The Parrot speaks - The cartoon’s undertones are on the surface

The Parrot speaks – The cartoon’s undertones are on the surface

Jun 22, 2008 Features / Columnists

The Parrot is heartened by the recent comments made by the leader of the Palm Tree party down at the Place of CONgress in relation to the hosting of Carifesta X in August of this year.

Others and I have written about the party’s position prior to the Boss man’s comment on the festival; a position that threatened the homecoming and one that almost led to the disruption of the official launching.

It might have led to the arson attempts on the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport and the National Cultural Centre. That we may never know. Now that Uncle Bob has condemned the vile act of someone (or people) wanting to destroy the local landmark and has pledged his party’s support for the premier showcasing of Caribbean Arts, one can basically expect an incident-free festival.

I would be roving from tree to roof tops during the ten days of the festival to savour the cultural menu that will be offered. I encourage my fellow Parrots to do likewise.

Now that all seems to be in place, including the much needed political unity for the mega event, I am sure that Uncle Bob will be in the VIP booths cheering with his trademark broad smile. As mentioned, I am heartened with about sixty days to go to the opening ceremony.

As we look forward to that, some, not out of Palm Tree jungle, but out of the Street of Robb, seem to want to sow some seeds of disunity at this time. I am referring to a most obnoxious cartoon that appeared in last Sunday’s edition of the Big Market paper.

I did mention in a previous squawk that I would revisit this issue which was overshadowed by the Cultural Centre debacle. I hold my position that both incidents can have dire consequences on our nation. Many interpretations can be derived from the cartoon; the most common is its racial undertones.

Unfortunately, these undertones are not really “under” but are on the “surface” for all to see. The Parrot does not consider itself a political analyst, but given the potential of this cartoon to cause disharmony, I am compelled to make my concerns known.

Guyana is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. This fact has become a daily mantra for all here; a mantra which many countries with diverse population would love to chant with conviction.

Our diversity is our strength; again another mantra. We are the envy of many, since despite our diversity, our co-existence has been harmonious. Of course we have had our difficulties like every other country, but our stability has remained a dream of many.

This scenario then begs the question as to why would a media outfit, indigenous to Guyana, and one that would want to consider itself responsible, publish such a cartoon?

While it’s easy to try and “hide” under the guise of freedom of expression, this expression cannot be isolated from the context in which we all operate and the fact that media houses must be responsible.

What was the motive of the publisher to ask an old Indian woman in the cartoon, who was depicted as not advancing since Indentureship, how she feels about a “Black Man” being president.

While the question would have some legitimacy in the United States during the current election campaign, one has to examine the context in which it was asked. Obviously the question wasn’t asked of someone living in the US given the “setting” of the cartoon.

If the publisher wanted to solicit an opinion as to a “Black Man” being the president of the US, then the cartoon should have been “set” in the US and the question directed to the White, Latino or the Black population there. Even if the opinion had to be sought from a person of East Indian ancestry, then again the “setting” had to be in the US.

The Parrot is of the strong opinion that given the local setting, the person interviewed, the question asked and the reiteration by the interviewer that he was referring to the US, is not only an attempt to imply that a major ethnic group would have problems being governed by a member of the other major ethnic group, but to show that Indians are stuck in the past. Again the context in which articles are published must be taken seriously.

If someone of East Indian ancestry was in the position that Senator Obama is in now, and the question asked in the cartoon (with “Black Man” being substituted with “Indian Man”) being directed to a person of African ancestry, the effects would be the same with regards to the Afro-Guyanese community. I say this to emphasize that the cartoon is racially divisive and totally out of context to the ethnic make up of this nation. It is offensive and must be condemned in the interest of racial harmony.

We have seen what happened when cartoons considered offensive by the Islamic community were published in a newspaper in Denmark. This resentment almost immediately spread to other countries.

These stories were carried by the paper in question so they are not unaware of what an extreme position can be.

I am in no way suggesting any extreme actions; our harmonious co-existence is much too important and precious. I would suggest that the paper issue an unconditional apology for publishing the offensive cartoon and that all Guyanese, including those who are not of East Indian ancestry, openly condemn it.

After all, if the fabric of racial harmony is to rupture, all are affected and that’s the context that should be remembered. Squawk! Squawk!