Freddie Kissoon’s claims are attributes of counterfeit academics

Jun 25, 2013 Letters

---

 

Dear Editor,
Reference is made to the letter, “Freddie Kissoon replies to Minette Bacchus on Walter Rodney’s assassination” (KN, June 17, 2013). His several allegations against me without providing proof (valid evidence) of claims are attributes of counterfeit academics. These persons have no regard for the rigours and integrity of science and thrive on unscrupulous conduct which at times rebound to their detriment.
It is one thing to want to display importance, whitewash and reinvent self, but another to do it at the expense of an undeserving target. This time Kissoon picked the wrong person and (un)fortunately for him, the task becomes mine as I respond to him to also expose his being counterfeit. This wasn’t a task I sought; it was one he thrust upon me and one being executed without fear, favour or ill-will, and for as long as it takes.
Kissoon has a history he is disinclined to let go of and one that influenced a dishonourable discharge from his doctorial study that resulted in the Forbes Burnham government refusing to employ a dishonorable person to lecture in Guyana’s institution of highest learning. Kissoon was however fortunate under other administrations to be employed where he was given the opportunity to influence young and impressionable minds. Evaluating several of his writings and his particular response to me, I am thankful that I was not among them. If I were his student I would have been embarrassed at his lack of reasoning and scholastic integrity.
Kissoon says: “Ms. Bacchus falls into a category of very crude political and racial primitiveness that has no place in the world not only in Guyana. She is the mirror image of her East Indian counterparts. Their binary is what destroyed Guyana and continues to devastate this lovely country with lovely people.” These are vicious statements that seek to malign me, position me as an extremist/xenophobic and on the fringe of society. They target me for alienation from the mainstream and any endeavour I seek to pursue. I do not take kindly to them and Kissoon must be man/academic enough to stand by his deductions and produce for the readership the proof (writing-public and/or email) to support the claims he makes against me. I dare him!
This counterfeit behaviour has seen him over the years making claims –as recent as June 12, 2013- that there is “evidence” Burnham is responsible for Rodney’s death, yet he fails to produce any evidence to support his claim. Thus far, he has mustered a “copy of the Chronicle with the caption that screamed that the GDF denied Smith was ever a sergeant in the army” (June 17, 2013). This is idiocy. In the event he forgets, has no regard for, or never learnt, in science or court of law, evidence speaks to proof coming from testimony, documents, research, record, objects. And any smart person knows the “evidence” Kissoon presents here is ‘who said what’ and not who killed or is responsible for the death of whom.
This is why there must be support for an Independent International Commission of Enquiry (IICE), because in the absence of it, persons like Kissoon suffocate the society with their claim to ‘evidence.’ It is for said reason I made known in an email which Kissoon is probably privy to that: “If those who created career/relevance/sympathy out of the claim that Burnham killed Rodney don’t turn up voluntarily to give evidence before the IICE they should be subpoenaed, and if they fail to turn up they should be charged for Contempt, and if they turn and cannot provide credible evidence that Burnham killed Rodney then they should be charged for Public Mischief. It is hoped the fine includes prison time or community service. Right now Georgetown needs cleaning-up and community service must also include the use of the Chain Gang.”
Kissoon was among those I identified for such treatment and stand by my opinion!
And there will be no end to this counterfeit. Kissoon is outraged that I “wax lyrical on [Burnham’s] fantastic achievements” but he has not denied these achievements, or shown where any attribution was wrongly ascribed.
In his June 12 column (“The PNC: A revisionist note”) he has this to say: “Guyanese history has been unkind and unfair to Burnham. He was Guyana’s most nationalist and patriotic head of government.” Note the superlative “most”! He  continues: “Mr. Burnham was a brilliant nationalist, a leader who cared for the poorer classes, a leader with a conscious understanding that colour and class were post-Independent Guyana’s enemies that must be confronted and he confronted them….In all fairness to him, had he lived longer, he would have continued his developmental thrust which was so admirable, frowned upon that part of Guyana that had a colonial complex with white skin, and made sure the poorer classes remained satisfied.”
Readers must re-read Kissoon’s comments on Burnham and decide whether they are admiration and achievements, or condemnation and failure. However, when I engage in similar acknowledgement Kissoon takes umbrage. And if this offence is informed by a sense that he holds the monopoly on analysing political events or the key to our minds regarding Burnham, he is wrong and my mind will not be enslaved by him.
And to claim (June 17, 2013) that: “All she is doing by her unhistorical antics is to give latitude to those who see it as an obligation to expose Mr. Burnham’s involvement” is arrant nonsense. Kissoon claims knowledge to my writings and if this is to be believed he must know I want an enquiry into Rodney’s death. It is past time for the truth to be made known, myths exposed, and this society given a chance to heal and develop.
In his usual inconsistencies and lack of academic integrity, Kissoon goes on to say: “I close by emphasizing that to suddenly elevate Forbes Burnham as a good leader because the people who have inherited power after the PNC left government are worse than him is not clever recording of history. Guyanese current history is about the PPP exceeding the excesses of Burnham. What is so complex about this to understand?”
Nothing Freddie, if you can only understand credible comparison can only be made between what exists and what existed, and self-government in Guyana has only been the PPP and PNC, which follows logically a comparison can only be meaningfully made or relevant in said context.
And to the “brutal facts” in Errol Harry’s email that Kissoon claims were presented to me as “graphic evidence” of Burnham’s culpability, he must make them known, because the only graphic evidence and facts I’m aware of are the existence of an email by the identified author attempting to speak to the Burnham/Rodney issue and the only thing brutal about it is the tortuous reading. Also, I do not have to respond to/acknowledge Tacuma Ogunseye’s questions to David Granger because they do not constitute evidence of Burnham’s culpability and if Ogunseye, M.Maxwell and others think Burnham is, let them push for the IICE and provide the evidence or face the same treatment proposed for Kissoon!
Minette Bacchus

 

 

---

---