All that Glitters is not Gold by Janet Jagan

It has an excellent cover – the Guyana flag, pictures of Burnham, Jagan and Rodney, an uninteresting title “A Dream Deferred – Guyana’s identity and the shadow of colonialism” by Stephen Spencer published by Hansib. The back cover describes the author as having researched ethnic relations in the Caribbean and Australia. “He is a senior lecturer in Sociology at Sheffield Hallam University where he has produced several books…”
I believe, but not certain, that it was launched or put out for sale by Hansib during Carifesta. A friend loaned me the book, saying that she read the first few pages and found it “reasonable.”
Yes, the first few pages were interesting, but by page 10 I started to wonder about the accuracy of the contents. The author gives a breakdown in the population of Guyana related to race and then notes the number of Guyanese living abroad. In his words: “conservative estimates of Guyanese living in other countries (especially US, Canada and UK) could be close to 700,000 (around the indigenous population of Guyana).” Yet in the previous paragraph he had noted that the Amerindians are 4.7% of the population which “is estimated to be between 765,000 to 825,000.” I started then, to wonder about the author’s accuracy and scholarship.

This is not an isolated error; there are others quite worse. This one is the craziest of all the author’s errors. On page 79: “As David Hinds (who was President in 1997) suggested, in an article a few years ago, Guyana has developed such irreconcilable ethnic rivalries constantly relied upon and manipulated after independence. The struggle for power became a zero sum game between two iconic leaders.”

“Dey needed one another to be what dey became. You tek dat from me. Burnham frighten Black people wid Jagan jumbie, and Jagan frighten Indian people wid Burnham jumbie. In de end Guyana become a jumbie country. Boy, both of dem deform me, dat today none ah we can see pass we nose. Dats why Guyana gone fuh channa” (David Hinds, Saxakali 1997)

The ignorant author obviously hasn’t a clue about Guyana. He mixes up Prime Minister Sam Hinds with David Hinds, the wildly extremist, anti-PPP character, a vociferous hate-writer like Freddi Kissoon. Obviously his research and knowledge of Guyana is extremely poor. Aside from the author’s lack of scholarship, what about Hansib Publications Ltd? Do they just accept any manuscript and put it to print? No one reads or edits the manuscript? In my view – both are to blame.

But that, of course, is not all! On page 54, the author discusses the post Burnham period and praises Mr Hoyte for “abolishing the shady practices of the so-called `overseas’ vote.” But he fails to recognize that the 1985 elections when Hoyte was President were as massively rigged (or even more) than the previous ones. On page 48 the author refers to the rigged elections of 1968, 73, 78, 79 and 80. Again, he has it wrong and didn’t mention the 1985 elections under Hoyte.

Referring to the Wismar massacre of 1964, his remarks indicate a lack of understanding of the time frame of the attack: “Nevertheless it seems that the government (if indeed not directly responsible for such acts) was reluctant to curb corrupt police and security forces that were able to rob and terrorize Indian citizens with little chance of reprimand or enquiry.”

I was Minister of Home Affairs when the Wismar tragedy took place. Working with a hostile British Commissioner of Police Peter Owen, and the Governor, I had to have my own sources of information, as they sought to keep me in the dark on all matters. For example, each morning, Mr Owen would come to my office and hand me the secret and confidential Police reports of the previous 24 hours. I would open the envelope, read the contents and tell the Commissioner “I just finished reading all of this in the newspaper.” They kept the secret information for themselves. In the case of Wismar (like the X-13 report which I had to uncover on my own) I reported to the Commissioner that there would be trouble there soon and the lives of the minority East Indian population must be protected.

I ordered that re-enforcements be sent to Wismar immediately, but he refused. Then the horrors began and the entire East Indian population of Mc Kenzie/Wismar i.e., those still alive after the murders, rapes and mayhem, had to leave.

It was because of the attitude of the British Governor and Police Commissioner in refusing to listen to the truth about Wismar, that I resigned my Ministry and issued a statement fixing the blame where it belonged. The PPP never filled the post after that. And contrary to the author’s point, there was an enquiry. All of this can be found on the internet and in research centres, if the author had any interest in historical facts and accuracy!

The author further messes up his book by devoting more than four pages trying to establish that the caste system is still an important aspect of life in the Hindu community of Guyana. He’s way off from reality on this score, and his study of race relations is purely anecdotal one after the other. One would presume that a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at a respected University would be analytical, but he just pushes out the usual taxi-driver’s stories of race relations like a hack.

