Walter Rodney Appealed to All Ethnic Groups
One of the saddest occurrences since the conception of Guyana as an independent state was the murder of Walter Rodney, one of Guyana's, the Caribbean's and Africa's most brilliant historians, authors, thinkers, and social and political activists. Another is the continued indifference with which Guyana has treated Rodney's legacy. In every progressive society, where a personality has made extraordinary contributions to either of the major disciplines, social, political, literary, economic, environmental, musical etc., on the national and international stage, those contributions are not only preserved and recognized by generations but are celebrated by that society. If that personality emerges from a small society like Guyana, even greater are those contributions exalted.
Sadly in Guyana today, Rodney's contributions and memory continue to be suppressed. My nephew who is a 13-year-old high school sophomore recently asked me, what is Rodney's legacy? He proceeded to inform me that nothing is taught about Rodney in his school. So out of curiosity I gave him an assignment to find out from his peers, how many of them know of Walter Rodney and his teachings. Of the 15 students he interviewed, he said seven never heard of Walter Rodney and the other eight only know the name and that he was associated with the WPA. The latter group, I can venture to say out of generosity, represents the majority of our young Guyanese. Unfortunately, whenever letters are written about Rodney in the press they tend only to accentuate one aspect of his life, that is, his opposition to Burnham and the subsequent events leading up to his murder. Rarely in Guyana are his thoughts, ideology, and writings expound upon.
As we struggle with the question of race and ethnicity, in the deepening ethnic cleavage in the Guyanese society, at present, Rodney's thinking on race in the Guyanese context can best help us understand who we are as a people.
In an article written by Br. Eusi Kwayana, another brilliant son of Guyana, whose contributions we have also chosen to forget, titled, 'Walter Rodney,' Eusi wrote, "One thing which kept Rodney out of Guyana for four extra years was the political cleavage among the working people of Guyana, a Political scene which had as its main tendency the political racial polarization would have been a very inhospitable one for him to return to."
Upon his return to Guyana in 1974, Rodney was able to successfully engage the intellectual class and the working class as partners in social and political activism. Rodney appealed to the class-consciousness of the working people and encouraged workers self emancipation and as such appealed to all ethnic groups, even as he was a Pan Africanist. He argued that the intellectuals should use their skills for the benefit of the working people and the poor. Rodney was successful in putting this advice into practice. One of the earliest offices of the WPA was in the Tiger Bay area, one of the poorest, if not the poorest neighbourhood in Georgetown, where milk and other food items were given out to the often-hungry children and educational classes were conducted for the mostly illiterate adults. That's where as a young boy roaming the area and ending up in the WPA office for milk my consciousness was raised.
Rodney argued that the time must come when the Indian and African will organize around their interest as producers in the Guyanese society as distinct from pursuing this myth of racial superiority and racial subjugation. He further argued that exploitation has little or nothing to do with whether one is Indian or African in the Guyanese context. Rodney was an unswerving advocate for the oppressed and exploited classes. In the Guyanese context this included the Indian, African, Amerindian, Chinese, Portuguese, etc.
Today some Indian intellectuals hold the position that if they agitate on behalf of the black poor they will betray the Indian masses and some black intellectuals also hold the position that if they agitate on behalf of the Indian poor, they will betray the black masses. This position is paradoxical to the claims of social consciousness.
Rodney believed the intellectual class, as distinct from the middle class who he was very critical of, is the vessel of ideas and the working class the source of energy for revolutionary struggle? The intellectual class, Rodney postulates, are the guardians of morally imperative societies, especially in the Caribbean and Africa. Rodney argued that the middle class in the post colonial Caribbean and Africa was a continuation of the imperialist exploitation, serving as its "compradors." Though this class can modify its position to confront imperialism on some issues he argued, it is unwilling to disestablish its political power position, and that is what leads to a kind of political paternalism. This analysis of the middle class can be made thirty years later.
One of the most interesting things about Rodney is that even though he believed in Marxist philosophy, Rodney saw himself as a progressive. He believed in the rate of change and the rate at which problems are being confronted.
