Home Letters No definition of grassroots fits Red Thread
Dear Editor,
Allow me to respond to Red Thread’s opinion piece – “Mr. Persaud should understand that the term ‘grassroots’ is not restricted to his limited interpretation” – published on April 7, 2023.
The letter signed by Wintress White, Halima Khan, Joy Marcus, Shirley Ault, Susan Collymore, Vanessa Ross, Maeve Ramsay, Jonel Perreira and Michelle John is further confirmation that Red Thread is a rudderless outfit, except for its commitments to the wild ambitions of the WPA.
In their response to my original critique of Red Thread’s conspicuous political biases, the signatories to “Mr Persaud should understand…” boldly declare that one of their fundamental principles is that they stand against “all forms of violence.” I read this entry and framing of it a few times to make sure I have it right. You may recall I specifically critiqued Red Thread for remaining silent on Tacuma Ogunseye’s racially-motivated call for the violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Government of this country. And here they are now, with the most blatant, brazen, and barefaced claim that they are against “all forms of violence.”
Editor, what is equally troubling about this little bourgeois group is concealment of their association with the WPA and other regressive social forces in Guyana. They embrace a particularly sinister kind of cultural nationalism, one that is in sync with the central tenets of Ogunseye’s warped idea of what would constitute a just political economy.
Let me repeat what I argued in the first instance: The original letter signed by the nine persons above was a call for protesters. Red Thread’s declared purpose in that letter was to schedule protests at the Office of the President. The use of the label “grassroots” was the usual ploy employed to cover up the decidedly political commitments of this overwhelmingly urban group with a long history of anti-PPP/C activities.
No definition of grassroots fits Red Thread.
Sincerely,
Dr Randolph Persaud