Time for Burnhamites to defend the former president’s legacy

Israel on Alert After Lebanese Collapse By AP / AMY TEIBEL Israeli troops in the north were on alert Thursday over worries that the political turmoil in Lebanon might spill over into renewed violence on their shared border, following the collapse of the Lebanese government

www.gtonlinenews.com/


read the trash if u got time

Dear Editor,
I have been observing the debate surrounding the Oliver Tambo Award and Burnham; I have made my notes and decided to say my piece.It is clear that the political enemies and those who despise Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham (LFSB), Guyana’s first Executive President, have made a commitment to use every available means to denigrate the name of this iconic Guyanese political leader.
The recent controversy has inadvertently caused these people to expose their obscured preoccupation with a mission to tarnish Burnham’s image, and erase his rich legacy. So the reality of the Oliver Tambo Award, they believe, presents them a golden opportunity to launch their vile attacks on Burnham.
It is, however, time for those who knew and served with Burnham to set the record straight. Yes! It is time that the unfounded lies and propaganda, pedaled by a bunch of ‘yesteryear politicians’, and ‘Johnny-come-latelys’, be exposed for what they are.
The PNC/ Burnham haters must know that there are those who are willing to tear their propaganda apart and expose their wicked intentions. From what I read, it appears that a number of WPA sympathizers or members are claiming that Burnham, for reasons best known to them, may have had some knowledge of how Walter Rodney died. These pseudo intellectual and ‘redundant politicians’ for some strange reason talk of Rodney’s death but refuse to speak of the circumstances under which he died. Is this by design or is it that some things are better left unsaid?
I do not claim to know the details surrounding Rodney’s death, but public discourse has it that he died when something, either in his possession, or in close proximity to him exploded. I am not sure what the exact cause of death is, but I believe that the exact cause of death might tell us more about whether Rodney was transporting dangerous material or whether he was merely in close proximity to such materials.
I would want to believe that those ardent Rodney defenders and WPA executives ought to have read their leader’s death certificate…Or will they claim that Burnham tore it up?
To simply blame Burnham for Rodney’s death, because the two were political foes is idiotic, disingenuous and downright insane. I say bring me the evidence to support your theory, and dispel with the wild insinuations and insipid speculations. I am surprised that these same people have not seen it in their wisdom to petition the PPP/C government to reopen the Rodney case and call for an independent inquiry, since it was Dr. Jagan and the PPP/C who ran with this issue as a front-burner campaign promise in 1992.
Jagan and the PPP/C told Guyanese that should they be elected to power they would immediately reopen the Rodney case and conduct some special inquiry into his death. I believe this ‘mantra’ might have given the PPP/C the few Rodney votes that were left. However, it has been almost twenty-one years since the PPP/C has been in power, they changed five presidents, including Sam Hinds, and to date there is no such inquiry.
Where are the voices of the ‘so-called’ Rodneyites? Are these people serious? The neutral posture of these pro-Rodney/ Burnham haters, towards the PPP/C, on this matter, is very suspicious, and plays into the other popular narrative which says that Rodney’s death came a mere few days after some deal he had with the PPP/C turned sour.  What was this deal about? Will the vociferous defenders of Rodney enlighten the people? Did this deal backfire and prove fatal for Rodney?
And what about the comments coming out of key operatives of the WPA, that Rodney and his party were stockpiling weapons to overthrow the PNC, was this ‘the deal’ that backfired and caused Rodney’s death? If so, how did it backfire and what are the specific details? Did Jagan and the PPP double-cross Rodney?
It is said that many in the WPA describe themselves as intellectuals. It would, therefore, be a major disappointment if these ‘intellectuals’ refuse to examine all these different theories or claim that they are unaware of the existence of these well-known theories. Or are these Rodneyites, merely attempting to simply play a strange game of ‘dodge-ball’ with this issue.