Is Rodney's thinking relevant in Guyana twenty-five years later?
If one examines post Rodney Guyana, one would find a society that has allowed the political elites to continue to manipulate the working class and the very poor into passive ethnic divisions and the raison d'etre of the intellectual is as impotent observer or reactionary commentator. There are hardly any objective inquiries and relentless criticisms of the socio-economic decay in our society. The conditions of the working class and unemployed in Guyana are so appalling that it warrants serious actions and activism. The intellectuals are best suited to confront this situation.
We live in an underdeveloped multi-ethnic society, where the ruling political elites have found it convenient to withhold resources for its own political advantages. In doing so, it avoids the class question and focus on race and ethnicity to serve its own narrow self-interest and maintain power.
On the other hand, in confronting this situation, some take a reactionary position in reverting to the race question to explain the inequalities. Not only is the use of race an inadequate solution, because it ignores the suffering of the poor in other ethnic groups, it is counter to the process of development, needed to alleviate poverty.
The argument here is not that race is not an important factor in Guyana. It is such an important question, that we cannot and should not ignore its significance to the political, economic and social well-being of Guyana. However, in the context of Guyana, it is more important as a cultural capacity-building mechanism. In this era of global capitalist imposition, race is important as a weapon, in the economic sense, to fight poverty and inequality, rather than a political weapon aimed at destroying another ethnic group. Racial and ethnic alliances must be formed to fight poverty and inequality. Here again Rodney's thinking is important. Rodney argued that the race question must be looked at differently, depending on the society. He sites the scenario of the white working class and black working class alliances in the Cuban Revolution, given that in the Cuban society the white working class was also an oppressed working class, whereas in the US the white working class is an oppressive working class. Therefore race does not mean the same thing in the Cuban society as it does in the US. In this analysis Rodney believed racial and ethnic alliances can be a necessity to fight political and economic oppression.
This analysis fits very well in the Guyanese context. The Indian and African working class and unemployed must realize their disadvantages in the ethnic division.
Those disadvantages are that their interests are not adequately represented. That they live in extreme poverty; that the divisions in the trade union movement are not benefiting their economic well being; that by supporting political parties along racial lines they are undermining their own development and the development of the country. It is important for us to begin to think critically of how we can empower our selves and our communities. So let us celebrate Rodney's thinking with actions, and leadership.
– Dennis Wiggins
(Taken from Stabroek News Letter Section May 19 2005)
Rodney is Ever Present in the Fight for Unity
Mr. Denis Wiggins raised some very interesting points on the significance of Walter Rodney in his letter captioned "Walter Rodney appealed to all ethnic groups" (05-19-05) while lamenting the fact the Rodney's work is not taught in the school and that his "contributions and memory are suppressed."
I take this opportunity to pass on another aspect of Walter Rodney's life and work that was pretty obvious though relatively undefined over time. It was his ability to collapse any differences between his scholarly activity and his activism in the broad general human good. This was a remarkable facet of his life and work. The very term "groundings" taken from one of his early books Grounding with my Brothers illustrates this ability of the man.
The term 'Groundings' although not fully defined in the text, was implicit throughout. The assumption gleaned from its usage is taken to mean his political and social work in the gullies and shantytowns of Kingston, Jamaica, when he lived there. And there were many associations with the term, especially in the last chapter when he discussed Black Power and its relevance to the Caribbean. For Rodney 'Groundings' could be in a "sports club, it might be in a school room, it might be in a church, it might be in a gully...I have spoken in what people call 'dungle', rubbish dumps...I have sat on a little oil drum, rusty and in the midst of garbage, and some Black Brothers and I have grounded together."
According to historian, Michael Craton, Rodney's work befitted that of a "scholar living on the barricades..." and came closer to welding history, theory and practice, but left many gentle participants quaking in their ivory towers." As Rodney himself put it somewhere: "Many historians are afraid to deal with living history and I can understand why, because sometimes it is dangerous, especially in Africa. The moment that the social scientist begins to reflect too closely on the present, he or she is subversive in the Third World. It is safer to be with mummies and bones."
