The richness of Cheddi Jagan’s parliamentary struggle is second to none.

Nov 24,2017

Source.

Dear Editor,

Charlotte Brontë, the author of Jane Eyre wrote, “Prejudices, it is well known are the most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education; they grow there, firm as weeds among stones”. This quote reflects the thinking of Hamilton Green when one reflects on his letter in Stabroek News (‘PPP has had history of unparliamentary behaviour’, November 17)  and his reference to Dr Jagan regarding an old event in the ʼ60s. He deliberately chose not to mention a more contemporary event, ‘Pandemonium in Parliament’ on January 14, 1992, when the Speaker refused a debate on the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1991 seeking to extend the life of the Fifth Parliament and postpone general elections. This dastardly act forced an agitated Dr Jagan to take matters into his own hands in this acrimonious National Assembly. The narrative of this unprecedented event in Parliament was beautifully captured by Indranie Deolall’s article in Stabroek News a few weeks ago on November 9, ‘Fear for this fair land’, and was again featured by the Stabroek News as part of its 30th anniversary celebration.

The Fifth Parliament presided over by Speaker Sase Narine and Hamilton Green as leader of government business in the House could be considered the most acrimonious with a sense of deep ill feeling. Opposition motions were not debated; their time was restricted to the bare minimum and interruptions of their speeches were the order of the day. These glaring and notorious acts in the National Assembly could have only been exposed by Dr Jagan taking his protest action to the next level.

Apart from widespread publicity in the private and regional media, a very astute Joseph Pollydore made a very calculated and clever reference to Dr Jagan’s protest action in the National Assembly. At a May Day Rally in the National Park, Mr Pollydore tasked with the responsibility of introducing Dr Jagan as one of the main speakers remarked that “I have the task of introducing Dr Jagan to you, however I don’t need to since Cheddi is a man capable of creating his own headlines.” He continued: “You think I am going to talk about what happened the other day in Parliament? No, it was he who created the University of Guyana.” This brought laughter and clapping from the workers at the rally. Mr Pollydore further remarked that at this rally “Dr Jagan will be given unlimited time to speak,” in stark contrast to not being given the right to speak in Parliament for more than two years.

Dr Jagan returned as President to address the ceremonial opening of the Sixth Parliament on 17th December 1992 with former Speaker Sase Narine, now a beleaguered MP on the PNC benches. His speech was magnanimous, forcefully recognizing a multi-party system in Guyana and promising that opposition parties will not be treated with the arrogant disdain of the past. He expressed his concern for inequality, especially low pensions.

Dr Henry Jeffrey’s article in Stabroek News ‘Right is only in question between equals’ in March 2013, argued that by any historical standard the (1992-1997) Cheddi Jagan regime was the most productive period for legislation intended to protect the working people of Guyana. The process involved not only consensus with opposition parties but broad and meaningful consultations with the trade union movement and the private sector.

Finally, Dr Jagan, one of the longest serving parliamentarians in the Western hemisphere was just a few months short of five decades of a rich legacy of parliamentary struggle for a better Guyana. The late Ranji Chandisingh stated that Dr Jagan brought Parliament to the people and the people to Parliament. The richness of his parliamentary struggle is second to none, while his sincerity of purpose is written in the stars, something that is far beyond the reach of Hamilton Green.

Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)

Original Post

Cheddie Jagan was a damn decent and principled man. Green on the other hand is a son of a bitch. And what makes Granger look so terrible was that when he was getting ready to give out his first set of awards, he went looking for Green. Since becoming President, he has also made several pilgrimages to Burnham's burial site. Burnham is undoubtedly the worst President in Guyana's history. And Granger makes pilgrimages to his burial site. Shows who Granger really is.

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

Cheddi Jagan was a communist who transformed the PPP into an ethnically based entity.  People like Eusi Kwayana, who didn't trust Burnham so didn't leave with him, left when they saw the writing on the wall.  While Cheddi didn't coin the phrase "apan jhat" he certainly didn't discourage voting on that basis.

In fact in 1961 victory celebrations legions of PPP thugs had a motorcade through black villages on the East Coast screaming racially incendiary threats, including promises to re-enslave blacks.  A black woman, who was still a Cheddi supporter, was roundly abused by these people, who assumed that she voted PNC, because she was black.  I bet that she voted PNC in 1964.

Those who praise Cheddi need to ask why in 1961 did some of his supporters feel perfectly free to engage in racist behavior as they celebrated the PPP victory.

