When the truth is not accepted-guilt induces sabre-rattling

Jul 30, 2018 Letters

Dear Editor,
I was aghast to see the number of letter and comments on the Clifford Krauss article in the New York Times. Almost everyone seemed annoyed with Krauss. Some wanted him to apologize. One even suggested that our Foreign Affairs Minister lodge a complaint with the US ambassador here. Audacious! Everyone seemed annoyed with Krauss for writing, “Guyana is a vast, watery wilderness with only three paved highways. There are a few dirt roads between villages that sit on stilts along rivers snaking through the rainforest.
“Children in remote areas go to school in dugout canoes, and play naked in the muggy heat.”
In literary terms, this is a vivid description of Guyana through the eyes of an artist (Clifford Krauss). If you can picture what Klauss wrote on canvass you would know that you are looking at Guyana. None of the critiques could say that Krauss lied. I think Krauss was 90% correct and as such, in local parlance, I have to confess that he “nailed it”.
Freddie K. writes for KN and on countless occasions he had called Guyana terms like ,”waste land” and “third rate banana republic” and not once had I seen a “squeak” in the form of complaint in the letter pages of KN by any of these critics of Krauss.
Freddie should be concerned! It means that people don’t take him seriously. So even Freddie joined the fray, condoning the “vitriolic anger from Guyanese with the New York Times correspondent, Clifford Krauss, and rightly so”(Freddie’s words). Freddie wrote, “People like Krauss, though they come from rich countries, don’t necessarily have a perspective on life that is a healthy one”.
Personally! I cannot comprehend that in the context of Krauss’s missive! Most of the commentators meandered around definition of “watery wilderness” and express the joys they had enjoyed growing up in Krauss’s descriptive environment; lambasting Krauss for not appreciating what he sees in Guyana.
One has to wonder if these people felt that their critiques were going to appear in the New York Times, granting them their 15 minutes of glory or are they like lemmings, one jump from the precipice and the others are prepared to follow.
Our literary landscape in Guyana is so barren that our commentators just cannot comprehend that what Krauss did was to follow in the footsteps of a true artist.
The tenet of true artistry depicts that a true artist does not attempt to please anyone, except his or her own self. In local parlance, it is as simple as saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
The Man saw Guyana through his own eyes and give his opinion; Freddie does that every day- what’s the big deal! I guess its “The- New- York -Times”! When our own home grown literary giant like Bascom joins the fray, our literary landscape definitely looks more barren. Visions of fake versus brand names abound!
A KN Editor (L. Gildharie) chimed in too. He quoted Krauss, “To visit the most senior oil regulator in Georgetown, one needs to climb an exterior staircase of warped wood that could sorely use a fresh coat of paint. At the top is the tiny office of Newell Dennison, the acting head of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, whose desk is stacked high with folders beside a single metal filing cabinet. His office is spare of decorations, aside from two bouquets of artificial tropical flowers.”As far as descriptive writing goes, this is a masterpiece. I can practically picture the building and Dennison’s office from reading this. This is just a vivid description. I don’t see how this was intended to annoy.
But Gildharie’s response was, “Really Mr. Krauss? Really? Guyanese would have some choice words for him, “Cross” likely to surface for those that don’t use the bad words.” Then Gildharie added, “Sadly, the New York Times has gotten it very wrong.”
That was profane! Am I to suggest that the description given by Krauss of Dennison’s office and the staircase of “warped wood leading” to it as false? I just did not get the “story within the story”.
If it is perceived that Krauss has placed a stigma on us (Guyanese) in the New York Times, fuming about it won’t make it go away. Neither do I think that Krauss is a practitioner in the occult to make that stigma stick on us. The commentators are channeling their energies in the wrong direction! We should look for the root cause of that stigma at home and” rattle our sabres” to redress it.
Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News