Racism in Guyana: Sharon Osbourne vs. Sheryl Underwood
Kaieteur News – Quite often people would comment to me on how I fell out with individuals with whom the whole Guyana knows I have an ongoing friendship. The latest was the diaspora activist, Norman Brown (see my column last Sunday and Monday).
I can’t see how my friendship with Dr. could be rebuilt. David Hinds, Dr. Nigel Westmaas and one of Guyana’s icons, Moses Bhagwan. These were people who I thought were deeply committed to the value of free election, more than any other nations in the whole world because Guyanese, including all three of these men, had fought bravely against the emergence of a dictatorship on Guyana brought about by a rigged election.
My mind is convinced that a rigid election is counter-critical to individuals’ 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 forces prime ministers and presidents to do positive things because their opponents are waiting to jump on them to describe them as dictators in order 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 cruelty of the March 2020 election were dangerous times since the first rigid election in 1968. I cannot understand how men and women who fought for constitutional rights, political rights, justice and might a free and fair election since 1968 called on the immoral thinking of constitutional skull protection and political degradation after defeating both of these toxic menus after 1992.
Yes, I admit that the flowers after 1992 were not a glorious bloom of flowers. There have been tremendous obstacles. But there were serious democratic restorations 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 legal rule under President Forbes Burnham.
Seeing friends applaud, and some quietly waiting for the NCV and March 2020 rigging was mentally painful for me. What does this discussion have to do with the headline above? Two television personalities – Sharon Osbourne, who is white, and Sheryl Underwood, who is Black, are hosting a popular talk show on American television called The Talk.
Osbourne defended Piers Morgan’s insensitive miscarriages against Meghan Markle claiming her friendship with Morgan. Underwood told her she was defending a man whose completeness was oblivious to the issues of the race in Markle’s criticism of the British monarchy’s attitude to her, Osbourne’s answer is one that holds countless lessons about life.
Osbourne asked why she is being called a racist when she is only defending her friend. Underwood’s response was philosophical and this is where the comparison with me and David Hinds comes into play. Underwood told Osbourne she was defending a friend who is insensitive to race issues. The dispute between the two women is now a global issue with their employer, the CBS network that is conducting an investigation.
Who is right and who is wrong? He doesn’t need any philosophy training to answer. Underwood is logical in claiming that you cannot defend a friend who does not see how victims of racial discrimination feel. The underground meaning lurking around the disagreement is that, in trying to save Morgan, one can claim that Osbourne himself was racially prejudiced. Simply put; if you can ignore your friend’s defense of others who display racist thinking, then shouldn’t your own embrace of racial prejudice be asked questions?
I think the Osbourne-Underwood conflict explains why I lost my friendship with Hinds. Hinds claims that the PPP interfered with the election so he did not win. To me that has several undertakings – racial glorification, rigid election approval, a careless attitude toward a country that has had constant political nightmares since Independence. The sacred values holding a country together, Hinds turned his back. I can’t see it the same way again.
In relation to Dr. Nigel Westmaas and Moses Bhagwan, they were quiet. But in that silence he set a certain state of mind and pierced my troubled mind. Both men have an outstanding record of fighting for free and fair elections. Bhagwan is considered a great figure in the political struggles of Guyana in the 20th century. With that great record, how could you have stifled your voice when Guyana was on the verge of returning a lasting power that would have returned us to Forbes Burnham horror days?
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper.)