Stormborn posted:First, rice flour is not preferred by anyone except those with celiac disease. I have never heard of a pizza with rice flour crust...maybe in some avante garge circle outside of my domain. The point is that Burnham as intending through his good sense to offer us rice flour instead of wheat is bunk.
He had no foreign exchange having squandered it all beginning with his first five year plan. He then took the convenient route that he was encouraging local production by banning certain things. It would be a reasonable strategy if only we grew wheat. There are stories about him having his astute minds develop a rice flour substitute for wheaten flour but lacking gluten there was no way to make puffy dough.
I do not pretend to be smart. I am smart. I did not intend to cleverly do anything. I spoke to the truth of it. I also understand why indians felt slighted. while he was eating the choicest pastries of the wheaten kind he denied them a staple diet given rotie was a morning and evening thing. Worse, the Berbice region never felt a shortage since the merchants could bring in whatever they want. His security forces avidly sought to curtail that access. He could have placated them, if he was as smart as you insist, by letting them have their flour and dhal. It cost him nothing but it cost them a lot.
I am sure indians from India have their preferences. But if they want to eat rice flour chapati ( and few does as far as I know and having asked my Indian daughters, they never had rice flour rotie of chapati!) Maybe, baseman can enlighten us as to this habit of Indians using rice flour routinely. But then again, that is their choice. I have no necessity or urgency to answer why ( if they do) the were satisfied with rice rotie and Guyanese Indians were not.
You seem to think one readily manufacture grievance to malign Burnham. Sorry, his excesses were many and his reputation in and among many as a brute and a thug and a very nasty critter was well earned. I also care little to respond to those who misuse the word genocide. I never used the word carelessly. I do affirm he was a worthless, piece of crap, a waste person as far as I am concerned and nothing in the historical record I know of rehabilitates him from such a shit smear status.
A 418 word response and this is the only relevant part:
Stormborn posted:
I have no necessity or urgency to answer why ( if they do) the were satisfied with rice rotie and Guyanese Indians were not......I also care little to respond to those who misuse the word genocide.
Cool. So you have no response to the main gist of my post. Why did you even bother to respond then?
Then there is this gem from you:
You seem to think one readily manufacture grievance to malign Burnham. Sorry, his excesses were many and his reputation in and among many as a brute and a thug and a very nasty critter was well earned.
Love your clandestine approachh to introducing your strawman arguments with "seem to think". You don't speak for me. The above is an insult to the 3 black men posting here, each of whom have written openly against Burnham and yes, even against Granger at times. Where have I, or any of us 3, sought to defend Burnham's "reputation????
My family were WPA people. While you and the Indian crowd here were behind Cheddi giving "critical support" to Burnham, we paid for being blacks who were against Burnham. Suh banna, give it a rest with your "on the bandwagon" anti Burnham wailing. Some of us were actually in the fight!