Home Letters ‘Racial slur’ offender rewarded with all-expenses paid NY trip instead of...
Dear Editor,
This is in reference to the anti-Indian racial slur on social media, allegedly made by Ms Lloyda Nicholas-Garrett, the Public Information and Press Services Officer for President David Granger that was exposed and commented on by your media (GT September 16, 17, 20). It brought back memories of the late dictator Desmond Hoyte’s usage of the term “Putagee mafia” in referring to people of Portuguese descent – that clearly was an anti-Portuguese mindset (by those in power) similar to Ms Nicholas-Garrett’s usage of the derogatory “coolie” in referring to Indians.
Let us be honest to ourselves – ethnic coinage (slurs, so to speak) as used by Hoyte, Nicholas-Garrett, etc, is common in everyday language use in Guyana and several other societies (including the US and Fiji) where the descendants of indentured labourers are found. They detest and despise Indians and people not of their ethnicity. But as offensive as they may be or as deprecatory as they may sound, it is no big deal in Guyana or Trinidad to refer to people as “coolie” or “negro” or “blackman”, or “buck” or “putagee” or “chinaman” (or Chink) or “Redman”, or “Hunkie”, etc. I heard the term “coolie” routinely used in Grenada, Dominica, St Lucia, Jamaica, Antigua, Aruba, Suriname, etc.
And Indians use it routinely in North America and the Caribbean to refer to each other or among their own people. The colonial British masters introduced these insulting descriptions or racial slurs to describe Guyanese of varied ethnicities and these are still used today and also present in the mindset of Guyanese. We cannot escape them. But we don’t let them bother us or keep us down. In fact, generally speaking, the “coolies” have done quite well wherever they are found overcoming adversities.
Ethnic slurs are not taken as that offensive and in some situations may even be considered as endearment, depending on how it is said or who is saying it and to whom; agreed some do indeed find the term offensive. Not every time the terms are used do they suggest a racist mindset or that the speaker is a racist. But context in the usage of the terms makes all the difference – genetic origin (referring to a person’s identity) or a social behaviour stereotyping a people as coming from low stock or value or not worthy of recognition.
Regardless of context, I won’t refer to an Amerindian as a “buckman” or a Afro-Guyanese as “negro” or a Portuguese as “putagee”. The late Desmond Hoyte calling the late David DeCaires a member of the “putagee mafia” was highly offensive and uncalled for. It was demeaning not only to Portuguese but to decent minded people of other ethnicities, including this writer who condemned the President for uttering it. And in Ms Nicholas-Garrett’s case, her usage of the racial slur “coolie people” is highly offensive. The context reveals an anti-Indian mindset similar to Hoyte’s anti-Portuguese frame of mind, for which she should have tendered an unqualified apology and offer her resignation.
Since she failed to tender an apology, at a minimum, she should have been disciplined – suspended for a period of time, fired, and even sent for cultural training course, etc. In the US or Canada, she would have been fired instantly for which they would have been no recourse.
In Guyana, unfortunately, she was rewarded – sent on a fantastic all-expenses paid trip to New York with the President to attend the United Nations conference. The UN is about multiculturalism and respect for other nationalities (identities) and cultures. She should not have been on that trip. It is inexplicable why the President or the Foreign Affairs Minister has brought her along.
In NY, the issue is no longer Ms Nicholas-Garrett’s disparaging remark about Indians, but her reward with a trip. New York-based Guyanese of diverse ethnicities use this latest episode as evidence to indict the Administration with an anti-Indian bias. They say it reveals the racial and cultural insensitivity of the Granger Administration towards other ethnic groups – and more specifically, that it doesn’t care what the Indo-Guyanese or what others think or feel. Worse, it sends a message there is no accountability for bad behaviour, not much different from the preceding regime. What is most unfortunate is that the people who condemned the preceding People’s Progressive Party Administration for not taking actions against ill-disciplined or bad behaviour of some of its public officials are now silent on Ms Nicholas-Garrett – duplicitous or double standard. Is it a matter of race or politics or both?
In Guyana, ethnicity is a highly divisive issue. Referring to people in what can be interpreted as demeaning as well as inflammatory terms; and Ms Nicholas-Garrett’s ethnic slur has evoked widespread response and condemnation from Indians and even a soft rebuke from the President and the Minister within the Ministry of the Presidency. But that is not enough. Ms Nicholas-Garrett’s demeanour and mental disposition should not only be condemned. She must be instructed to apologise to the Indian community, and she should be removed from a position that is so close to the President.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
