Critique of the Wismar Massacre book must be premised on reading it

Dear Editor,
Aubrey Norton’s attempted to dissect a book by reading its cover, and a number of other individuals have come forward to provide their own “reviews” of Dr Baytoram Ramharack’s “The Wismar Massacre”.
Their general arguments are that the book’s title is inaccurate, as the event at Wismar cannot be termed a “massacre”; that the book should have touched on the broader historical context in which the incident was situated; and that there is quite a bit of whataboutism: “What about this, that, and the other?”
Surprisingly, many Guyanese continue to post biased comments on social media without even reading the book. Added to this is the multitude of individuals who promote a false equivalence between the Wismar massacre and the tragic explosion on the Sun Chapman. No conclusive evidence exists to suggest that the Sun Chapman explosion was caused by human sabotage, an issue addressed in detail by the author.
The fact is that all those who vented on the basis of a mythical cognition of the term “massacre” seek to connote numbers in the hundreds and beyond. But five people were killed in the Boston Massacre of 1770, five in the Greensboro Massacre of 1989, and seven in the St Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929, among other incidents documented as massacres.
How would these critics describe the Lusignan Massacre by the Fineman Gang from Buxton, which shot nine innocent victims in the early hours of January 26, 2008, including five sleeping children? Such events certainly comprise violence, injuries, terror, murders, rapes, arson, displacement, asymmetrical power, defenceless victims, intentionality & cruelty, and the indiscriminate targeting of Indo-Guyanese. Remember also that Forbes Burnham, speaking in the Legislative Assembly on June 3, 1964, referred to the ethnically motivated violence against Indo-Guyanese in the Wismar-Christianburg area, explicitly describing it as a “massacre”.
In effect, the issue of terminology is not only a Don Quixotic wail, but one engendered by ethnic reaction and nothing else. Besides, contrary to numerous assumptions made, Dr Ramharack’s book definitely does not negate any desire to label any other incident of that period if such incidents meet the valid and objective criteria that characterise the Wismar Massacre – the tragic event.
The references to and suggestions about the larger historical context are not only invalid but also serve as a deflection in relation to Dr Ramharack’s book. His book has a specific focus for which the author conducted extensive, painstaking research over two decades, including interviews with numerous people who had direct or anecdotal experiences to share. And the book was peer-reviewed by a committee of experts. The fact is that anyone who desires a book on the broader historical context can make that their specific goal. That was what Dr Ramharack did – he set a goal that was desired, and he achieved it with brilliance.
Whataboutism is used to shift focus, undermine whatever is under discussion (in this case, the book), and create false equivalences. It serves to reduce the brilliance and profundity of Dr Ramharack’s efforts and the resulting output – his book, “The Wismar Massacre”. And, of course, it reflects the relative ignorance about and inability to discuss, argue, or critique the book, its contents, and the incident itself. More critically, it seeks to deny Indo-Caribbeans the right to accurately document, present, and share their own narrative while claiming historical ownership of it.
It is also interesting to reflect on the fact that Austin’s Bookshop in Guyana refused to carry Dr Ramharack’s book. This response was the result of an ethnic reaction to the book. The History Department at the University of Guyana did not follow through with a request for an on-campus discussion with students on the subject, and a discussion planned with Dr Baytoram by a group in England was subsequently cancelled after an initial agreement.
These efforts are tied to an ongoing silence of the voices of the Wismar refugees and a denial of their experiences, which have been documented by an official Commission of Inquiry report and the eyewitness accounts of the series of events associated with the Wismar Massacre. The book is best critiqued by a reading of it.

Yours sincerely,
Victor Punt
Dr Vishnu Bisram
Doolcharran
Hanomansingh
Vassan Ramracha