Defending the indefensible

Oct 15, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

There have been many calls over the years for a civilized and respectful discourse on race relations in Guyana. The main obstacle to such a discourse, however, is the ‘defensive’ posture usually adopted by a group when it is criticized by another group.
We see this most clearly in the exchanges in the media about the controversy which developed around statements made by the press officer to the President of Guyana, and which is henceforth referred to as the Nicholas-Garrett controversy.
The fact that a person from one political party and a particular ethnic group was subject to criticisms emanating originally from a person who belongs to another political party and from another ethnic group, has led to a defensive posture being adopted, which all but blinds objective discourse on the matter.
The danger of this ‘defensive’ posture is that it can turn a rant into rage, as was evident over twenty years ago when Desmond Hoyte, the then President of Guyana, went on a rant about the ‘P’ mafia in Guyana.
Hoyte had attacked persons of the Portuguese community, accusing them of belonging to an ethnic mafia. This was because of criticisms which the Stabroek News and others were making of his government.
Hoyte’s comments caused an outrage within the Portuguese community in Guyana. A number of persons of Portuguese extraction signed a petition which condemned Hoyte.
Immediately, the ‘defensive’ posture was adopted. A defence was mounted by the government, claiming that the ‘P’ word was used in the vernacular.
This, incidentally, is the same defence which is being used in relation to the Nicholas-Garrett controversy. It was claimed that she was merely using a word which was used quite commonly in Guyana.
In the case of Hoyte’s comments, the then PNC government totally sidestepped the issue of context. Hoyte was not simply speaking in the vernacular. He was attacking certain identified individuals and claiming that they belonged to an ethnic mafia. He went as far as claiming that one individual had an identity crisis, suggesting that the person had problems deciding which race he belonged to. It was a cruel thing to say about anyone.  The context, of course, turned Hoyte’s comments into a racial rant.
This racial rant led to racial rage. The son of Guyanese national poet, Martin Carter, turned up to an international cricket match wearing a jersey with a slogan painted on which said that he was a member of the “P’ mafia.  Immediately, the defensive mechanism set in. The young man was set upon by thugs and given a sound thrashing.
The defensive mechanism came to the fore after the publicizing of the alleged Nicholas-Garrett texts. At least two popular online news feeds did not provide an iota of coverage of the matter. Was it that they did not see the issue as warranting public interest? An issue which made headlines in the print media could not find coverage in certain online news feeds. Very interesting!
The second defensive mechanism used was to attack the person who had made the controversial texts public. It just happened that the person who publicized the issue on social media, happened to be a PPP operative. This automatically led to a defensive reaction. The person was attacked as making similar statements in the past. This is typical of the defence used in these cases. Attack the messenger.
Why did the publicizing of the Nicholas-Garrett text messages have to be made public only by someone from the PPP? What about all those other media personnel who seemed to have known about the contents of the Nicholas-Garrett text messages? What about the social media news feeds? Why were these obviously offensive comments not publicized by persons outside of the PPP? Was it part of the defensive mechanism?
The third defensive mechanism was the obliviousness shown to the context of the comments. The comments were actually written down in text form and shared in a group chat. Thoughts were put into words. Did the text, therefore not reflect a thought process?
In the discourse that followed, including from some of Guyana’s prominent ‘experts’ on race relations, context was totally ignored. The issue was reduced to the use of the ‘C’ word and not the context and uses to which it was put. The debate centred around the common uses of the ‘C’ word. No sensitivity was shown to how others would have been affected by the comments made. This tactic was part of the defensive mechanism.
But what really took the prize was the defence by the President of Guyana. His posture needs a more detailed analysis, which will be done in tomorrow’s edition.

 

---

---