Dear Editor,
Former President Donald Ramotar’s recent comments on colonial mentality in Guyana would have carried far more weight had they not exposed the very contradiction many Guyanese still live under today.
Ramotar argued that colonial education systems were designed to produce “loyal colonial subjects” rather than independent-minded Guyanese. He spoke about Guyanese once aspiring to be “more British than Guyanese,” about ideological domination, decolonizing minds, reclaiming culture, and building national identity after Independence.
The problem is not that he is entirely wrong.
The problem is that sixty years later, much of what he described still exists, only under local management.
We did not fully decolonize power. We nationalized loyalty to rulers.
Same structure. Different skin.
Ramotar spoke about colonial systems producing citizens loyal to the British Crown. But what exactly are many Guyanese being conditioned into today? Are citizens truly encouraged to think independently, challenge authority, and criticize systems without fear? Or have we simply replaced loyalty to colonial administrators with loyalty to political parties, governments, and whoever controls access to contracts, influence, and opportunity?
Today, too many people behave as though criticism of government is betrayal of country. Speak about corruption, cost of living, inequality, political favouritism, cultural neglect, or failing systems and immediately you are accused of being negative, anti-development, or anti-national. That is not a decolonized mind. That is colonial obedience wearing national colours.
Ramotar also spoke about Guyanese once aspiring to be “more British than Guyanese.” Yet today, many people are not trying to be more British than Guyanese. They are trying to be more party-loyal than patriotic. The mentality remains dangerously similar: defend power, protect the system, punish dissent, and equate loyalty to rulers with loyalty to nation.
Then there is the contradiction surrounding Cuffy.
Ramotar criticized colonial education for describing Cuffy and his comrades as rebels. Yet during the recent election period, Attorney General Anil Nandlall himself came under criticism after referring to Cuffy as a “proud and upstanding house slave.” So which is it? Are we correcting colonial distortions of Black resistance figures, or are those figures only respected ceremonially when politically convenient?
One cannot condemn colonial erasure while modern political figures continue mishandling the same revolutionary legacy they claim to honour.
The discussion on culture was equally selective. Ramotar credited the early PPP government with recognizing the need to promote Guyanese culture, literature, music, and art through cultural councils and community programmes. But how does one seriously discuss post-Independence nation-building while almost completely erasing the role of Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham from that conversation?
One does not have to ignore Burnham’s failures or controversies to admit that he played a major role in shaping national identity through national songs, cultural programming, local production, self-reliance campaigns, and efforts to psychologically separate Guyana from colonial dependency. Selective history is still dishonesty.
Burnham understood something many leaders after him either dismissed or mocked: political Independence without psychological and economic independence remains incomplete. That is why he pushed self-reliance so heavily. He wanted Guyanese to value local production, local culture, local pride, and local identity instead of depending entirely on foreign validation.
Ironically, many of those same ideas are now quietly returning in modern form. For years people mocked local substitutes and local production, yet today imported versions of similar products return with foreign branding and suddenly become acceptable or prestigious. Even something as simple as rice flour reflects the contradiction. Once associated with hardship or backwardness locally, imported versions now sit on shelves marketed as modern and desirable. That alone reveals how deeply colonial thinking still survives inside us.
The education system itself also remains unfinished in terms of true decolonization. Sixty years after Independence, how much of our education meaningfully centers Guyanese history, Indigenous history, African resistance, Indian indentureship, folklore, Caribbean political thought, local literature, civic responsibility, and critical thinking? How many students leave school truly understanding Guyana beyond memorization for examinations?
A country cannot claim to have fully decolonized minds while still struggling to institutionalize its own intellectual and cultural identity.
The state of many cultural institutions today also weakens Ramotar’s argument. If culture is truly valued, why do artists, writers, dramatists, folklorists, musicians, and cultural workers still struggle so heavily for sustained support? Why does culture often feel most visible during Independence, Emancipation, Arrival Day, and political ceremonies, but far less supported consistently throughout the year? Too often culture in Guyana feels treated as patriotic decoration rather than national infrastructure.
And perhaps the greatest irony of all is that the same systems once accused of producing obedient colonial subjects now often reward obedient political subjects instead. Access, visibility, opportunities, protection, and advancement can appear tied to political closeness rather than independent civic value. Many public voices become careful. Many criticisms become softened. Many citizens become fearful of speaking openly because survival itself feels connected to maintaining the correct loyalties.
That is not true decolonization.
A genuinely decolonized society should produce citizens loyal first to truth, justice, country, and people, not rulers. It should encourage questioning power, not fearing it. It should preserve history honestly, not selectively. And it should allow criticism without treating citizens as enemies for speaking openly about the state of their nation.
Ramotar is correct about one thing: colonialism was never only about land or economics. It was also ideological. It shaped how people obeyed power, feared authority, and viewed themselves.
The tragedy is that sixty years later, many Guyanese are still trapped inside systems rewarding obedience over independent thought.
The colonizer may have left physically.
But too much of the mentality remains untouched.
Only now, it speaks with a Guyanese accent.
Sincerely,
Martian Nella
Writer & Cultural Commentator
