Remembering, not thinking

Jan 23, 2009 Editorial

Individuals play significant roles in shaping history, by challenging old traditions and by contributing new ideas and concepts to pave the way for progress.
On the other hand, there are those who attempt to strengthen old systems and support established norms.
Should we accept and recognise the thoughts of the latter on a permanent basis as guiding principles? Or treat them as valid for a while and discard them once their usefulness is over? Should future generations be given enough space to create their own ideas according to their requirements?
In the case of Guyana, have we created new ideas in response to new challenges, or have we produced individuals who could, after condemning outdated and obsolete traditions, prepare themselves and us for a new world?
Most would say that we have not; and consequently, historical figures and their teachings have not been built upon. Unfortunately, once a society depends on historical icons only and the stereotyped ideas, that society becomes static and stagnant. The cyclic pattern of history ceases to function, and the creativity and fertility of mind in the citizenry is stultified. In such a state, challenging the validity of old teachings and the credibility of its sacred cows are seen by some as tantamount to treason.
Old ideas are repeatedly presented, and asserted with such vigour that past leaders’ names are identified with their ideas, as reported. Then there are thinkers and politicians whose teachings and policies remain strikingly contradictory, especially in the case of politicians, with whom it is very difficult to find a consistent point of view.
Politicians are quite capable of saying something contrary to their own previously stated viewpoints. That is why it is rare in politicians to have a definite line of thought. They have to speak a lot for public consumption.
The problem arises when different groups belonging to different ideologies and political concepts select, as their guide or hero, a person who has had complex views, which appear confusing when quoted out of context. Each group makes attempts at using selected ideas of a person to promote its own agenda, creating more confusion and making it difficult for the common man to correctly analyse the situation.
We have two outstanding examples to illustrate our point: Dr Cheddi Jagan and Mr L.F.S. Burnham. Consistently, the thoughts of these two leaders are mined from their speeches or writings to buttress ideas or positions posited in the present political circumstances. Oftentimes, when there is no quote that can be proffered, there is even speculation as to what the leader may have thought on the issue. It is ironic that both these personalities railed against dogma in their own lifetimes.
Why do societies need icons? Why do political parties and public forums require confirmation of their agendas, ideas and thoughts, when they want to propagate their own political programme and put forward their own social or economic ideas? Why don’t they have strong arguments to convince people, instead of relying on historical personalities to prove their points of view based on their authority?
It seems that once an idea is accepted on the authority of a person, it can neither be challenged nor criticised. Whatever is attributed to Jagan or Burnham automatically becomes sacrosanct.
The problem with this approach is that when people accept anything unquestioningly on the basis of historical authority, they do not care to understand the origin of such ideas, leave aside their historical evolution and practical implications.
Blind recognition on the basis of authority discourages the process of rational analysis among the people, as they rely on myth rather than their own ability to think about and analyse their own problems in their own times.
The only method to educate the people is to discuss with them freely the origins and development of ideas and political systems, such as nationalism, imperialism, socialism and democracy. Once they understand this, they will also be able to understand the merits and demerits of different ideologies, and will be in a position to decide for themselves. Critical and rational examination of political and historical concepts, and not blindly following of outdated ideas, is what makes an enlightened people.
We must learn to think, not simply remember.

Latest News

Remembering, not thinking

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Windies break home Test drought with 201-run win over Bangladesh

President Ali sees sports as ‘centrepiece’ of...

Amazon Warriors trounce Qalandars in opener

Shepherd excited for IPL journey with RCB

Romeo Hunter snares Sub-Junior and Open gold and...

Rockstone inaugural Street Classic Championship...

Features/Columnists

A psychological profile of a control freak

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

The ends are what matter, according to Dr. Jagdeo

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Remembering, not thinking

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]