The rush to print is a sickness that is worldwide I believe. We see it right here in Guyana and especially during Carifesta when so many books were launched. Many, as we know, are valuable contributions to our culture and we can be proud that literature has developed so well in recent years. But unfortunately, like the book examined today, authors are careless not only in their research, but in the writing. There are those books published which are not yet ready; the authors need to be more serious about their works and go over them, over and over. The great authors did not throw their material together in one big bang to get in print, but carefully polished and perfected what they wrote.

quote:

a vociferous hate-writer like Freddi Kissoon.

Mrs Jagan is not my favourite person, but if indeed this author made these points and blunders, I have to agree with her on this one.

Also I'm wary of these bottom house publishing house.

Freddie is getting hit from all around and being compared to David Hinds.

'The rush to print is a sickness that is worldwide I believe. We see it right here in Guyana and especially during Carifesta when so many books were launched. Many, as we know, are valuable contributions to our culture and we can be proud that literature has developed so well in recent years. But unfortunately, like the book examined today, authors are careless not only in their research, but in the writing. There are those books published which are not yet ready; the authors need to be more serious about their works and go over them, over and over. The great authors did not throw their material together in one big bang to get in print, but carefully polished and perfected what they wrote.' Totally agree. This is a haphazard and horrendous book.

But Mrs Jagan should now give us her take on Clem Seecharran: "Sweetening Bitter Sugar."

quote:

David Hinds, the wildly extremist, anti-PPP character, a vociferous hate-writer like Freddi Kissoon.

David Hinds? With writings like I am now convince that Janet is senile.

I want to hear from her on Bierbal (if that's how his first name is spelled) Singh's book that carries interviews of people who know the PPP, especially Cheddi and Janet, and more especially the views of TT economist Lloyd Best that blamed Cheddi's failure to adjust his ideology on Janet's strong communist stance.

These days when I read anythign Janet writes, I sense a disconnect between her opinions and the reality of Guyana's needs. She is in Guyana for her views and vision of communism, while Guyanese are fighting to survive under her handpicked boy-toy!

David Hinds is not wildly extremist. That's how the communists see things - black and white. Even a reasonable individual like Hinds is extremist.

For her West on Trial will be the only history book people should read, assuming of course one can call it a history book.

But at the same time the people who look at history should get the facts right. So I guess the author opened himself to he critique. But at the same time I did not read the book.

Now, what does the communist Mrs Jagan thinks about Lloyd Best and Clem Seecharran.

Someone needs to ask Mrs. Jagan what exactly is her purpose in Guyana's politics today, given that her original role sixty years ago was to help rid Guyana of the colonialists? The colonialists are gone, but Mrs. Jagan has found herself in a new role in 2008 of fighting with Guyanese who are actually fighting for changes in the way Guyana is being run.

Even Moses Nagamootoo and Khemraj Ramjattan, as well as other former PPP stalwarts under Cheddi Jagan, who wanted to see the PPPitself reformed to meet changing times seemed to have been sidelined by the PPP under Mrs. Jagan's leadership.

What exactly is her purpose at this juncture?

quote:

In the case of Wismar (like the X-13 report which I had to uncover on my own) I reported to the Commissioner that there would be trouble there soon and the lives of the minority East Indian population must be protected.

I ordered that re-enforcements be sent to Wismar immediately, but he refused. Then the horrors began and the entire East Indian population of Mc Kenzie/Wismar i.e., those still alive after the murders, rapes and mayhem, had to leave.

Freddie should read this.

I am sure that Dr. David Hinds will have no objection to Mrs. Jagan describing him as anti-PPP. That he is. David is an avid leader and supporter of the WPA and proud of it. Calling him wildly extremist is another matter. If being fiercely committed to the ideals of democracy, shared governance, transparent government, racial tolerance, etc. makes one wildly extremist then David is that in spades. There are some who might disagree with his political philosophy but when it comes to love of his country and the willingness to fight for his beliefs David is second to none. Mrs. Jagan needs to rethink her characterization of the man and get to know him better.

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:
Someone needs to ask Mrs. Jagan what exactly is her purpose in Guyana's politics today, given that her original role sixty years ago was to help rid Guyana of the colonialists? The colonialists are gone, but Mrs. Jagan has found herself in a new role in 2008 of fighting with Guyanese who are actually fighting for changes in the way Guyana is being run.

Even Moses Nagamootoo and Khemraj Ramjattan, as well as other former PPP stalwarts under Cheddi Jagan, who wanted to see the PPPitself reformed to meet changing times seemed to have been sidelined by the PPP under Mrs. Jagan's leadership.

What exactly is her purpose at this juncture?

