Racism in Guyana: Sharon Osbourne versus Sheryl Underwood

Mar 16, 2021 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – Quite often people would make a comment to me on how I fell out with persons who the entire Guyana knows I had an enduring camaraderie with. The latest was diaspora activist, Norman Brown (see my last Sunday and Monday column).
I cannot see how my friendship with Dr. David Hinds, Dr. Nigel Westmaas and one of Guyana’s icons, Moses Bhagwan could be reconstructed. These were people I thought were deeply committed to the value of free election, moreso than any other nationalities in the entire world because Guyanese, including all three of these men, fought valiantly against the emergence of dictatorship on Guyana brought about by rigged election.
My mind is convinced that rigged election is antithetical to individual freedom. I hold the theory deep in my heart that countries like Cuba and Libya, just to name a few would have had a different history if Kaddafi and Castro had to face the electorate.
Facing the electorate compels prime ministers and presidents to do positive things because their opponents are waiting to pounce on them to describe them as dictators so as to replace them. In this age of social media, an elected party can easily lose an election if it chooses to be insensitive. Isn’t this what happened in Guyana in 2020?
The constitutional crisis over the no-confidence vote (NCV) and the political brutalities of the March 2020 election were dangerous times since the first rigged election in 1968. I cannot comprehend how men and women who fought for constitutional rights, political rights, justice and free and fair election since 1968 could invoke the immoral thought of defending constitutional skullduggery and political degeneracy after the phenomenal defeat of both of these poisonous menus after 1992.
Yes, I concede the post 1992 was no glorious blossoming of flowers. There were tremendous setbacks. But there were serious democratic reclamations that lasted long after 1992. In fact contrary to the polemic that 1992 was a post dictatorship failure, the High Court ruled that the 1997 PPP election victory was illegal. There was no rule of law under President Forbes Burnham.
To see friends endorsing, and some staying silent about the NCV and the March 2020 rigging were mentally painful to me. What has this discussion got to do with the caption above? Two television personalities – Sharon Osbourne, who is white, and Sheryl Underwood, who is Black, host a popular talk show on American television named The Talk.
Osbourne defended Piers Morgan’s insensitive exclamations against Meghan Markle asserting her friendship with Morgan. Underwood told her that she is defending a man whose fulminations were oblivious to the race issues in Markle’s criticism of the British monarchy’s attitude to her, Osbourne’s reply is one that holds untold lessons about life.
Osbourne asked why she is being called a racist when she is simply defending her friend. Underwood’s reaction was philosophical and here is where the comparison with me and David Hinds comes in. Underwood told Osbourne that she is defending a friend who is insensitive to race issues. The dispute between the two women is now a global topic with their employer, the CBS network pursuing an investigation.
Who is right and who is wrong? It needs no training in philosophy to answer. Underwood is logical in claiming that you cannot defend a friend who doesn’t see how victims of race discrimination feel. The subterranean meaning lurking around the disagreement is that one can claim that in trying to rescue Morgan, Osbourne herself is racially biased. Simply put; if you can ignore your friend’s defence of others who exhibit racial thinking, then shouldn’t questions be asked of your own embrace of racial bias?
The Osbourne-Underwood conflict I think explains why I have lost my friendship with Hinds. Hinds claims that the election was tampered with by the PPP thus it did not win. For me that has several undertones – racial glorification, endorsement of rigged election, uncaring attitude to a country that has had constant political nightmares since Independence. The sacred values that hold a country together, Hinds turned his back on. I cannot see him the same way again.
In relation to Dr. Nigel Westmaas and Moses Bhagwan, they were silent. But in that reticence laid a certain state of mind that pierced my mind agonizingly. Both men have excellent record of fighting for free and fair elections. Bhagwan is seen as a great figure in Guyana’s 20th century political struggles. With that superb record, how could you have stifled your voice when Guyana was on the brink of the return of permanent power that would have returned us to the horrifying days of Forbes Burnham?

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---