Dear Editor,
It is becoming increasingly evident that political discourse in Guyana is dominated by selective outrage, revisionist history, and intellectual dishonesty. The recent calls for Dr. David Hinds’ condemnation over his remarks exemplify this trend. His statement was not about personal attacks but a structural critique of political allegiance at the expense of genuine Afro-Guyanese empowerment. Yet, individuals who do not even fit the category Hinds or Walter Rodney spoke about have taken it upon themselves to perform theatrical outrage to score political points.
Rodney, a true intellectual, warned us about West Indian Black intellectuals who willingly serve oppressive structures in exchange for comfort. He wrote:
“The traditional pattern is that we join the Establishment… The system will give you a nice house, a front lawn, a car, a reasonable bank balance. They will say, ‘Sell your Black soul.’ That is the condition upon which you exist as a so-called intellectual in the society.”
Rodney spoke of Black intellectuals who actively participate in their own people’s oppression. He was not referring to opportunists who brand themselves as intellectuals but have no real pull in national affairs. Dr. Hinds’ statement, like Rodney’s, was about a systemic issue—not individuals desperate for relevance.
Yet, the same people loudly demanding Hinds’ condemnation have been noticeably silent on racist remarks made by government officials. Where was this outrage when Minister Charles Ramson made an ethnically charged comment to the administrator of Burrowes School of Arts? Where is the urgency to hold the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) accountable for its failure to address real racial grievances? This isn’t about principles; it’s about manufactured outrage when it’s politically convenient.
Then there’s the blatant manipulation of Afro-Guyanese economic realities. A prominent political figure recently claimed that Afro-Guyanese were the poorest under Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte, but the facts do not support this assertion. The World Bank’s 2003 Development Policy Review stated:
“Afro-Guyanese are slightly better off on average than Indo-Guyanese although, according to the poverty statistics, both groups are wealthier than the Amerindians. In the hinterland, about 93% of Amerindians live below the poverty line, making them the most economically disadvantaged group in the country.”
The same World Bank report completely contradicts the narrative that Afro-Guyanese were the absolute poorest demographic under Burnham and Hoyte. If Afro-Guyanese were historically the worst-off, why did Amerindians consistently experience the highest rates of poverty?
Furthermore, the same individual now claims that Afro-Guyanese are better off under the current administration, despite the World Bank’s most recent analysis (2024) warning of the lack of recent data on poverty and equity:
“Lack of recent data on poverty and equity limits the effectiveness and monitoring of public policies to reduce poverty. Sound management of oil and gas resources remains critical for inclusive growth.”
If the claim of massive Afro-Guyanese economic improvement were true, why is there no up-to-date empirical data to support it? If 24,000 Afro-Guyanese were truly empowered through government training programs, why did the Ministry of Home Affairs issue over 13,000 foreign work permits in 2024 alone? Why aren’t trained locals filling these positions?
The silence is also deafening on the $100 million allocated for the Year of People of African Descent in the 2024 budget. Where are the cultural and economic programs meant to empower Black communities? Instead of demanding transparency and asking where or if the funds were used, some prefer to shift attention to manufactured controversies while ignoring real issues.
This is not progress; it is statistical manipulation. Throwing out numbers without transparency on employment outcomes is not evidence of inclusivity, it is political propaganda.
We are witnessing an era where political survival depends on revisionist history, selective morality, and fear of honest engagement. When confronted with uncomfortable facts, some delete comments, block dissenters, and deflect rather than debate. If your only response to criticism is to erase it, then your commitment to truth was never real.
Dr. Hinds’ comments are not the crisis. The crisis is the intellectual cowardice, opportunism, and dishonesty that dominate our political and cultural discourse. If we are truly committed to progress, we must move beyond performative debates and demand real transparency and accountability for all.
Yours truly,
Nakisha Allen
