together, speaking of large numbers, there was probably more Indian blood there, in that workplace, than African! So my question is “Does that matter to the analysts?”
Another issue that arises is “Was the fewness of the applications in the first workplace the result of a perception that they would not be employed?” Hardly. There was a significant number of Indian staff at all levels in that workplace. Or was it that they were getting jobs elsewhere? In which case, the same problem could be the reason for the fewness of “ethnic Indians” at UG. Is it that they are being employed elsewhere? Is it professional to state appearances without researching and reporting on the cause? From the little social science I know, the cause must be addressed. And if one does not have the resources to research the cause at the very least one should mention the possibilities for completeness.
In my time at UG, 1973-1977, the faculty of natural science was over 90% Indian. During the early 2000’s I learned that the majority of the science faculty had swung to “ethnic African.” What in the world had happened!? Could someone explain that to me or did I hear wrong? This was after 8 years of the PPP being in power. Perhaps we need to do some research to show that the PPP was very effective in making Africans like science at the expense of Indians! The party might be missing a great opportunity.
Dr. Singh ends by saying “Afro-Guyanese, for example, had gravitated mainly from plantation society to government jobs, while Indo-Guyanese gravitated mainly towards business and farming. Not to unsettle and to respect this historical pattern of occupational stratification, it is reasonable to posit that for now and the future inclusivity, fairness, and equality of access to opportunity must be accorded priority for all Guyanese.” Nothing to object to here. Or is there?
Well, some time during the Kamla Bissessar government in Trinidad, an Indian official appointed by her government, remarked on (or complained of) imbalance especially at higher levels, in the police force, I can’t remember exactly which. The police officers got together and wrote a letter objecting to her remarks. They claimed that she was in effect contending that they held their position without working for it and they wanted her to know that they had earned their position by diligence and application over the years and would not tolerate any implication that they were there for any other reason. That lady official did not last too much longer in the job.
Here we see the difference between the Trinidad society and Guyanese. The Guyana Police Force has simply been accepting these superficial observations without complaint. This ending paragraph of Dr. Singh’s is the closest he goes towards recognizing the variable of performance in the job. He compares awards of house lots and scholarship to the holding of jobs at UG. What about factors like the tendency to stay in the job because of numerous factors? I understand that an attempt was made to balance the police force in the early nineties, which soon came face to face with a cultural reality. This seems to have changed significantly in more recent years. Does that have anything to do with the reduced opportunities in sugar? A person of Dr. Singh’s credentials should know that this kind of comparison needs more oomph in order to be useful.
I have had reason to complain in the press over what passes for analysis over the years and this is another example that gives me reason. It is a long tradition of poor analysis. During the 1980’s there were analyses of the Amerindian Act or whatever was in place during the pre-Independence period. People would write that the problem was that the British forgot to define who was an Amerindian. Those were pre-internet times but I am sure there are those old enough to bear me out. Apparently, it had never occurred to the critics of that law that no one else had been defined either – not who was an African, Indian, Chinese, Portuguese, or “European”! We have a long tradition of superficial contentions and analyses.
These are days when information is coming to light which overturns a lot of what we thought was gospel truth in history especially where ethnicity is concerned. US historian Dr. Thomas Sowell has a number of Youtube videos in which he makes some very startling claims including that the contention that the wealth gap between African Americans and “white” Americans is due to systemic racism is fundamentally flawed. He names factors which are in the control of the Afro Americans themselves. Superficial analysis of such matters in a country like Guyana where laws are treated like nuisances and information unavailable although a constitution which claims to offer to protect societal groups from even the “threat of marginalization” serves the purpose of little more than propaganda.
Sincerely,
Frederick Collins
