Green Rejects ‘Wismar Massacre’ Label, Calls for Historical Accuracy

Dear Editor,

I should be brief, first to compliment Aubrey Norton on his letter published on Wednesday June 10, advertising the absurdity of the continuing use of the term “Massacre” in relation to the unfortunate incident which took place at Wismar in May 1964. First let me make it clear that lives were lost, and all lives are valuable. 

We should never trivialise the loss of a single life taken by another person. Likewise, we should not ignore the loss of property by others.

The likes of Vishnu Bisram and Baytoram Ramharack must first of all have the good sense to acquaint themselves with the meaning of the word massacre in the English language we all employ. Massacre has become over the years an emotive term, and any dictionary describes the word as being “a savage, indiscriminate, or cruel killing of a large number of human beings”.

Three persons could never fit into the category of large numbers. Those who attempt to justify the use of the term massacre by referring to destruction and loss of property are distorting the word massacre and are on dangerous ground. If the gentlemen wish to talk about loss of property, what happened at Wismar is not unique in terms of events of the 60s.

Not wanting to ignite racial hostility, I have avoided many incidents and in particular the real spark that was responsible for the unfortunate situation at Wismar. It was when news reached the community of a young man from Mahaicony, whose body was wrapped in barbed wire and his private parts severed, an argument took place at Wismar, the rest is history.

By then there were Maginot lines in several communities. We went throughout the country preaching, praying for peace not conflict. Ramharack and Bisram are very wrong and their analysis is myopic, and perhaps they are driven by a well-organised propaganda outfit

The suggestion that Independence date has some relationship to incidents at Wismar and elsewhere, is a complete absurdity and unworthy of those who claim to be intellectuals but were not present at Lancaster House in November 1965, when the date and details for independence were agreed. Unlike those who delight in second, and third hand information, I proudly state that I am the only one alive who was present and participated in that final conference.

As General Secretary of the People’s National Congress in the 60s, I visited many communities, on the coast, hinterland and riverine areas, and wrote from firsthand knowledge.

Finally, we must learn to forgive on all sides of our political and racial divide, but we must have the wisdom to recount our shared experiences as accurately as possible.

Yours truly,
Elder Hamilton Green