Cheddi cynically based his strategy on the fact that a race based vote would benefit the PPP given that Indians the majority in most of the in the then constituencies.    The PNC was confined to McKenzie, New Amsterdam and most, but not all, of the G/T seats, not sufficient to win. With most of the seats in rural areas "apan jhat" voting guaranteed the PPP victory!

caribny posted:

Cheddi Jagan was a communist who transformed the PPP into an ethnically based entity.  People like Eusi Kwayana, who didn't trust Burnham so didn't leave with him, left when they saw the writing on the wall.  While Cheddi didn't coin the phrase "apan jhat" he certainly didn't discourage voting on that basis.

In fact in 1961 victory celebrations legions of PPP thugs had a motorcade through black villages on the East Coast screaming racially incendiary threats, including promises to re-enslave blacks.  A black woman, who was still a Cheddi supporter, was roundly abused by these people, who assumed that she voted PNC, because she was black.  I bet that she voted PNC in 1964.

Those who praise Cheddi need to ask why in 1961 did some of his supporters feel perfectly free to engage in racist behavior as they celebrated the PPP victory.

Cheddi cynically based his strategy on the fact that a race based vote would benefit the PPP given that Indians the majority in most of the in the then constituencies.    The PNC was confined to McKenzie, New Amsterdam and most, but not all, of the G/T seats, not sufficient to win. With most of the seats in rural areas "apan jhat" voting guaranteed the PPP victory!

If we were to agree on anything, CBJ was a real skont. Imagine, he let indians abused blacks. And to think, I blame him for abusing low income indians. The man was a Soviet mole, communist agenda replaced all Guyanese, they were simply nameless number in a stack against American imperialism. I guess Forbes loved him so much, he cautioned Black ppl to be respectful to him when the Black woman was going to moon him(CBJ).

Perhaps, In a silent way, mockery.

Oridinary black ppl have a tendency to be vulgar with their discontent with Indo ppl. CBJ was not Indo, he was not Guyanese. He was SOVIET.

All those who pay homage fail to come to grips how the man really really f-up Guyana.

Before he arrived back in Guyana, the colony was developing a sense of balance, culturally. There was respect, understanding and to some degree tolerance. Guyanese had a norm how to conduct way of life. He dismantled all of that in 4 years, just a measely 4 years.  He made room for Hamilton Green to rise, Jagdeo to rise, Forbes to rise. And every mean muddah f who can't govern to rise. Simply, he took away law, order and respect.

His desire was to have a classless society. Today, the country has no class. That shouldn't be too difficut for all to apprehend.

According to Caribj, and I agrre with him, he was a racist towards black ppl. It had to be. Those decent fine upstanding Eurocentric principled ppl had to endure CBJ's racism to so quickly hate coolie ppl, like instantaneously. 

Doan forget, Hoyte had to remind  him of his kith and kin. I suppose that isn't race baiting bcz CBJ was racial to begin with.

In my annals of the destruction of a glorified society, CBJ is blamed 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% for it.

Long Live Jagdeo, a reminder of CBJ's glorious f up of the people of Guyana.

Leh me hear yuh Bruddah.

Prashad has genes in him from three West African countries. So this had to be some koolie man in the past having a relationship with an Afro Guyanese woman or the opposite. The race situation between Afros and Indos could not have been like it is today.

 

seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

Exactly. My buddy Carib likes to make up stories to equate Jagan with Burnham although there are none. Jagan does not have the brutal governing record that Burnham did. Even f one generously take Carib's stretched imagination that PPP supporters allegedly did terrible things in the 60s, there is no nexus between those allegations and Jagan. Not quite the same with Burnham as he clearly directed the military and paramilitary forces against those who he saw as his opposition. Socialism/Communism was appealing around the middle of the 20th century and many saw it as a system to bridge the divide between the haves and haves-not. Jagan also saw that connection. He was driven by the need to bridge that divide and not like Burnham who was driven by power hunger. Siggy is just falling into the trap.

ksazma posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan.

Exactly. My buddy Carib likes to make up stories to equate Jagan with Burnham although there are none. Jagan does not have the brutal governing record that Burnham did. Even f one generously take Carib's stretched imagination that PPP supporters allegedly did terrible things in the 60s, there is no nexus between those allegations and Jagan. 

Jagan was communist but those Indian businessmen in Water St, Lombard St, Regent St and High St were not communists. Why did black hooligans/rioters burn down and loot those Indian shops and stores on Friday February 16, 1962?

