Furthermore, if we accept the diversity of cultures within Guyana, and one group actively propagates its culture and tradition, understanding that that culture has changed over time, why define it as being clannish.. Is it because a particular group has totally accepted another's culture and have forgotten its own? What is the political agenda?
In a country with a history of dangerous divisiveness, as is the case of Guyana, there is no room for clannishness.
I see the implication that blacks, who certainly have an open definition of their ethnic identity and culture, and who generally identify as being Guyanese, seeing being Afro Guyanese as being a subset of this, are debased for having "forgotten their culture".
THIS is why the Creole culture in Guyana is the one that Guyanese as a whole use when they have to engage in inter ethnic communication. This is also true in Trinidad, Suriname, and even Mauritius with its dominant Indian population.
You will note that in cultural performances the "African" component consists of folk songs and dances rooted in Guyana, whereas the "Indian" component is usually rooted in India, usually in a language which 99% of the Indo Guyanese population no longer speak. How often do we hear the Indo Guyanese folks songs that definitely exist?
You ought to thank God that there is at least one group in Guyana which have an openness in their ethnic definition and culture because without that Guyana would have been like Iraq.
I will suggest to you that EVERY Guyanese has "forgotten their culture" if by that you mean the culture of their ancestors. How many people in Guyana speak Bhojpuri or the myriad of languages and dialects that the Indian indentures brought with them? How many could comfortably return to the Indian villages that their ancestors left between 100-150 years ago?
I will suggest that the last "Indians" probably died 20 years ago. By this I mean those who could comfortably move to India, and back to their ancestral villages.
Are you suggesting that, if indeed Indians put being Indian first, have a weak bonding with Guyana, see no connection to the rest of the population then you think that the remaining 60% will be comfortable of an Indian dominated party rules?
Now think carefully in a nation like Guyana where control of the state plays a huge role in the economy and in the lives of the people.
People are entitled to their own cultures. They are entitled to blend those cultures as they wish.
What they are NOT entitled to do is to pursue patterns of behavior which excludes others to opportunity, as we saw during the PPP era.
D2 two years ago began a debate on how Indians identify with each other, how they connect to Guyana, and above all how they interact with other ethnic groups and how they view them.
I will suggest to you that Indians are no longer 51% of the population and in the not too distant future, will be a mere 30%. If the rest of the population views them as a group that feels that they have a right to disrespect and exclude others, then as they lose their political clout what do you think will happen.
This is a question that Indians have to address. D2 tried to get this discussion going and now so is Charles Sugrim. It is interesting that they both face ridicule from Indians.