His view of the academic as a static parasitic creature was formed very early in Rodney's career. I can also cite pieces of what Rodney told fellow Guyanese Gordon Rohlehr of his disgust with academic life at the Mona campus in the 1960s: "There is no continuity in my life in respect of old acquaintances. We meet; I try to be pleasant; and I move on. For our generation too is adding its quota to the frightening sterility of the society. Living off campus is a great boon, for it reduces my contact with rum-sipping soul selling intellectuals of Mona..."
I doubt whether the situation is explosive, and I doubt whether I will be here long enough to witness the explosion; but as a matter of integrity I must address myself to that question so long as I am here. Otherwise, what will distinguish me from the Philistines?"
Rodney's point is apt for the current times. Academics in general nowadays, with a gentle polemic here and there against the 'system', find it convenient to reside in the calm but stifling bosom of tenure and tenure track, with the only deployment of activist-scholar skills being the organizational and departmental skills required to squeeze and eke out another ticket here, another tenure elevation there...to attend another conference...and so it goes on. For them, no rocking of the boat, no participation in any activity on or off campus that would (potentially) invalidate their professorship or make them look rebellious in the eyes of their colleagues. At the end of their lives they resemble the figure of Ozymandias with those "vast and trunkless legs of stone."
Inevitably, there is controversy surrounding the term "scholar-activist". There is no fixed or easy description that defines who or on what basis a scholar-activist becomes a scholar activist as distinct from a 'scholar-scholar.' It is therefore in a sense linked to context. In the era in which Rodney was operating there was doubtless an upsurge in global and local resistance. But does this mean that Rodney and his ilk are any less relevant in this seemingly stagnant age (in terms of social progress for broader humanity)? The dialectic of time and place would suggest an unhindered Rodney dealing with the ethnic and social mess in places like his homeland today.
To paraphrase Wiggins, Rodney is central and ever present in pursuing and fighting for unity.
– Nigel Westmaas
(From Stabroek News Letter Section, May 24 2005)
One of the saddest occurrences since the conception of Guyana as an independent state was the murder of Walter Rodney, one of Guyana's, the Caribbean's and Africa's most brilliant historians, authors, thinkers, and social and political activists. Another is the continued indifference with which Guyana has treated Rodney's legacy. In every progressive society, where a personality has made extraordinary contributions to either of the major disciplines, social, political, literary, economic, environmental, musical etc., on the national and international stage, those contributions are not only preserved and recognized by generations but are celebrated by that society. If that personality emerges from a small society like Guyana, even greater are those contributions exalted.
Sadly in Guyana today, Rodney's contributions and memory continue to be suppressed. My nephew who is a 13-year-old high school sophomore recently asked me, what is Rodney's legacy? He proceeded to inform me that nothing is taught about Rodney in his school. So out of curiosity I gave him an assignment to find out from his peers, how many of them know of Walter Rodney and his teachings. Of the 15 students he interviewed, he said seven never heard of Walter Rodney and the other eight only know the name and that he was associated with the WPA. The latter group, I can venture to say out of generosity, represents the majority of our young Guyanese. Unfortunately, whenever letters are written about Rodney in the press they tend only to accentuate one aspect of his life, that is, his opposition to Burnham and the subsequent events leading up to his murder. Rarely in Guyana are his thoughts, ideology, and writings expound upon.
As we struggle with the question of race and ethnicity, in the deepening ethnic cleavage in the Guyanese society, at present, Rodney's thinking on race in the Guyanese context can best help us understand who we are as a people.
In an article written by Br. Eusi Kwayana, another brilliant son of Guyana, whose contributions we have also chosen to forget, titled, 'Walter Rodney,' Eusi wrote, "One thing which kept Rodney out of Guyana for four extra years was the political cleavage among the working people of Guyana, a Political scene which had as its main tendency the political racial polarization would have been a very inhospitable one for him to return to."