Furthermore, in 1963 during the PNC-incited 80-day general strike 12-year-old Gilbakka was not communist. Why did a gang of marauding black hooligans pounce on him, lift him up and dash him into an eel-infested gutter in D'Urban Street, causing his clothes and book-bag to get soaked? I was just a Form 2 Central High School pupil. That unwarranted racial assault caused me to seek a transfer to Zeeburg Secondary, a lower-grade school.

Gilbakka posted:
ksazma posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan.

Exactly. My buddy Carib likes to make up stories to equate Jagan with Burnham although there are none. Jagan does not have the brutal governing record that Burnham did. Even f one generously take Carib's stretched imagination that PPP supporters allegedly did terrible things in the 60s, there is no nexus between those allegations and Jagan. 

Jagan was communist but those Indian businessmen in Water St, Lombard St, Regent St and High St were not communists. Why did black hooligans/rioters burn down and loot those Indian shops and stores on Friday February 16, 1962?

Furthermore, in 1963 during the PNC-incited 80-day general strike 12-year-old Gilbakka was not communist. Why did a gang of marauding black hooligans pounce on him, lift him up and dash him into an eel-infested gutter in D'Urban Street, causing his clothes and book-bag to get soaked? I was just a Form 2 Central High School pupil. That unwarranted racial assault caused me to seek a transfer to Zeeburg Secondary, a lower-grade school.

No matter how one tries, they cannot truly rewrite history. History of Burnham and his PNC party destroying Guyana. Jagan, coulda, shoulda woulda is just that, coulda, shoulda, woulda. But Burnham did. Fortunately for Jagan, when he was finally allowed to govern as the majority of voters would have preferred since being denied that opportunity in 1964, he did govern in an non-Communist and non-dictatorial manner. Burnham allowed his wickedness to destroy Guyana. That is the only history. Everything else is mere conjecture.

Sorry to hear of your ordeal back then Gilly. Maybe my buddy Carib can have an eyewitness and actual victim of "PPP hooliganism" in the 60s post a first hand account on GNI.

Clive Thomas who is the head of the money finding outfit S something is in Dr Jagan's book "The West on Trial" as being fired by Burnham because he was a friend of the Jagans.  Clive Thomas at Dr. Jagan's funeral stated that Dr. Jagan always called him by phone two to three times every week at night to talk.  Now Clive Thomas is hunting President Jagdeo and other East Indians.

ksazma posted:
Gilbakka posted:
ksazma posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan.

Exactly. My buddy Carib likes to make up stories to equate Jagan with Burnham although there are none. Jagan does not have the brutal governing record that Burnham did. Even f one generously take Carib's stretched imagination that PPP supporters allegedly did terrible things in the 60s, there is no nexus between those allegations and Jagan. 

Jagan was communist but those Indian businessmen in Water St, Lombard St, Regent St and High St were not communists. Why did black hooligans/rioters burn down and loot those Indian shops and stores on Friday February 16, 1962?

Furthermore, in 1963 during the PNC-incited 80-day general strike 12-year-old Gilbakka was not communist. Why did a gang of marauding black hooligans pounce on him, lift him up and dash him into an eel-infested gutter in D'Urban Street, causing his clothes and book-bag to get soaked? I was just a Form 2 Central High School pupil. That unwarranted racial assault caused me to seek a transfer to Zeeburg Secondary, a lower-grade school.

No matter how one tries, they cannot truly rewrite history. History of Burnham and his PNC party destroying Guyana. Jagan, coulda, shoulda woulda is just that, coulda, shoulda, woulda. But Burnham did. Fortunately for Jagan, when he was finally allowed to govern as the majority of voters would have preferred since being denied that opportunity in 1964, he did govern in an non-Communist and non-dictatorial manner. Burnham allowed his wickedness to destroy Guyana. That is the only history. Everything else is mere conjecture.

Sorry to hear of your ordeal back then Gilly. Maybe my buddy Carib can have an eyewitness and actual victim of "PPP hooliganism" in the 60s post a first hand account on GNI.

The Carib is right to an extent, the individual PPP grassroots activists can match the violence of the individual PNC activists in several  tit for tat ways. The bomb and the gun can be use by any race. What the PPP  is weak in is the defense of their supporters in a multiracial areas.   This is because these people living in multiracial areas do not have communities that have people in them with multiple guns, ammunition and the knowledge to quickly make an explosive device to protect themselves. As result, they are left at the mercy of supporters of the other parties living in these areas. 

Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

The moral eqivalence is that CBJ set the stage for what Guyana is today.

Burnham never had to have that opportunity to do what he had done and his proteges to follow.

In his book, he proudly states how he was beseeched by the BGEIA not follow the path on anti-British.

I see a country that is never getting anywhere. I witnessed and lived in it when it like utopia. And he wrecked it. 

Doan blame Forbes, CBJ removed the checks and balances for him by simply being anti-British and anti-American.

Today, it is considered the PPP lost the 2015 elections because of fiery speech by Priya at US ambassadors home. 

Do these pple ever learn?

Hell, no!

And they have created Granger just as  they created Forbes.

Destruction of a whole country is eqivalent by both CBJ and LFSB. One for communism the other for the right to govern bcz they the were slaves.

Cheddie had to solutions for Guyana-just examine what he left behind. I think he allowed his fateful to thief.

seignet posted:

Doan blame Forbes, CBJ removed the checks and balances for him by simply being anti-British and anti-American.

Siege,

During the colonial era,for a country to achieve self Government,leaders had to be anti-British and anti-imperialist,one have to understand the tug of war during that period was Capitalism an Communism,Jagan took the Communist path,which the Capitalist America wasn't going to be allowed in their back yard,he paid the price for his ideology,civil war break break and Burnham came to power,from 1964 to date what Guyana achieved politically ? a new tug of war evolved between the two parties,one rigging to stay in power,after free and fair elections the other held on to power because of their majority ethnic support and the cycle continues.That country can only change when the people decides to make the changes,until then it will the same Indos against Afros.

Cheddie was a disgrace to Guyana, a commie who caused the Americans to install the PNC and 27 years of destruction ensued. Those who worship Cheddie as though he was a deity are part and parcel to the problems that he caused Guyana. Not sure why slop can boy and some of the slop can crew still worship him.

Django posted:
seignet posted:

Doan blame Forbes, CBJ removed the checks and balances for him by simply being anti-British and anti-American.

Siege,

During the colonial era,for a country to achieve self Government,leaders had to be anti-British and anti-imperialist,one have to understand the tug of war during that period was Capitalism an Communism,Jagan took the Communist path,which the Capitalist America wasn't going to be allowed in their back yard,he paid the price for his ideology,civil war break break and Burnham came to power,from 1964 to date what Guyana achieved politically ? a new tug of war evolved between the two parties,one rigging to stay in power,after free and fair elections the other held on to power because of their majority ethnic support and the cycle continues.That country can only change when the people decides to make the changes,until then it will the same Indos against Afros.

No Caribbean Island had that problem of a communist party.

A smart ppl, black, eurocentric and loved the monarch. Imagine, these ppl, enslaved for hundreds of years and yet when emancipated displayed gratitude to the monarch whose ancestors offered Rights to Slave Trade the African.

How can the Whites of Britian and American permit black ppl to be enslaved by communism in Guyana. If CBJ could not grasp that simple fact, then he had to be a dunce.

Returning to the seat of power, he let opportunities to ease race relations slipped by, so many times. The man never had Guyana's interests at heart.

Drugb posted:

Cheddie was a disgrace to Guyana, a commie who caused the Americans to install the PNC and 27 years of destruction ensued. Those who worship Cheddie as though he was a deity are part and parcel to the problems that he caused Guyana. Not sure why slop can boy and some of the slop can crew still worship him.

You have a warped way of looking at this issue by acvusing Jagan of causing the US to instal the pnc dictatorship. It is like blaming the victim who suffered at the hands of the bully for what so ever attributes or excuse the bully use to victimize his of her victim. 

Who is viewing Jagan as a god? He was human and made mistakes,. But any of the good books will tell you that it is the intention that counts. In retrospect, we can always say that we should have done this or that instead. Hindsight is 20-20.

i would argue that if you were a supporter of Jagan or the PPP, at any time and your argument holds (which I strongly disagree with) you are part of the problem, that blame should be placed in all who supported him over the years. You are making a wrong assumption that Jagan had total control over all the decisions that were made, that he was the only one responsible. You leave out all the other actors and factors existing at that time, you are unidimensional,in your approach which is poor scholarship and argument.