Mrs. Jagan was certainly a powerful influence in the PPP a while back. Certainly as a founder member of her party and former President she is accorded the requisite honor and respect today. However, her influence today is grossly exaggerated. She has come out against her party on quite a few occasions, the latest being the Stabroek News ads fiasco. When she openly advocated for the return of ads to the SN Jagdeo stated that she was just another member of the party who was entitled to her opinion. He ignored her totally.

quote:

Originally posted by Errol Arthur:
I am sure that Dr. David Hinds will have no objection to Mrs. Jagan describing him as anti-PPP. That he is. David is an avid leader and supporter of the WPA and proud of it. Calling him wildly extremist is another matter. If being fiercely committed to the ideals of democracy, shared governance, transparent government, racial tolerance, etc. makes one wildly extremist then David is that in spades. There are some who might disagree with his political philosophy but when it comes to love of his country and the willingness to fight for his beliefs David is second to none. Mrs. Jagan needs to rethink her characterization of the man and get to know him better.

Well said Error.

I think Mrs jagan and others are confusing David Hinds with the NUT from Brooklyn. Not that i am a big fan of david.

quote:

Originally posted by Errol Arthur:
I am sure that Dr. David Hinds will have no objection to Mrs. Jagan describing him as anti-PPP. That he is. David is an avid leader and supporter of the WPA and proud of it. Calling him wildly extremist is another matter. If being fiercely committed to the ideals of democracy, shared governance, transparent government, racial tolerance, etc. makes one wildly extremist then David is that in spades. There are some who might disagree with his political philosophy but when it comes to love of his country and the willingness to fight for his beliefs David is second to none. Mrs. Jagan needs to rethink her characterization of the man and get to know him better.

Agreed. Some of David Hinds writings can be found here

http://www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/commentary/hinds_archives.html

quote:

Originally posted by TK:
David Hinds is not wildly extremist. That's how the communists see things - black and white. Even a reasonable individual like Hinds is extremist.

For her West on Trial will be the only history book people should read, assuming of course one can call it a history book.

But at the same time the people who look at history should get the facts right. So I guess the author opened himself to he critique. But at the same time I did not read the book.

Now, what does the communist Mrs Jagan thinks about Lloyd Best and Clem Seecharran.

You are certainly right about David Hinds. However, if you are right about the rest of the stuff then you are guilty of precisely what you are accusing her of, and I know that you are no communist. This is not a communist issue. Most politicians the world over behave this way - you are either with me or against me.
I have heard you and others rail against The West on Trial which is no more than Cheddi Jagan's memoir. Whose version of events is it supposed to be? Was there ever a politician who penned a memoir that did not paint himself/herself in a favorable light? Cheddi Jagan was not a historian and never claimed to be. Let the Clem Seecharrans, Clive Thomases, Eusi Kwayanas, Ravi Devs and others continue to write. None of them, including Jagan, will have the final say on anything. Historians will look at all their works for millenia and separate the wheat from the chaff.

As regards this book I am with you. I did not read it and if Mrs. Jagan's observations are correct the author is guilty of lazy, if not dishonest scholarship. There is a lot of that going around these days.

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:

quote:

In the case of Wismar (like the X-13 report which I had to uncover on my own) I reported to the Commissioner that there would be trouble there soon and the lives of the minority East Indian population must be protected.

I ordered that re-enforcements be sent to Wismar immediately, but he refused. Then the horrors began and the entire East Indian population of Mc Kenzie/Wismar i.e., those still alive after the murders, rapes and mayhem, had to leave.

Freddie should read this.

Terry,

This is very telling from Janet's perspective. Notice that she was concerned about the lives of the minority East Indian population at Wismar and McKenzie? She never says anything about the blacks who died in the Sun Chapman launch bombing incident! I don't know who plotted and carried out the bombing, but the fact that Mrs. Jagan refuses to ever mention this aspect raises my suspicion of her true motive in Guyana's politics.

I see her politicis: through the prism of race! She is using race as a means to an end in her game plan. She really does not care about Indians, per se, but their votes! Remember, "DON'T SPLIT THE VOTES!"? back in 1997 when Ravi dev was making inroads among Indians worried about persistent criminal attacks? No leader, whether PPP or PNC, can be a true leader of Guyana if he or she does not empathize with ALL the people!

It was the same thing that happened during the 1985 power sharing talks that started between the PPP and PNC. She objected to the deal if the PNC was going to be the senior partner, because as far as she was concerned, Indians outnumber blacks and will vote PPP.

Mrs. Janet Jagan, a white American, does not understand the complex nature of our social meltdown in which Guyanese of all races need each other to develop Guyana. We need a visionary Guyanese of either Indian or African extraction who can take us out of this cesspool called race politics that has destroyed out country.

I was born in McKenzie and lived through the 1964 disturbances. I stood and watched Lalta Paul store burned to the ground. I heard goons breakdown the door of my neighbor, the Bacchuses, and beat one of their sons. He died! But that was at the height of the disturbance! It was the effects of the Cold War filtering down to the grass roots, as played out between the PPP, pandering to the Soviets, and PNC, pandering to the West.