Upon his return to Guyana in 1974, Rodney was able to successfully engage the intellectual class and the working class as partners in social and political activism. Rodney appealed to the class-consciousness of the working people and encouraged workers self emancipation and as such appealed to all ethnic groups, even as he was a Pan Africanist. He argued that the intellectuals should use their skills for the benefit of the working people and the poor. Rodney was successful in putting this advice into practice. One of the earliest offices of the WPA was in the Tiger Bay area, one of the poorest, if not the poorest neighbourhood in Georgetown, where milk and other food items were given out to the often-hungry children and educational classes were conducted for the mostly illiterate adults. That's where as a young boy roaming the area and ending up in the WPA office for milk my consciousness was raised.
Rodney argued that the time must come when the Indian and African will organize around their interest as producers in the Guyanese society as distinct from pursuing this myth of racial superiority and racial subjugation. He further argued that exploitation has little or nothing to do with whether one is Indian or African in the Guyanese context. Rodney was an unswerving advocate for the oppressed and exploited classes. In the Guyanese context this included the Indian, African, Amerindian, Chinese, Portuguese, etc.
Today some Indian intellectuals hold the position that if they agitate on behalf of the black poor they will betray the Indian masses and some black intellectuals also hold the position that if they agitate on behalf of the Indian poor, they will betray the black masses. This position is paradoxical to the claims of social consciousness.
Rodney believed the intellectual class, as distinct from the middle class who he was very critical of, is the vessel of ideas and the working class the source of energy for revolutionary struggle? The intellectual class, Rodney postulates, are the guardians of morally imperative societies, especially in the Caribbean and Africa. Rodney argued that the middle class in the post colonial Caribbean and Africa was a continuation of the imperialist exploitation, serving as its "compradors." Though this class can modify its position to confront imperialism on some issues he argued, it is unwilling to disestablish its political power position, and that is what leads to a kind of political paternalism. This analysis of the middle class can be made thirty years later.
One of the most interesting things about Rodney is that even though he believed in Marxist philosophy, Rodney saw himself as a progressive. He believed in the rate of change and the rate at which problems are being confronted.
Is Rodney's thinking relevant in Guyana twenty-five years later?
If one examines post Rodney Guyana, one would find a society that has allowed the political elites to continue to manipulate the working class and the very poor into passive ethnic divisions and the raison d'etre of the intellectual is as impotent observer or reactionary commentator. There are hardly any objective inquiries and relentless criticisms of the socio-economic decay in our society. The conditions of the working class and unemployed in Guyana are so appalling that it warrants serious actions and activism. The intellectuals are best suited to confront this situation.
We live in an underdeveloped multi-ethnic society, where the ruling political elites have found it convenient to withhold resources for its own political advantages. In doing so, it avoids the class question and focus on race and ethnicity to serve its own narrow self-interest and maintain power.
On the other hand, in confronting this situation, some take a reactionary position in reverting to the race question to explain the inequalities. Not only is the use of race an inadequate solution, because it ignores the suffering of the poor in other ethnic groups, it is counter to the process of development, needed to alleviate poverty.
The argument here is not that race is not an important factor in Guyana. It is such an important question, that we cannot and should not ignore its significance to the political, economic and social well-being of Guyana. However, in the context of Guyana, it is more important as a cultural capacity-building mechanism. In this era of global capitalist imposition, race is important as a weapon, in the economic sense, to fight poverty and inequality, rather than a political weapon aimed at destroying another ethnic group. Racial and ethnic alliances must be formed to fight poverty and inequality. Here again Rodney's thinking is important. Rodney argued that the race question must be looked at differently, depending on the society. He sites the scenario of the white working class and black working class alliances in the Cuban Revolution, given that in the Cuban society the white working class was also an oppressed working class, whereas in the US the white working class is an oppressive working class. Therefore race does not mean the same thing in the Cuban society as it does in the US. In this analysis Rodney believed racial and ethnic alliances can be a necessity to fight political and economic oppression.
This analysis fits very well in the Guyanese context. The Indian and African working class and unemployed must realize their disadvantages in the ethnic division.
