FROM WHERE I STAND: Deciding to teach Guyanese history is the easy part—teaching it honestly is not

Apr 12, 2026 Features / Columnists, News

---

By Janelle A.N Persaud

(Kaieteur News) – The call to teach Guyanese history in our schools is a necessary one. It is also long overdue.

That call came into sharper public focus during the Before the Red Dot conversation series, organised by TEDxTurkeyen, where historian Dr. Estherine Adams and former President Donald Ramotar both emphasized the importance of embedding Guyanese history into our education system.

Their intervention reflects a growing recognition that as Guyana moves forward; economically, politically, and socially, we must also deepen our understanding of who we are and how we got here.

But if we are serious about it and I’m hoping we are; then we have to move beyond the call itself and begin asking the harder questions: what would it actually take to do this well?

To my mind, calling for history to be taught is the easy part.

Designing how it is taught; what is included, whose perspectives are centered, and how students are encouraged to engage with it, will be far more complex. This of course requires curriculum development, a strong body of scholarship, trained educators, and a level of institutional and political maturity that we must be honest about whether we currently possess.

History in Guyana has never been neutral. It has been interpreted, shaped, and at times contested; often along political, ethnic, and social lines. That reality does not disappear simply because we decide to formalise it within a curriculum. If anything, it becomes more pronounced.

During that same conversation, I found myself reflecting on something I have said before: that the narratives we inherit about ourselves do not always persist by accident.

In Guyana, our understanding of race, identity, and history has been shaped not only by our colonial past, but by the ways those narratives have been preserved, repeated, and at times reinforced over time. And it is worth asking whether there are still incentives for certain versions of our history to remain dominant, even now; because unexamined narratives can become useful, not just historically, but politically. And what is useful is rarely surrendered easily.

If we are to teach Guyanese history meaningfully, we must also be prepared to teach it honestly; even when it is uncomfortable.

The idea of “One Guyana” has been advanced as a unifying national vision. But unity cannot be built on slogans alone. It requires a shared understanding of who we are, where we come from, and what we have each experienced—individually and collectively—as Guyanese. That understanding does not happen organically. It has to be taught, and it has to be engaged with critically.

From where I stand, teaching Guyanese history in schools is not the challenge. Building the systems to teach it honestly and effectively is.

Countries like Belize have taken deliberate steps to embed national history and identity into their education systems as a structured part of nation-building. That process required curriculum development, institutional coordination, and a willingness to engage with history in a way that reflects the complexity of national identity.

For Guyana, the path will be no different.

Do we have the body of scholarly work required to support a comprehensive curriculum? In some areas, yes; in others, less; it is also worth asking why some of our most influential thinkers, such as Walter Rodney, are studied in depth internationally; yet remain only lightly engaged within our own classrooms.

Beyond content, there is also the question of delivery. Are our teachers equipped to facilitate discussions around complex and, at times, sensitive aspects of our history? Do we have the training structures in place to support that kind of engagement? These are not minor considerations. They go to the heart of whether this effort succeeds or becomes another well-intentioned but poorly executed initiative.

In many ways, this is the work I have been trying to do through the Before Us project: documenting lived experiences, capturing oral histories, and preserving the kinds of knowledge that rarely make it into formal systems. Because history is not only found in textbooks. It lives in people, in communities, in memory. Any serious attempt to teach Guyanese history must find a way to bridge those spaces

At the same time, there is an opportunity here for leadership.

With the advancement of the One Guyana initiative and the appointment of an advisor to guide it, there is now a framework within which these efforts can be meaningfully situated. Six months in, it would be useful to understand how initiatives such as a national history curriculum fit into that broader vision, and what steps are being taken to move from concept to implementation. To date, I have not heard of a single activity/effort from the office of the advisor. I am of course, open to correction.

Ultimately, this is not just an educational issue. It is a developmental one.

The kind of society we are trying to build–particularly at a time of rapid economic change—requires skilled and grounded citizens i.e. people who understand their history, who can think critically about it, and who are able to engage with each other from a place of knowledge rather than assumption.

Therefore, teaching Guyanese history is no longer a matter of the past. It is now about the future.

And if we are serious about building One Guyana, then we must be equally serious about understanding—fully and honestly—the histories that shaped us.

---

• Dr. Estherine Adams, Janelle Persaud, teach guyanese history, TEDxTurkeyen

---