Guyana’s racial and ethnic diversity – blessing or curse, or both?

Mar 22, 2020 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

There are at least two schools of thought on the issue of diversity. One school sees diversity as having negative consequences, while the other sees diversity as desirable and stress its advantages to a community, and a nation.
Quoting from an unnamed scientist, Ilana Mercer wrote an article under the caption “Greater diversity equals more misery.” Mercer used as support for her position, a study, done over a four year period by one Professor Putnam, a political scientist at Harvard. Professor Putnam released the results of his study in 2007. The study showed, among other things, that (a) In communities, the greater the diversity the greater the distrust, (b) In diverse communities fewer people volunteer, they give less to charity, and expect the worse from local leaders, (c) In diverse communities people “hunker down” (they withdraw, have fewer friends – social isolation).Therefore, based on these findings, diversity is not a strength but a weakness.
Those who see diversity as a strength argues; (a) Diversity allows for differing thoughts and competencies to contribute to the search for solutions to problems that face us as a community, a society, (b)Diversity allows for people with different values and customs to learn to appreciate others. (c)Diversity makes living much more satisfying and interesting since it makes different foods, clothing styles, and celebrations available to us.
Interestingly enough, each of these positions on diversity can find support in a popular theory. For example, the contact theory holds that when people of different race and ethnicity interact, understanding, tolerance and harmony increases. On the other hand conflict theory holds that proximity give rise to suspicion, tension, and discord. The question for Guyanese therefore is which of these positions the majority of our people embrace?
If we hold to the view that diversity gives rise to misery (as Mercer suggests), then we have no alternative but to embrace separating our people – partition. However doing this would be more difficult than it seems. First, how do we decide which race gets what part of Guyana? Should present occupation give a race right to land or should right to land be given to first occupiers?
Second, when we look at India and Pakistan separation/partition don’t seem to be an encouraging alternative. These two countries spend billions of dollars on building nuclear weapons and maintaining large armies, while both have millions of citizens living in dire poverty. How did it come to this? Both countries distrust the other and therefore the need for them to stock- up on the most lethal arsenal as a deterrent to the other, even at the expense of millions of their people going without a basic commodity as pure water.
Those of us who support and celebrate diversity must recognize that though desirable, achieving acceptance of a different race /ethnic group does not come easily to many of us. First we need to understand that it is usual for a group to consider its ways of doing and thinking as the best. Secondly, when people live only among their own tribe or group it is more likely that they concentrate relationships among themselves, and develop negative definitions of others.
In the USA the most racist communities are rural communities that are almost exclusively home to whites. Seemingly, the sociologist Macionis was right in concluding that physical boundaries foster social boundaries. Third, if we agree with Macionis, will it then sometimes require some amount of social engineering to encourage the various racial/ethnic groups to live together?
I am among those who see value in racial and ethnic diversity. I am fully aware that “diversity is the natural order of things. Evolution produces diversity.” However, I must confess that at times like these, when I hear of a bus transporting children being attacked; when I hear of a member of one tribe referring to members of the opposing tribe as “dogs of war;” when I see individuals and interest groups pound their chest as they declare their neutrality, while, by their silence on the horrific behaviour, of members of one tribe, clearly signal their biases. When we allow western countries to demand to more than observe. When the representative of one of these countries could feel comfortable to barge in on a high level meeting of local decision makers, and, uninvited proceed to lecture to the meeting on what she demands they do, my heart grows sick and I know moments of doubts, and reduced hope for Guyana.
Who, familiar with the history of the two major parties in Guyana, would believe that one is above cheating at election time? Who would believe that they both, did not at least try, to manipulate things at the recent general elections to their own advantage? Isn’t this the logical outcome when warring tribes, comparable in numbers, prepare to, and face each other on the battle field of supposedly fair and free elections?
In such a situation, aren’t we naive to believe that a ballot count would ensure justice? Is it not logical in our situation, that a ballot count is most likely to, at best, merely reveal which of the warring parties was most successful (sophisticated perhaps) at trickery?
In this regard, isn’t Vincent Alexander right in concluding that our problem is more than elections? Similarly, wasn’t Lincoln Lewis also right in his contribution appearing in the Kaieteur news of 20th March 2020?
I have stated my commitment to the principle of and embrace of diversity, which I see as a strength. Now it is for Guyana to make a decision – separation or togetherness, or as Martin Luther King Junior, asked America – “Chaos or Community.”
Claudius Prince.

---

---