It is interesting that during his rule, prior tom1964 and after 1992, Jagan did nothing to implement a " communist" agenda in Guyana. His policies in both eras were those implemented in many countries, even in some of the advanced capitalist countries by social democrats. It is interesting that many of the non-aligned nations during that time were propagating the non-capitalist path of economic development until they went into power and faced the intricacies of governing.

seignet posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

The moral eqivalence is that CBJ set the stage for what Guyana is today.

Burnham never had to have that opportunity to do what he had done and his proteges to follow.

In his book, he proudly states how he was beseeched by the BGEIA not follow the path on anti-British.

I see a country that is never getting anywhere. I witnessed and lived in it when it like utopia. And he wrecked it. 

Doan blame Forbes, CBJ removed the checks and balances for him by simply being anti-British and anti-American.

Today, it is considered the PPP lost the 2015 elections because of fiery speech by Priya at US ambassadors home. 

Do these pple ever learn?

Hell, no!

And they have created Granger just as  they created Forbes.

Destruction of a whole country is eqivalent by both CBJ and LFSB. One for communism the other for the right to govern bcz they the were slaves.

Cheddie had to solutions for Guyana-just examine what he left behind. I think he allowed his fateful to thief.

1. From your opening statement, it is obvious that you do not know what moral equivalence means. 

2. Why not blame the British, the American or the capitalist? This was not about communism, it was about how profits were to be created, accumulated and expropriated by the rich in foreign countries and a small elite in British Guyana. It was about the conditions under which the poor and the working class laboured.

3. It is ludicrous to say that the PPP lost the 2015 elections because of what Manickchan said to the US ambassador.  This is unidimensional, poor argument and scholarship. There were many other reasons. But the victory by Granger still has to be confirmed after the decision on the petition, if it ever comes.

4. Blaming Jagan for the dictatorship is like blaming the victim for being bullied, the raped for being raped. Why not blamed the inequalities that he sought to address? Or the poverty! Or the inequalities? Or the racism? Or the poor nutrition and high death rate? Or the high rate of illiteracy? No.  It is easier to blame someone else than ourselves who helped to create what we currently have either by our acts of commission or omission. 

5. You might have lived in another country and not Guyana. Or maybe you were rich and lived like gods at the cost of the poor and working class. When was Guyana ever Utopia? Maybe you need to understand what utopia is, maybe a definitional problem. By no sense if the imagination Guyana prior to 1950 was a utopia, now was it a utopia during the ppp years prior to the 1964 elections. And not in your wildest dream after that! 

i agree with you that Guyana is going no where. What have you done or are doing to help? Other than being a keyboard warrior which is nothing.

Zed posted:

You have a warped way of looking at this issue by acvusing Jagan of causing the US to instal the pnc dictatorship. It is like blaming the victim who suffered at the hands of the bully for what so ever attributes or excuse the bully use to victimize his of her victim. 

Who is viewing Jagan as a god? He was human and made mistakes,. But any of the good books will tell you that it is the intention that counts. In retrospect, we can always say that we should have done this or that instead. Hindsight is 20-20.

i would argue that if you were a supporter of Jagan or the PPP, at any time and your argument holds (which I strongly disagree with) you are part of the problem, that blame should be placed in all who supported him over the years. You are making a wrong assumption that Jagan had total control over all the decisions that were made, that he was the only one responsible. You leave out all the other actors and factors existing at that time, you are unidimensional,in your approach which is poor scholarship and argument.

It is interesting that during his rule, prior tom1964 and after 1992, Jagan did nothing to implement a " communist" agenda in Guyana. His policies in both eras were those implemented in many countries, even in some of the advanced capitalist countries by social democrats. It is interesting that many of the non-aligned nations during that time were propagating the non-capitalist path of economic development until they went into power and faced the intricacies of governing.

I would argue that your views are warped.  Apparently you are not too knowledgeable about the events at the time and the role of the aftermath of  McCarthyism that pushed the CIA to embrace the PNC as the lesser of the too evils, Jagan representing communism and Burnham a more neutral stance.  His role post 1992 was that of a despot who failed to lead Guyana forward. It was only after Jaggy took over and made the PNC toothless that we saw progress in the nation. 

Zed posted:
seignet posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

The moral eqivalence is that CBJ set the stage for what Guyana is today.

Burnham never had to have that opportunity to do what he had done and his proteges to follow.

In his book, he proudly states how he was beseeched by the BGEIA not follow the path on anti-British.

I see a country that is never getting anywhere. I witnessed and lived in it when it like utopia. And he wrecked it. 

Doan blame Forbes, CBJ removed the checks and balances for him by simply being anti-British and anti-American.