Those disadvantages are that their interests are not adequately represented. That they live in extreme poverty; that the divisions in the trade union movement are not benefiting their economic well being; that by supporting political parties along racial lines they are undermining their own development and the development of the country. It is important for us to begin to think critically of how we can empower our selves and our communities. So let us celebrate Rodney's thinking with actions, and leadership.
– Dennis Wiggins
(Taken from Stabroek News Letter Section May 19 2005)
Rodney is Ever Present in the Fight for Unity
Mr. Denis Wiggins raised some very interesting points on the significance of Walter Rodney in his letter captioned "Walter Rodney appealed to all ethnic groups" (05-19-05) while lamenting the fact the Rodney's work is not taught in the school and that his "contributions and memory are suppressed."
I take this opportunity to pass on another aspect of Walter Rodney's life and work that was pretty obvious though relatively undefined over time. It was his ability to collapse any differences between his scholarly activity and his activism in the broad general human good. This was a remarkable facet of his life and work. The very term "groundings" taken from one of his early books Grounding with my Brothers illustrates this ability of the man.
The term 'Groundings' although not fully defined in the text, was implicit throughout. The assumption gleaned from its usage is taken to mean his political and social work in the gullies and shantytowns of Kingston, Jamaica, when he lived there. And there were many associations with the term, especially in the last chapter when he discussed Black Power and its relevance to the Caribbean. For Rodney 'Groundings' could be in a "sports club, it might be in a school room, it might be in a church, it might be in a gully...I have spoken in what people call 'dungle', rubbish dumps...I have sat on a little oil drum, rusty and in the midst of garbage, and some Black Brothers and I have grounded together."
According to historian, Michael Craton, Rodney's work befitted that of a "scholar living on the barricades..." and came closer to welding history, theory and practice, but left many gentle participants quaking in their ivory towers." As Rodney himself put it somewhere: "Many historians are afraid to deal with living history and I can understand why, because sometimes it is dangerous, especially in Africa. The moment that the social scientist begins to reflect too closely on the present, he or she is subversive in the Third World. It is safer to be with mummies and bones."
His view of the academic as a static parasitic creature was formed very early in Rodney's career. I can also cite pieces of what Rodney told fellow Guyanese Gordon Rohlehr of his disgust with academic life at the Mona campus in the 1960s: "There is no continuity in my life in respect of old acquaintances. We meet; I try to be pleasant; and I move on. For our generation too is adding its quota to the frightening sterility of the society. Living off campus is a great boon, for it reduces my contact with rum-sipping soul selling intellectuals of Mona..."
I doubt whether the situation is explosive, and I doubt whether I will be here long enough to witness the explosion; but as a matter of integrity I must address myself to that question so long as I am here. Otherwise, what will distinguish me from the Philistines?"
Rodney's point is apt for the current times. Academics in general nowadays, with a gentle polemic here and there against the 'system', find it convenient to reside in the calm but stifling bosom of tenure and tenure track, with the only deployment of activist-scholar skills being the organizational and departmental skills required to squeeze and eke out another ticket here, another tenure elevation there...to attend another conference...and so it goes on. For them, no rocking of the boat, no participation in any activity on or off campus that would (potentially) invalidate their professorship or make them look rebellious in the eyes of their colleagues. At the end of their lives they resemble the figure of Ozymandias with those "vast and trunkless legs of stone."
Inevitably, there is controversy surrounding the term "scholar-activist". There is no fixed or easy description that defines who or on what basis a scholar-activist becomes a scholar activist as distinct from a 'scholar-scholar.' It is therefore in a sense linked to context. In the era in which Rodney was operating there was doubtless an upsurge in global and local resistance. But does this mean that Rodney and his ilk are any less relevant in this seemingly stagnant age (in terms of social progress for broader humanity)? The dialectic of time and place would suggest an unhindered Rodney dealing with the ethnic and social mess in places like his homeland today.
To paraphrase Wiggins, Rodney is central and ever present in pursuing and fighting for unity.
– Nigel Westmaas
(From Stabroek News Letter Section, May 24 2005)
Main
Writings