A brief history of...

Role of the pork knocker

The social organisation of “pork knockers” in Guyana’s gold production is a critical aspect that warrants consideration. These independent gold miners played a significant role in the gold fields, particularly after 1899 when mining regulations were introduced to allow the establishment of provision shops in the gold fields. This regulatory change meant that miners could obtain necessary supplies in exchange for raw gold, marking a significant shift in how operations were conducted in the region.

Douglas Smith (1969) provides insightful analysis on their impact: “the arrival of pork knockers in the field accelerated the decline of the companies because they constituted a counter attraction for gold labourers still under contract.” This statement underscores the transformative effect that the independent miners had on the traditional mining operations. The allure of working independently, coupled with the immediate access to supplies through provision shops, drew labourers away from the established mining companies.

The origin of the term ‘pork knocker’ is in dispute but Smith ventured that it might refer to the “miners habit of knocking salt pork on the rim of a cooking pot in order to remove excess water.”

Smith argued that the short-term nature of pork knocker operations was partly due to the easy access to provision shops. This accessibility, while beneficial in the short term, had long-term implications.

It “hindered them from prospecting new ground,” which, paradoxically, allowed the more formal mining companies to maintain viability over extended periods. This dynamic illustrates the complex interplay between the independent miners and the established companies, highlighting the challenges and limitations faced by the pork knockers.

The precarious position of the pork knockers became evident in comparison to the established companies. As Smith notes, their situation was “even more ‘precarious’ than that of companies.” This precariousness can be attributed to several factors, including the transient nature of pork knocking operations, the constant need for supplies, and the competitive environment fostered by the provision shops.

The pork knockers’ reliance on shortterm gains and immediate access to resources ultimately positioned them at a disadvantage, underscoring the inherent instability of their endeavours in the gold fields of Guyana.

In September 1906, a correspondent adopting the pseudonym ‘Bushman’, likely a pork knocker himself, voiced concerns about the taxation imposed on pork knockers. He lamented that such taxation served “to enrich the pockets of a few and leave the thousands to perish.” ‘Bushman’ further argued against the fairness of this system by emphasising the pivotal role of pork knockers in the colony’s development. He stated, “all the development is made by the pork knockers whose presence the colony should be proud of.” This statement highlighted a profound discontent with the economic policies of the time, which were perceived as disproportionately burdensome to the individual miners while benefiting a select few.

‘Bushman’ further pointed out the significant influence of pork knockers on attracting investment to the region, noting that “capitalists follow them.” This dynamic illustrates the crucial role played by these independent miners, not only in the direct extraction of gold but also in stimulating broader economic development through their entrepreneurial endeavours. But the entry of pork knockers also caused negative social issues. The influx of miners into remote areas led to social problems, including conflicts over land and resources, disruption of indigenous communities, and the introduction of social ills such as alcoholism, defiance of environmental regulation, illegal mining under time stamped laws, drug use, prostitution, and of course the always present danger of malaria.

Thus, the narrative of pork knockers is woven with threads of economic ambition and regulatory challenges, reflecting a sector marked by both its historical significance and the pressing need for reforms to address the ongoing issues of mercury use, gold smuggling, and illegal trading.

Working People’s Alliance (WPA) MP Eusi Kwayana introduced a motion in the National Assembly in the late 1980s urging the government to create a specialised financial institution, dubbed the “Pork-Knockers Bank”. This initiative aimed to provide much-needed financial assistance and resources to these independent miners, ensuring they had the means to sustain their livelihoods without resorting to environmentally damaging practices. The motion garnered support from various quarters, including the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), which recognized the potential benefits of such a bank in empowering local miners and fostering sustainable mining practices.

For his part Tom Dalgety, a miner and pan-Africanist, in evaluating the regulation of gold mining in Guyana, observed that the mining districts in Guyana were “mapped in 1942 in the era of British overlordship when mining was considered secondary to agriculture.” He remarked that the British “overlordship” was responsible for the mapping of these mining districts in that same year. Dalgety pointed out that “all categories of salaried workers such as cooks, excavator operators, bulldozer operators, greasers, and mechanics in the mining districts” required a Certificate of Registration to “lawfully work in the mining districts.”

Omai

A major cyanide leak in Omai River by Omai Gold Mines Ltd in 1995 led to the closing of the mine and a declaration of a disaster in the Essequibo area until 1996. The LA Times reported that “shoals of dead fish and hogs floated down Guyana’s biggest river …victims of a cyanide waste spill that continued to escape from a gold mine operated by US and Canadian companies.” Four years prior to this massive spill, artist Errol Brewster produced a 40-minute documentary “Ebeosa” for the Caribbean Conference of Churches. It examined the impact of “development strategies” (read mining) on the indigenous people of Guyana.

Omai has a storied past that extends beyond recent history. Webber reports that the “Omai Gold Mining company installed a hydraulic plant in September 1902” and by March 1903 “the company had extracted 2,255 ozs of gold”. Omai (for the Makushi it refers to a little black and red spider and for the Brazil Yanomami, a god), once a major player in the gold mining industry of Guyana, ceased operations in 2015 after 24 years of activity. It was heralded as “one of the largest gold mines in Guyana and the world, with estimated reserves of 3.7 million ounces of gold.”

Now, nearly a decade later, the 2024 announcement by Guyana’s Finance Minister Ashni Singh suggests a resurgence. Omai and other gold mining companies are set to make a comeback by 2026, underscoring the enduring allure and economic significance of gold.

It appears gold, as a resilient commodity, will continue to play a significant role in Guyana’s economy for years to come, forging a new chapter alongside oil (black gold) in its economy. This resilience is not only seen in the macroeconomic landscape but also in the microcosms of daily life in Guyana.

A particularly striking example is reported by New York-based Vice News, detailing the story of a market sweeper at Georgetown’s bustling Stabroek Market, notable for its jeweller’s shops with barred windows. The sweeper has ingeniously developed his own method of accumulating gold. After five hours of sweeping, he takes the collected dirt home to pan it in his bathtub.

This routine yields about six pennyweights of gold per week, which he sells back to the market for an additional $350 per week. His method, cleverly capitalising on overlooked resources, was shared with the Vice News reporter, accompanied by a knowing smile and a confident declaration from the sweeper: “Gold can’t hide.”