Today, it is considered the PPP lost the 2015 elections because of fiery speech by Priya at US ambassadors home. 

Do these pple ever learn?

Hell, no!

And they have created Granger just as  they created Forbes.

Destruction of a whole country is eqivalent by both CBJ and LFSB. One for communism the other for the right to govern bcz they the were slaves.

Cheddie had to solutions for Guyana-just examine what he left behind. I think he allowed his fateful to thief.

1. From your opening statement, it is obvious that you do not know what moral equivalence means. 

2. Why not blame the British, the American or the capitalist? This was not about communism, it was about how profits were to be created, accumulated and expropriated by the rich in foreign countries and a small elite in British Guyana. It was about the conditions under which the poor and the working class laboured.

3. It is ludicrous to say that the PPP lost the 2015 elections because of what Manickchan said to the US ambassador.  This is unidimensional, poor argument and scholarship. There were many other reasons. But the victory by Granger still has to be confirmed after the decision on the petition, if it ever comes.

4. Blaming Jagan for the dictatorship is like blaming the victim for being bullied, the raped for being raped. Why not blamed the inequalities that he sought to address? Or the poverty! Or the inequalities? Or the racism? Or the poor nutrition and high death rate? Or the high rate of illiteracy? No.  It is easier to blame someone else than ourselves who helped to create what we currently have either by our acts of commission or omission. 

5. You might have lived in another country and not Guyana. Or maybe you were rich and lived like gods at the cost of the poor and working class. When was Guyana ever Utopia? Maybe you need to understand what utopia is, maybe a definitional problem. By no sense if the imagination Guyana prior to 1950 was a utopia, now was it a utopia during the ppp years prior to the 1964 elections. And not in your wildest dream after that! 

i agree with you that Guyana is going no where. What have you done or are doing to help? Other than being a keyboard warrior which is nothing.

Well said Zed !!! some people speak through their A** on this forum  . 

Good schooling ... 

Drugb posted:
Zed posted:

You have a warped way of looking at this issue by acvusing Jagan of causing the US to instal the pnc dictatorship. It is like blaming the victim who suffered at the hands of the bully for what so ever attributes or excuse the bully use to victimize his of her victim. 

Who is viewing Jagan as a god? He was human and made mistakes,. But any of the good books will tell you that it is the intention that counts. In retrospect, we can always say that we should have done this or that instead. Hindsight is 20-20.

i would argue that if you were a supporter of Jagan or the PPP, at any time and your argument holds (which I strongly disagree with) you are part of the problem, that blame should be placed in all who supported him over the years. You are making a wrong assumption that Jagan had total control over all the decisions that were made, that he was the only one responsible. You leave out all the other actors and factors existing at that time, you are unidimensional,in your approach which is poor scholarship and argument.

It is interesting that during his rule, prior tom1964 and after 1992, Jagan did nothing to implement a " communist" agenda in Guyana. His policies in both eras were those implemented in many countries, even in some of the advanced capitalist countries by social democrats. It is interesting that many of the non-aligned nations during that time were propagating the non-capitalist path of economic development until they went into power and faced the intricacies of governing.

I would argue that your views are warped.  Apparently you are not too knowledgeable about the events at the time and the role of the aftermath of  McCarthyism that pushed the CIA to embrace the PNC as the lesser of the too evils, Jagan representing communism and Burnham a more neutral stance.  His role post 1992 was that of a despot who failed to lead Guyana forward. It was only after Jaggy took over and made the PNC toothless that we saw progress in the nation. 

You throw out words without really knowing what you are talking about.

1. It was the Monroe doctrine that dictated American foreign policy in tthe West Indies and Latin America. Not McCarthyism.

2.  Obviously you have problems with political concepts. In no way can Jagan in 1992be classified as a despot., unless of course if you are delusional or make up your own definitions outside of the scholarly ones. Please look at the remarkable social and economic changes initiated under Jagan's presidency. And please do not give me that PNC economic pseudo analysis that postulates that the growth under the PPPmrule was aresult of HOyte's economic policies.

3. Jagdeo find not make the PNC toothless, there were many demonstrations and many have argued that the nature of Jagdeo!'s rule resulted in the formation of the AFC and the resulting Granger election which threw Jagdeo and the PPP  out of power.

prashad, being vieweda stupid by you is a compliment. I know that this is the first sign of the validity of what I say. Not that I need or value validation from you.

also, I do not have enemies on this forum. I engage in discussions and give my position, argument as effectively as possible. Should I be proved wrong, then I will gladly learn from that discussion. No enemies! This is just a discussion forum, does not lead to concrete action or positive results on the ground for most. 

