Skip to main content

Reply to "The Racist Indian Lament...why dont you see me as being the genius I know I am!"

Originally Posted by VVP:
Originally Posted by Danyael:
Originally Posted by VVP:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by VVP:
I am not sure if you read West on Trial.  You have to read West on Trial with an open mind even with your distrust/hatred of Cheddi Jagan.

The West on Trial is the biggest piece of racist filth every written.  I read it cover to cover and found it appalling, and lacking in scholarship.  Just a whiney Cheddi and Janet attempt to glorify themselves, and blame every one else for their failures!

 

The whole focus of this book was to paint the Indian as the victim, the African middle class as the demon, and Afro Guyanese as violent savages.

 

At no point is there any reference to any role by the PPP or Indo Guyanese for the ethnic tensions which exist.

 

The West on Trial is now the bible used by the Indo KKK to demonize Afro Guyanese.

You are an idiot.  I have wasted enough time on you.  Janet was not an author of the West on Trial so she couldn't have glorified herself in it.  I agree with you that the book can sound "whiney" and an attempt by Cheddi to portray himself as a victim.  But he was indeed a victim to British and American politics of the day.  The book never sought to portray Africans as savages.  It did show how they were used by Burnham to get to his ends.  I have noting to say to the regurgitating bile you spew here everyday.

 

The book also covered the role of the so-called elite Indians in undermining Jagan.  Frankly the likes of today's Jagdeo and company would have fitted those elites to a tea.

The problem with the West on Trial is the premise th at the West ( the US and Britain) were indictable for Cheddi's swallowing whole cloth the communist dogma fed to him by his wife.

 

Indians are a religious people and they were being gulled by his communist world view only because they had nothing to lose being poor. His  promise of Utopian bliss was something to cling to on the outside chance it may be true.

 

Africans were also afraid of the religious implications. It was the message their priests were giving them about ungodly communism ( and not off the mark) Being also a bit more informed they sided with what they know, the brits and the persuasive Burnham who milked that in his opposition to cheddi . Together with the commercial class of upper crust indians and Portuguese, they saw a whole way of life being threatened.

 

The US had Civil Rights banging the door of its conscience demanding to be treated fairly;  Vietnam in asia, Flower Power blooming everywhere and there wasCuba as a proxy for the Soviet in a competition for global hegemony. It had no time for another Cuba like soviet satellite in Guyana. We were not a problem to be studied and marinate mentally. It just could not happen; a communist Guyana as a toe hold in latin america.

 

These events all converged to act against Cheddi. That he is seen as a savior in the Indian community does not make him right or a saint. Our fate would be no less than the other satellites of the former soviet union...a long life of want and deprivations.

 

Burnham's failure was his failure to anticipate due to his greed for power. Jagan indeed needed to be undermined if but to avoid what he predicates. The reality is that no one would remotely consider his positions then salutary now.  We did not get any smarter  than the people then who were evaluating their chances at home as residents. It is clear that if the situation was the same and we know what we know we would not let him get his way wither. He was on trial not the West.

I guess your premise is based on Jagan being a full blow communist as the West tried to portray even though they new very well that he was not.  Jagan never wanted to ban religious practices or had any inclination to form a one-party state like Castro did.  His main interest was the nationalization of the major industries in Guyana for the benefit of the Guyanese people.  We may disagree with this policy but that DOES NOT make him a communist.  He was more a socialist.

 

Jagan demise was all based on Kennedy's politics of winning the next US presidential election.  Kennedy tired to prevent the semblance of another Cuba in South America, which would have been a terrible black mark on his chances of winning the next elections.  In discussion with Jagan, Kennedy made clear that he was not opposed to nationalization of industries provided that they were compensated.  Kennedy was also keen on maintaining democracy and Jagan assured that he favors parliamentary democracy.   However, Kennedy did not want to take any chance and undermined the politics in Guyana through CIA involvement.  It is no surprise that Kennedy's special assistant Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. later apologized to Jagan for US role in undermining him in the 60s.

 

The rest is history that we all know about.  It is interesting that a country that supposed to be the embodiment of democracy uses perverse means to undermine democracy in other countries.

I know Cheddi was a communist. That is not in doubt given. Every thing about his views reflect the opinions communist scholars of the era. Indeed he was treated with contempt for his beliefs and ousted from office. It is not because the US did not care about democracy. They did not care about the possibility of a Soviet style vanguard party system. It is the reason they abandoned Burnham when he defected to the ideology.

 

 

FM
×
×
×
×
×
×