Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Guyana’s ethnic polarization is an intense inferno that reaches astronomical temperatures. It is relentless and incessant to the point of numbing annoyance. It seems to be always fraught with the ubiquitous disdain for facts and historical truths that do not serve the various concocted narratives. The par for the course-Guyana story can be likened to a battlefield with regimented armies and those who control the state apparatus are Hitler’s Freikorps. As we labor through the day-to-day miasma of unthinking ethnic loyalties, there are times when we must pay some homage to reasonableness and sound the alarm on idiocy. The clarion call for rigid loyalty to one’s ethnic base is dangerous business.
HOUSE NEGRO: THE ORIGINS
I am of the view that it is too facetious and simplistic to ascribe the concept of the ‘House negro’ to mere social stratification in the plantation context. There is much more. It is deserving of weighty introspection. In service of that interest, one cannot escape the utterances of Malcolm Shabazz (Malcolm X) who viewed the phenomenon as a psycho-pathology that is fraught with a cult-like commitment to the master (Shabazz, 1963). It involves biology-slaves women who were raped by masters, produced mixed children who eventually became eligible to work in the master’s house. Once this privilege was achieved, the house slave enjoyed the extraordinary trust and access. It includes economics-house slaves were endowed with special resources that immediately set them apart from the poverty of those who were crunched into the barracks on the plantation. Color also played a role-slaves masters seldom took slaves who were dark in complexion into the confines of their homes, they tended to demand the light-skinned gracing the halls of the ‘Great House’ and cuddling their kids.
ETHNIC LOYALTY IN THE GUYANA CONTEXT
Having treated briefly with the concept of the house negro, it is opportune time to examine same as it relates to ethnic loyalty. It is sadly observed-whenever someone of African descent aligns with anything perceived to be another race, the ‘house negro’ label is ascribed in a pejorative way. The logic appears to be-once you link with an organization that is perceived as not predominantly representing the interest of the Afro-Guyanese community, you are an automatic ‘sellout’. There is a silent argument that suggests that once you are born Afro-Guyanese, it is your destiny to follow political parties that overly represent your ethnicity. If indeed, this argument exists and is being translated into action, this is dangerous business. Insofar as this conception exists, it teems with serious implications. If one takes this contestation to its logical continuum, it suggests-you should never support any ideal, any principle, any policy, anyone or any program that does not emanate from within the confines of your ethnic base. This is folly that must be elucidated and ultimately debunked. A people with a history of being persecuted and are always subject to discrimination should celebrate a world in which individuals are free to make decisions that are not based on race. It is a dangerous endeavor to demand blind ethnic loyalty.
Persons of African descent should not face ridicule for taking positions based on principles and not ethnic loyalties.