Zed posted:
Drugb posted:

Cheddie was a disgrace to Guyana, a commie who caused the Americans to install the PNC and 27 years of destruction ensued. Those who worship Cheddie as though he was a deity are part and parcel to the problems that he caused Guyana. Not sure why slop can boy and some of the slop can crew still worship him.

You have a warped way of looking at this issue by acvusing Jagan of causing the US to instal the pnc dictatorship. It is like blaming the victim who suffered at the hands of the bully for what so ever attributes or excuse the bully use to victimize his of her victim. 

Who is viewing Jagan as a god? He was human and made mistakes,. But any of the good books will tell you that it is the intention that counts. In retrospect, we can always say that we should have done this or that instead. Hindsight is 20-20.

i would argue that if you were a supporter of Jagan or the PPP, at any time and your argument holds (which I strongly disagree with) you are part of the problem, that blame should be placed in all who supported him over the years. You are making a wrong assumption that Jagan had total control over all the decisions that were made, that he was the only one responsible. You leave out all the other actors and factors existing at that time, you are unidimensional,in your approach which is poor scholarship and argument.

It is interesting that during his rule, prior tom1964 and after 1992, Jagan did nothing to implement a " communist" agenda in Guyana. His policies in both eras were those implemented in many countries, even in some of the advanced capitalist countries by social democrats. It is interesting that many of the non-aligned nations during that time were propagating the non-capitalist path of economic development until they went into power and faced the intricacies of governing.

Well put. Very well put.

Zed posted:

You throw out words without really knowing what you are talking about.

1. It was the Monroe doctrine that dictated American foreign policy in tthe West Indies and Latin America. Not McCarthyism.

2.  Obviously you have problems with political concepts. In no way can Jagan in 1992be classified as a despot., unless of course if you are delusional or make up your own definitions outside of the scholarly ones. Please look at the remarkable social and economic changes initiated under Jagan's presidency. And please do not give me that PNC economic pseudo analysis that postulates that the growth under the PPPmrule was aresult of HOyte's economic policies.

3. Jagdeo find not make the PNC toothless, there were many demonstrations and many have argued that the nature of Jagdeo!'s rule resulted in the formation of the AFC and the resulting Granger election which threw Jagdeo and the PPP  out of power.

Nonsense, curbing the spread of communism was the priority of the Americans back in Cheddi's time. You seem to forget that Janet was communist. 

Go argue with the NY times.

A dentist by training, Dr. Jagan rode the aspirations of Guyana's downtrodden Indian majority to power at a young age. But he was also a Marxist-Leninist of the pro-Soviet mold, which led to clashes with Churchill, who thought him a Communist puppet, and John F. Kennedy, who feared he aspired to install a ''second Cuba'' on the northern coast of South America

Many of you Jaganites will bury your head in the sand and deny that he was joker of low regard in the West.

As for Jaggy, yes he tamed the PNC, the frighten the man like six months in jail. They almost had a heart attack when they thought he would run for a 3rd term. Meanwhile do your research and see that it was under Jagdeo that the street protests by the PNC diminished to benign levels. Possibly due to phantomizing on a large scale.  

Please be specific about what is nonsense. You should pay me for schooling you. Do you disagree that the Monroe doctrine was the operational imperative for us action in Latin America and the West Indies? 

Tell me why were the American and British governments so afraid of the 'communist' in Guyana. Whose interests did they represent? In what ways were these interests threatened? 

What, the NewYork Times is your validation of things. Read Arthur schleshinger on how the CIA subverted democracy in British Guiana and get his interpretation. I do not think that jagan denied that he was a communist. He was an honest man unlike your hero Burnham who lied to the Americans and the British , got their support and then did as he pleased. But please examine exactly what he said when asked the question and why he responded in the way he did. 

Whybshould I put credence on what Kennedy or Churchill thought about Jagan? Are they the epitomes of purity truthfulness and honesty, of caring for the poor of the earth? Do some reading on these supposed great leaders. Read about Buet Bsam and SOuth  East Asia, about tgecYalta agreement.

The issue of Jagan being being a communist was a red herring to ensure the flow of profits earned off of the backs of the working class and from the colony's natural endowment continued to flow to the rich in the metropolitan powers and the few rich in British Guiana. 

