We are a most singularly modern...

My condemnation of Prime Minister Mottley`s act of omission (she omitted to acknowledge Guyana`s and Burnham`s contribution to the liberation struggle of the Southern Africans and South Africa, specifically, on the occasion of the 20th Annual Nelson Mandela Lecture) has attracted the attention of some, who applauded her for her action based on their view about Burnham`s rulership in Guyana. Of note, is that none of the naysayers did or can contest any of the

Public Service there are the following: Personnel Officer 1, Personnel Officer 11, Senior Personnel Officer, Principal Personnel Officer, and the rare Chief Personnel Officer; and if I may add there is the interesting coincidence of the “Typist’ and the ‘Personnel Officer’ existing contributions of Guyana and/or Burnham to liberation in Southern Africa. Here under I will give reasons to show that Mia`s act of omission and the commendation of her act are devoid of reason and logic, and can only be identified with malice.

As already stated, they have not and cannot dispute the facts: Guyana`s and Burnham`s contribution to the Southern Africans liberation struggles.

If their basis for not wanting to recognize Guyana and Burnham is his rulership, how is it that she recognized Castro and from since the Colonial Era?

It just goes to show that we are a most singularly modern administration. Hesitantly, my young friend retorted: foreign employers (and even employees) must be quite puzzled. Join the chorus!

Sincerely, E. B. John her cheerleaders associate themselves with that hypocrisy? The alleged rulership atrocities of Burnham pale in comparison to those alleged of Fidel, yet they uplift Fidel and seek to denigrate Burnham. The aforementioned is by no means an endorsement of their disposition to Castro. It’s a mere illustration of their hypocritical behaviour.

How could Mia claim to have received a baton from, and be standing on the shoulders of, her predecessors and in the said breath omit Burnham who was a colossal forerunner? There is no basis upon which that baton or shoulders can be constituted to the omission of a cog (Burnham), if not the spindle, of those integers. Any such omission cannot be based on judgment. His contribution is a matter of irrefutable fact that would be distorted by any such omission. The omission can only equated to intellectual dishonesty.

On the question of carrying forward a baton of predecessors such as Barrow, Manley and Williams, it should be noted that Mia Mottley comes from the belly of, and stands at the head of, the Barbados Labour Party, which supported the invasion of Cuba by the Americans. She is not the natural recipient of that baton. She is a recipient by default.

It should also be noted that when a Western journalist questioned Mandela`s sustained association with Arafat, Gadhafi and Castro based on the Western take on their rulership, Mandela was emphatic in his response that those were the persons who supported the ANC when in need and that it would have been an act of ingratitude for him to treat them in the manner in which Peter denied Jesus. Mia`s actions demonstrates a disconnection with the ideals and praxis of her proclaimed hero.

Whatever might be one`s view about Burnham, it has to be hypocritical to deny his factual contribution, more so when laying claim to the inheritance of his legacy, and worse yet exhibiting double standards when being judgmental about him. Sincerely,

Vincent Alexander

Chair

Forbes Burnham Foundation