Persaud’s charges against Bisram disproved

Jan 07, 2014 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,
The charge of Mr. Mike Persaud’s “Bisram’s falsely attributed “kaka or looney talk” (KN Jan 1) has been disproved by eminent Prof. Stanley Aronowitz. Persaud gave short shrift to honesty claiming that he spoke with Dr. Aronowitz and that the good Prof. told him he does not know Bisram. Aronowitz, a distinguished Professor, was chair of my Doctoral Exam Committee (around 1994) and my dissertation advisor – a committee that included other distinguished scholars. In addition, I took several credit bearing doctoral courses (Marxism, Multi-Culturalism, Classical Theory, Contemporary Theory, Post-Modernism, etc.) and audited more under Stanley’s professorship. He is brilliant with few comparisons and he recommended to me readings on ethnicity by Cox, Myrdal, Manning, etc.  I bounced up Dr. Aronowitz at the Univ. Of Hawaii at Manoa Campus (around 2001) during a visit, not aware that he was giving a lecture. Dr. Aronowitz ran for Mayor (was in TV debates) about nine years ago and I supported him.  Persaud can recheck those factual details in another fabricated phone call.  I do not manufacture anecdotes and data and my analysis and conclusions are logically based. Adam Harris is in receipt of an email (Jan 3) in which Prof. Aronowitz denied communicating with Persaud and also affirmed I was his student.
I sent a few responses to SN to correct false remarks attributed to me, incorrect statements and illogical conclusions made by Persaud but they were not published. Persaud is putting words onto my pen, making pathetic arguments and innocuous statements, delivering hostile salvos, and using distasteful language filled with sulfuric acidity like that of a person gone berserk who has lost all sanity. The Arab writer Omar Khayyam aptly describes it thus — He writes but knows not — or something to that effect.
Persaud indulges himself in so many unrealistic fantasies that I can’t understand the logic behind his scorched earth dishonest remarks. When one loses a debate on merits, one just closes the discussion — don’t make new insertions. But Persaud remains adamant in his belief introducing unrelated issues and making himself appear more uninformed than previously thought. He has brought so many red herrings in the discussion of ethnic conflict that the sea is now empty. There are so many side issues and rigmarole it’s almost impossible not to get headaches and stomach sickness from reading them.
Persaud’s line of thinking, reasoning, and conclusions are so illogical, it makes a ninth grade students debate team look like the Oxford Union in full flair. Lack of logic and failure to heed academic theories are not Persaud’s only crimes.
Persaud disrespects a well established journalistic principle of a right to response, firing off letters ad nauseam; repeating the same charge without offering any proof. Persaud should at least display regard for the traditions of the profession by first allowing a response. Also, Persaud makes several claims in SN and now KN that are grossly flawed in logic and are devoid of evidentiary props.  His missives are replete with what philosophers call “immanent contradictions”. His claims are specious and contrived and he regurgitates the same claim about Obama (at least 22 times and counting). Something is definitely amiss of people who hold on to disproved claims.
It is looney to think that the PPP appointing David Granger or Hamilton Green as its leader or the PNC appointing Donald Ramotar or Khemraj Ramjattan as its leader will solve ethnic conflict. This idea of appointing leaders must be condemned; they must be elected by rank and file members.  If Ramotar or Ramjattan wishes to be leader and Presidential candidate of PNC, they should join the party and seek the leadership.  Ditto Granger or Green for PPP! Why didn’t Granger join the PPP or Ramjattan the PNC?
How many ways does one have to count dishonesty? I checked with the NY Voters Registration, and neither Mike Persaud nor Paul Sanders is listed as a voter. Also, checks with the Obama Campaign could not confirm either one as a volunteer. I know Persaud did not volunteer for Obama because when I asked him to join me on the campaign trail, he said he had to work. That is OK. But these men gave the impression they are champions of Obama – when they did not vote for the man or help him get elected – Speaking of hypocrisy and bigotry! On the other hand, my involvement with the Obama campaign (2008 and again in 2012) can be confirmed with the United Federation of Teachers. I don’t make up information.
Also, Obama and I shared at least one thing in common – we both organized petitions, protests and rallies against Ronald Reagan cuts in tuition grants in the mid 1980s. He came to CCNY to work with student leaders when I was an executive of the Graduate Students Council. So who is more in line with Obama — the ones who lie or the ones who tells the truth?
Persaud has this bad habit of misinterpreting and mis-paraphrasing the arguments of others. He can give credibility to his claims if he offers cited quotes rather than mis-interpretations to support claims he attributed to me like ethnic voting, racism, etc. He will not be able to provide any.
People vote ethnicity in almost every society and we must change the culture systematically, not by tokenism.  In so remarking, I am not advocating for ethnic voting. Tokenism has not successfully resolved ethnic conflict.
The fact that I critique ethnic tokenism does not logically follow that I endorse ethnic voting –Donald Horowitz wrote “Ethnic Groups in Conflict” referencing Guyana.  By following Persaud’s misguided logic, he would conclude that Horowitz is supporting ethnic conflict. Academia does not operate that way. He is engaged in what in academia is called “squaring the circle” and he seems to have quite a knack at it.
Persaud accuses me of writing letters under another pseudonym urging people not to vote for Obama in 2008. How does one reconcile that claim with half a dozen letters penned under my name urging people to vote for Obama?  And he did not support Obama according to the voter registration.
Persaud wants to administer a truth serum, like in the Jason Bourne saga, to determine whether Bisram wrote anonymously against Obama, never mind that Bisram wrote half a dozen pieces praising Obama. Persaud claims he and Paul Sanders are experts at bibliotics – those people who can determine the authors of anonymous writings, the same kind of expertise claiming they are Obama supporters but offer no evidence or that they spoke with Professors. In journalism, as KN editors can affirm, one is only held responsible for what is under one’s by-line.
You must give Persaud and Sanders their 15 minutes of fame; they deserve it after trying so hard for six years to give themselves credibility without evidence.
Persaud made reference to Madiba. The great Mandela did not make illogical arguments and unsubstantiated allegations or come up with hairbrained ideas like appointing FW DeKlerk as head of the ANC. But you never know, Jacob Zuma could very well put DeKlerk as the next Presidential candidate for the ANC later this year. And it is possible that Granger could appoint Khemraj Ramjattan or even Mike Persaud as the PNC’s Presidential candidate. Miracles do happen and Santa Clauses did come down the chimney for millions on Christmas Eve.
There are other unsubstantiated, unaffirmed claims. But what is the point in responding? Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram

 

 

---

---