The theories behind Rodney’s death are becoming more and more interesting and suspicious, every time one of the so-called Rodneyites speaks. I wonder more, if Burnham is not being used as a target to deflect attention from the true reason for Rodney’s death or whether political bankruptcy and irrelevance have forced some to use Rodney’s death to attempt to usher in a new breath of political relevance. One Eddi Rodney, in a letter published in SN dated May 4, 2013, and captioned “Time is catching up with the WPA”, lashed out at executive members of the WPA for joining forces with APNU. For some strange reason, he deemed this as an act of betrayal against Walter Rodney. The tone of his letter seems to suggest that Rodney was an uncompromising politician, who would not team up with anyone who did not share his ideas. If this is a true characterization of Rodney, I say, Rodney’s relevance, as a political leader, in this time would have been nullified. This new era of political leadership requires that leaders are able to reach across the aisle and collaborate with opponents, a phenomenon which is becoming increasingly recognized as the new modus operandi in the scheme of things political.
Mr. Eddi Rodney’s language presents Walter Rodney as someone who was more obsessed with perpetuating his ideology and thinking to the extent that he would have refused to even listen to anyone who shared a different perspective, as Mr. Eddi Rodney claims in his letter that ‘Walter Rodney was uncompromising…, and so he might not have even entertained the idea of joining a partnership such as APNU, even if that partnership is likely to be in the best interest of the people.”
I am in no position to make a definitive pronouncement on what kind of person Walter Rodney was and so I am, merely, being guided by the words of the Rodneyites and the so-called defenders of Walter Rodney. However, Eddi Rodney has said sufficient to make me come to a logical conclusion. Thus it appears that for Walter Rodney, his political ideology was paramount to national development. I therefore ask myself whether Walter Rodney’s politics was more about standing up to Burnham and perpetuating his ideology rather than looking at solving broader national issues. These Rodney defenders leave me with more questions than answers!
Regardless of whether or not South Africa decides to rethink its position and confer upon Burnham the Oliver Tambo award, Burnham’s legacy will live on. His leadership and wisdom which guided his party and nation to actively support the South African people during those dark years of apartheid cannot be denied.
Those of us who know what it is to be true to self will have no difficulty recognizing the sacrifice Burnham encouraged us, as a people, to make in order to help our brothers and sisters at a time when their own country turned against them. The now vocal Rodneyites, who also describe themselves as ‘black conscious’ and supportive of efforts to liberate African people across the globe, sat idly by and watched Dr. Jagan receive the said award, even though they knew Dr. Jagan and the PPP used the Mirror Newspaper to attack Burnham’s support for the South African people. Jagan and the PPP withheld support and accused Burnham of robbing the Guyanese economy to, according to them, “help his black brothers”. Yes, the PPP put a racial spin on Burnham and Guyana’s support for the South African people who were being oppressed by a white ruling class. Where were the voices of the Rodneyites and the defenders of oppressed people when Jagan received the Oliver Tambo Award?
It is clear as to what the agenda of these people is; it is simply to tarnish the work of LFSB. I, therefore, call on those who know different to speak the truth and educate people, especially our youth, of what a great leader and president Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham was. To do less is to leave the door open for the enemies of Burnham to attempt to define him.
It is time that the truth be told. Burnham will not be defined by those who hate him. Let objective reasoning and criticism guide any discourse on Burnham and his contribution to nation-building and his work on the international scene. I am emboldened to say that Burnham and Guyana have, given our limited resources, done more for South Africa during the apartheid era than any other Caribbean country.
Let the debate on Burnham, ‘The Caribbean man of 20th century’ begin. I expect his children and family members, those who work with him, those who knew him and those capable of objective political analysis, to lead the debate. His legacy warrants that you do this. To do less would be to allow his detractors to spew their venom. I would hope that the questions raised in this letter are answered, by either the Rodneyites the Burnhamites, or the Jaganites. Let the truth be told!
Lurlene Nestor