If Mrs. Jagan hadn't been this staunchly communist Guyana probably would have been spared the 60s disturbances! And if she wasn't still so deep into our political life today, Guyana probably would be better off!

The PPP and PNC need new blood at the top or else we are marking time! Still, why can't people see Mrs. Jagan has always been our Albatross from the fifties until now?

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:
She never says anything about the blacks who died in the Sun Chapman launch bombing incident! I don't know who plotted and carried out the bombing, but the fact that Mrs. Jagan refuses to ever mention this aspect raises my suspicion of her true motive in Guyana's politics.

I see her politicis: through the prism of race! She is using race as a means to an end in her game plan. ?

When she came to Guyana her main associates were activist middle class black and colored women. She joined their movement tio improve the rights of women. She and her husband also joined other activists, many of whom were black and colored. Contrary to the belief of some PPP stooges Guyanese werent waiting on the arrival of the "White Queen" to begin their struggle for social, political and economic empowerment.

When some blacks and coloreds deserted the PPP she wrote off that segment of the population. As a result even those who didnt leave because they didnt trust Burnham (people like Eusi) felt that they had to leave or submit to Janet which they werent going to do.

Ask most AfroGuyanese who are 70 and over about The Jagans. Contrary to popular belief there is a residual respect for Cheddi. They feel that its Janet who became the racist and swore vengeance on blacks who she feels deserted her. Its was janet who intriduced the party card system in Guyana pushing in all sorts of unqualified PPPites (almost always Indians), people who she could control.

The black middle class, feeling threatened by their perception of Janet trying to squeeze them out just at the very moment when they were finally moving into leadership positions in the then British Guiana, fought back. I suspect but for Janet Burnham would have been less successful in mobilizing the black populatioin behind him, especially when the more sordid aspects of his personality became visible after 1962. Clearly he solidified his position amongst the black middle class during this period.

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:
If Mrs. Jagan hadn't been this staunchly communist Guyana probably would have been spared the 60s disturbances! ?

Interesting that we come to the same conclusion from different points.

But for the fact that Cheddi became dominated by Janet I suspect that the racial polarization that occurred after Burnham left would have been less complete. Rural blacks didnt trust Burnham at first (neither did the black and colored middle class but for different reasons) and his stronghold was in the urban centers among working class blacks. It might have been possible that more rural blacks might have stayed behind had Janet's attitude been different.

I do agree with you that Janet used the Indian peasantry who she could dazzle because of her skin color. Blacks, whilst having similar complexes, also had a more oppositional attitude towards whites because of the legacy of slavery. They were were less impressed with her "my way or the highway" scorched earth view of life and so she had no use for them after they saw through her and split.

I think she was always seen as a white foreigner by blacks which is why they could have tolerated Cheddi as President after 1992 but Janet as President was too m uch to take. You will note that instability only began after Cheddi died, and while they didnt vote for him they certainly paid their respects when he died. Janet's death would be ignored.

quote:

Originally posted by Nehru:
I think Mrs jagan and others are confusing David Hinds with the NUT from Brooklyn. Not that i am a big fan of david.

Mrs. Jagan, is not wrong about David Hinds. He is in the same category as Kean Gibson, Rickford Burke, Eric Phillips, Eusi Kwyana{ who for the past few years have been trying to rehabilitate his racism. I think its too late for that. Remember he was the one who wanted Partition or Death in Guyana}

Hinds have never been a contributor of racial tolerance.

I totally agree with her characterization of David Hinds.

quote:

The ignorant author obviously hasn’t a clue about Guyana. He mixes up Prime Minister Sam Hinds with David Hinds, the wildly extremist, anti-PPP character, a vociferous hate-writer like Freddi Kissoon. Obviously his research and knowledge of Guyana is extremely poor. Aside from the author’s lack of scholarship, what about Hansib Publications Ltd? Do they just accept any manuscript and put it to print? No one reads or edits the manuscript? In my view – both are to blame.

Don't be ashame of telling the people how your own people disowned you. And that's why you ended up in Guyana and took out all your anger on the Guyanese people.

quote:

Error Arthur: Cheddi Jagan was not a historian and never claimed to be. Let the Clem Seecharrans, Clive Thomases, Eusi Kwayanas, Ravi Devs and others continue to write. None of them, including Jagan, will have the final say on anything. Historians will look at all their works for millenia and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Exactly my view...let many viewpoints bloom. However, while Jagan might not have been a historian, his book is certainly interpreted by the PPP types to be the "correct and truthful" view of things in the modern Guyanese history.