Posted February 22nd. 2005 - Special Feature by David Hinds

Kean Gibson's book and the ERC's ruling

When I first publicly expressed my views on Dr. Kean Gibson's book The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana, I observed among other things that the book was the product of the hostile racial and political environment that has been created since 1997. I hinted that the book should serve as the starting point for a larger conversation on our multiracial reality. Very few commentators paid attention to that point. Instead we saw the emergence of two broad responses-those (mainly Indians) who condemned the book as racist and those (mainly Africans) who branded the "condemners" as racist and projected the book as gospel. A third group talked about the scholarship of the book, but this was obviously a secondary argument. So it is not surprising that the ERC's ruling reflected one of these categories. In racially segmented societies with persistent tension, extremism carries the day at every level.

As I read it, Dr. Gibson saw the African Guyanese condition and tried to explain it--that's what academics and social commentators are trained to do. As is the case with all scholarship and political analysis she was subjective--she wrote as a Black woman in a racially segmented Guyana who is concerned about the future of her race group. She was clearly not an impartial observer. In reaching for Hinduism to explain the Indian behavior towards Africans, she perhaps unwittingly joined a tendency that has been gaining much ground since December 1997. On the Indian side some observers reached for the cultural stereotype of the "savage African" to explain African behavior towards Indians. Racially charged societies more often than not produce two dominant types of commentary, analysis and thought-one that is racially charged and overdoes racial subjectivity and the other that seeks to tone down the racial temperature and search for common ground. Dr Gibson's book, in my estimation, falls into the first category.

Race is a complex phenomenon in general and is even more complex in its particular settings. To understand it one has to constantly observe and study it and to be sensitive to the history. Race in Guyana comes out of a certain history and to properly understand its manifestation today, one has to master that history. Eusi Kwayana is arguably the public intellectual who has gone the furthest on this front. Guyanese academics have fared the worst. A majority of us repeat things without due interrogation and worst of all we have a suicidal tendency to be either ahistorical or careless with history. It is on this score that I have the greatest difficulty with Dr Gibson's book. At the risk of offending the author and her supporters, I have to say that her grasp of Guyana's social and political history, especially as they relate to race and race relations, left a lot to be desired. Whatever flaws are found in the book flow from this initial flaw. Because both Dr Gibson's detractors and supporters did not pay attention to this aspect of her work, they have taken the debate in the wrong direction. With few exceptions, they have used the book to play out the usual game of venom and victimhood.

Dr Gibson's subject is a legitimate one: What role does religion play in the construction of racial and racist behavior in Guyana? The assumption here is that it does play a role. But is it a definitive role? Is religion at the core of Indian attitude to Africans in the political and economic realm? To determine that, one has to reach for a thorough understanding of the religion in question. But more importantly, one has to interrogate the total inter-racial dynamic in Guyana from 1838 to the present. Dr. Gibson, unfortunately, did not do enough of either.

But that should not condemn her book to irrelevancy and racist categorization. Any society that cherishes a free exchange of ideas would have used the opportunity that the book presented to publicly converse on this vital issue of inter-race dynamic. In this regard, I agree with Kwayana that an intervention by a Hindu authority would have helped. Not so in Guyana where the brand of "racist" is quickly assigned. The problem is that once you brand someone or something or a group as racist, sane conversation and reason take a backseat.

Now the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) has suggested that the book be taken off the shelves. How does this help to correct the alleged wrong that the book commits? Guyana is not a normal country; it bears the scars of constant torture. Things, therefore, have to be handled with more imagination than in normal situations, especially by officialdom.

Is the book racist? I don't think so; it does not preach African superiority but charges Indians with wanting Indian superiority. Can the book be seen as inflammatory? Yes, but so is almost everything that is written on race in Guyana. Is the book helpful to racial peace in Guyana? No, but it does not advocate racial war. Does it ruffle Indian Guyanese sensitivity? Yes, but more than that it provides a platform for Indian Guyanese extremism. Is the book helpful to the African Guyanese quest for empowerment? No-it gives nourishment to the purveyors of an "ignorant" African Guyanese racism that has been counterproductive to the African Guyanese cause. Must Dr Gibson be held accountable for her views? Yes. But the best way to do that is to have a conversation not only on the potential consequences of the book, but more importantly on how to stem the vicious tide that make such a book possible.

I have seen more uncharitable things about African Guyanese and Indian Guyanese in print, but these did not get the same treatment as Dr. Gibson's book. Why single out Gibson? Surely the crime, if there is any at all, does not deserve the type of trial and the punishment meted out by the ERC. It is not Gibson who should be on trial, but the architects of the conditions that stand in the way of racial peace.

I, therefore, join with others in rejecting the ERC's ruling. The ERC's job, as I understand it, is not to pronounce on the academic integrity of a book, nor is it to stand in the way of a free flow of information. The ERC's time would be better spent on interrogating the conditions that prompted Dr. Gibson's book and to persuade the political elites and the wider Guyanese public to do everything in their power to turn back those conditions.

David Hinds lectures in Caribbean and Africana Studies at Arizona State University in the USA. He is also a political and social commentator who has written extensively on Guyana and Caribbean politics. More of his writings can be found on his GuyanaCaribbeanPolitics.com website.