The problems Guyanese face in Barbados began at home

Jun 01, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The reaction to the recent anti illegal immigration policies by the Government of Barbados from the PPP infatuated punditry was as can be expected. Vituperative, shallow, facetious, the usual rancorous noise designed to obfuscate truth and reality.

We witnessed the same response to the report of the UN independent expert on minorities.

A whole heap of noise about the expert not examining the issues of the indigenous peoples, when anyone with a modicum of international curiosity would have been aware that the UN has special arrangements when it comes to issues of indigenous peoples, and McDougal’s mandate did not include that charge.

Today we are witnessing the same facetious ranting designed to detour attention from the source of the problem relating to an exodus of Guyanese fleeing to Barbados and other small Commonwealth Caribbean territories.

Rather than giving attention to the reasons for the exodus, they beat on their chest in public and vent hypocritically about how bad the Bajans are.

Every Guyanese should be in sympathy with the plight of our brothers and sisters, who are merely seeking a means of survival for themselves and their families in these sojourns to Barbados and elsewhere in the Caribbean.

And every Guyanese should use what influence they have with the authorities in Barbados, or with any international agency, to obtain relief from these new immigration measures for our countrymen and countrywomen in Barbados, whether they are illegal or not. For in fact they have become innocent victims in a tragedy of two nations, one very small but economically, socially and politically viable, and the other large, resource rich, but socially, economically and politically hanging on the ropes from low blows by a dastardly bunch of selfish, arrogant and visionless politicians.

Let’s miniaturize this issue and examine it from a position that we can all relate to regardless of our origin. Let’s just say that there are two families residing on opposite sides of a street. One family is very large and live in a big house.

The other family is very small and live in a small compact house. The house of the large family is in a sad state of disrepair. The parents appear to be incapable of providing for the needs of the kids in the house.

There are always signs of conflict between the parents, between the parents and some of the kids, and between the kids themselves. In contrast, the house of the small family is freshly painted, and while not wealthy, the impression is that they are doing ok, and that the social environment in the household is stable and conducive to growth and changes that facilitate growth.

Because of the vicissitudes they face in their household, the kids from the large house and family have taken to going across to the small house and family for food and other amenities. Some of them go to the front door, knock and request to enter and partake of the resources of that family. Others, driven by hunger and other privations, sneak in through the back door, and use the resources in the small house to satisfy their needs.

At first it all went smoothly because the small family was involved in remodeling the inside of their house, and the extra hands were appreciated. After a while however, the parents and kids in the small house formed the perception that they could not bear the burden of providing for the kids of their neighbour’s, and maintain the economic and social equilibrium of their household at the same time.

The parents of the small family consequently enacted rules that would affect how many and which of their neighbour’s kids would be allowed to enter into their household and share of the resources therein.

When news of the changes in access to the small house reached the parents and other adults in the large house, the response was furious. The head of the household and his adult relatives charged discrimination. Some of them advised withdrawal from the neighbourhood association.

They pointed to the contributions the kids from the large house made to the remodeling work in the small house, and classified the occupants of the small house as being ungrateful in that context.

The noise and protest in the large house was deafening, as they screamed invectives at the parents of

the small house, and accused them of every discriminatory crime imaginable. Some of the older kids in the large household took a moderate position. They expressed sympathy with the plight of their brothers and sisters, but wagged disapproving fingers at the parents for not doing enough to avoid them having to seek succor from the neighbours.

For those of us with ancestral links to Barbados what is transpiring today is a tragedy of immense proportions. Many of our ancestors were stopped over in Barbados, prior to being brought to Guyana, during their forced journey across the Atlantic.

Many of our grandparents and great grandparents confused us with their “wunna do this” and wunna do that”, when we were too small to abstractly relate the accentuation and vernacular to geography.

The link between us as Guyanese, and Barbados, goes much deeper than a relationship between geographic or political neighbours. That link is too important for us to become mice congregating behind the discordant melodies emanating from the propaganda flutes of modern day political Pied Pipers of Hamlin.

Basic commonsense examination of this issue, will invariably lead one to the conclusion that there has to be something seriously wrong with society, that it impels so many of our brothers and sisters to seek a means of survival elsewhere. Yes, people emigrate all the time. But ours is not a case of emigration.

When the population of a nation that has been involved in no major wars is less today than it was 20 years ago, the departures amount to an exodus. And the exodus of Guyanese from a nation, that in size dwarfs the combined Commonwealth territories, to some of these small islands, amount to an indictment of the administration of our nation.

The exodus of people from a nation with infinite arable land, abundant sweet water resources, building materials like lumber, timber, sand, stone and gravel galore, and other untapped resources, is indicative of a serious problem with the management of the nation.

That would be the call of the very pundits waxing antipathetically against Barbados today, if their opposition was in power. Their views have become classical examples of moral and ethical relativity, fluctuating in synchrony with the tune of partisan political convenience.

For how can any compos mentis individual examine the consequence of Guyanese exodus to Barbados without being proportionally concerned over the causes for such exodus?

Guyanese at home and abroad need to ensure that they do not fall into the trap of abandoning what is before their implied “lying eyes”, in favour of the shallow and anemic examinations that passes for political analysis provided by some in Guyana.

Robin Williams

---

---