how about letting an american thug rabbi washington run around in gt

Dear Editor,
M. Maxwell’s irrational and sloppy arguments as per letter, “Posterity is always painfully cruel to dictators,” KN 25/5/2013, in response to mine “The evidence to date does not suggest Burnham was responsible for Rodney’s death,” SN 7/5/2013, exemplify the shoddiness that characterises discourses, mistaken as ‘smarts,’ and perpetuate myths as gospel.
For that writer to make a claim that my take on the Walter Rodney/Forbes Burnham issue confirms “the kind of logically suspect and morally strained analysis we suffer from with enduring constancy in Guyana and particularly, with respect to the Rodney assassination” the responsibility resides with the author of said statement to produce an honest and rational case debunking the positions I used in support of my case, which were and are:
1.    The examination of Walter Rodney’s political belief (armed revolution) using extracts from Rodney’s mentor, the world-renowned CLR James; and WPA co-leader Rupert Roopnarine;
2.    The reported statement of “an accident” by army personnel Gregory Smith regarding the device Rodney was given;
3.    The refusal of the WPA to use its muscle to bring to fruition the 2005 unanimous legislature vote to establish an independent international commission of enquiry (IICE)  into Rodney’s death and;
4.    The evidence to date does not say Burnham is responsible for Rodney’s death.
Maxwell’s evident failure to address or disprove any of the listed four through diversionary tactics, irrelevance and ‘facts,’ is deserving of exposure:-
According to Maxwell, “Ultimately and unequivocally, a powerful national figure like Walter Rodney could not be killed in a closely controlled police state like the Burnham-dominated Guyana in 1980 without Burnham’s prior knowledge, or more to the point, involvement and endorsement. That is a fact.”
Is it a “fact” that Burnham was ‘involved and endorsed’ the death of Rodney? Where is evidence to prove so? Is it a “fact” that Maxwell attributed to Burnham the “involvement and endorsement” of Rodney’s death? Maxwell’s quote confirms, yes. But does Maxwell’s “fact,” absence proof (indisputably the case) or evidence makes it a “fact” that Burnham was ‘involved and endorsed’ the killing of Rodney? No!
And is it a “fact” that an IICE was voted for to provide inquiry into Rodney’s death, and the “fact” that the WPA has failed since 2005 to mount an aggressive strategy to bring to fruition the IICE? Yes, on both counts! The presence of the former and absence of the latter are public knowledge.
And to Maxwell’s other irrational take that Tacuma Ogunseye’s questions to PNCR leader David Granger become “fact” that Burnham due to a “closely controlled police state like [his] in 1980” made him ‘involved and endorsed’ Rodney’s death, how does the writer account for Roopnarine’s 2010 admission that, “We [WPA] were accumulating weapons… we were accumulating equipment of various kinds. A certain amount of that was coming from the military.”
Refer to SN, September 19, 2010 “WPA had been accumulating weapons prior to Rodney’s death.”
Or how does Maxwell account for CLR James’ 1981 statements that “Walter did not study exactly the taking of power….He was the chief person of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA)….A key problem in the face of overwhelming state power is how to arm oneself against it. In fact, the arms for a revolution are there: the police and the army have them. What you have to do is win over a section of the army, and you have arms. And you could also take away arms from the government.”
And going by Maxwell, what makes Ogunseye ‘right’ about Smith’s role, Burnham’s alleged complicity in Rodney’s death, and disregard for a book detailing Smith’s account of June 13, 1980 (Walter’s date of death), and Granger ‘wrong’ to rely on said account? No substantiated reason, only ego- i.e. because they say so, it is so!
The WPA and PPP were/are the ones that blamed Burnham for Rodney’s death, so how can the PNC be in cahoots with the PPP on the Rodney issue? Maxwell is conveniently ignoring that the WPA has not taken a strong position to commence the IICE. Its former ally, the PPP, is in government for 21 years and the vbery WPA now sits in parliament- thanks to the ‘dreaded’ PNC- as part of the opposition majority. From this scenario who is/are really afraid of the truth emerging? Clearly, it is not the PNC!
Minette Bacchus