Yes, Jagdeo tamed the PNC so well that they assumed power in 2015. Regarding the phantom, are you insinuating that Jagdeo was responsible for the phantom? Clarify what you mean. Check your facts again regarding the protests by the PNC and please note that protest take many forms. How was it that several persons were charged for treason? Was that a peaceful protest? Tell us about the Freedom fighters that terrorized people, about disturbances in Agricola, how Jagdeo had to beg the British for help with the violence perpetuated by supporters of the PNC, how a minister and members of his family were murdered. Do you want me to go on about how Jagdeo tamed the PNC? I think that Corbin had the last laugh. Guess who he supported for the leadership of the PNC?

 

Man I think that I kept it going so long because I was in a bad mood. Usually I do not get involved in long protracted discussions. Today, I am in Canada for a funeral, it is a bit cold in the transition, and it seems like I am getting a cold.

Zed posted:

Man I think that I kept it going so long because I was in a bad mood. Usually I do not get involved in long protracted discussions. Today, I am in Canada for a funeral, it is a bit cold in the transition, and it seems like I am getting a cold.

Condolences to you and family.

Weather changes can do it,take care of that cold.

Zed posted:
seignet posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

The moral eqivalence is that CBJ set the stage for what Guyana is today.

Burnham never had to have that opportunity to do what he had done and his proteges to follow.

In his book, he proudly states how he was beseeched by the BGEIA not follow the path on anti-British.

I see a country that is never getting anywhere. I witnessed and lived in it when it like utopia. And he wrecked it. 

Doan blame Forbes, CBJ removed the checks and balances for him by simply being anti-British and anti-American.

Today, it is considered the PPP lost the 2015 elections because of fiery speech by Priya at US ambassadors home. 

Do these pple ever learn?

Hell, no!

And they have created Granger just as  they created Forbes.

Destruction of a whole country is eqivalent by both CBJ and LFSB. One for communism the other for the right to govern bcz they the were slaves.

Cheddie had to solutions for Guyana-just examine what he left behind. I think he allowed his fateful to thief.

1. From your opening statement, it is obvious that you do not know what moral equivalence means. 

2. Why not blame the British, the American or the capitalist? This was not about communism, it was about how profits were to be created, accumulated and expropriated by the rich in foreign countries and a small elite in British Guyana. It was about the conditions under which the poor and the working class laboured.

3. It is ludicrous to say that the PPP lost the 2015 elections because of what Manickchan said to the US ambassador.  This is unidimensional, poor argument and scholarship. There were many other reasons. But the victory by Granger still has to be confirmed after the decision on the petition, if it ever comes.

4. Blaming Jagan for the dictatorship is like blaming the victim for being bullied, the raped for being raped. Why not blamed the inequalities that he sought to address? Or the poverty! Or the inequalities? Or the racism? Or the poor nutrition and high death rate? Or the high rate of illiteracy? No.  It is easier to blame someone else than ourselves who helped to create what we currently have either by our acts of commission or omission. 

5. You might have lived in another country and not Guyana. Or maybe you were rich and lived like gods at the cost of the poor and working class. When was Guyana ever Utopia? Maybe you need to understand what utopia is, maybe a definitional problem. By no sense if the imagination Guyana prior to 1950 was a utopia, now was it a utopia during the ppp years prior to the 1964 elections. And not in your wildest dream after that! 

i agree with you that Guyana is going no where. What have you done or are doing to help? Other than being a keyboard warrior which is nothing.

Run fuh President in 2020.

D2 has been storing my platform since 1992.

I am like Trump, every election I think God goan put me forward, but His plans are different.

Guyana needs God.

Who knows, maybe like Trump inconcievable victory, 2020 could be my year.

No body can sey I too old fuh the job. God put Granger up to nullify that argument against me. The Almighty has levitate me over THAT hurdle.

On utopia, all that story about poor living in the 50s that is what cheddie seys and he told indians exactly that. My ears have heard it from his lips. And they believed the estates were ripping them off. CBJ was intent on closing down every estate in the country. Well, Granger fullfilled his wishes. And you see/hear how Indians worried and stressed. They never had that in the 50s. Suicides and all the ailments of society today are caused CBJ.

The foundations that colonialism bulit, he pulled them all down. I know, because I know what it was like and what it is now.

Progress starts from a point of reference. CBJ is the reference for the Guyanese ppl, Indians, blacks and those in between.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×
×