U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-04-2018, 09:10 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,934,609 times
Reputation: 3799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrizeWinner View Post
I see you have no problem with being incorrect ,it wasn't a violent incident early on. The unrest and riots happened in the 1960s by political terrorist such Burnham and the PNC regime.
It would actually be good if you tried to be objective. The PPP and the PNC BOTH engaged in political violence, so why only is the PNC blamed? So you are a PPP supporter but that doesn't give you the right to re-write history.


BOTH groups engaged in race based political violence and BOTH groups suffered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-04-2018, 09:40 PM
 
295 posts, read 181,377 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post
It would actually be good if you tried to be objective. The PPP and the PNC BOTH engaged in political violence, so why only is the PNC blamed? So you are a PPP supporter but that doesn't give you the right to re-write history.


BOTH groups engaged in race based political violence and BOTH groups suffered.
Well the PNC were aggressors,as they still are and the PNC attacked more than one party including the WPA and UF.PPPs problem was with you guessed it the PNC.

I am not a PPP supporter just because I don't back up PNC doesn't mean I am a supporter. Facts are facts, when PNC was in power more of the citizens were in poverty thats why there was a mass exodus of blacks, there was more business decay, and there was more terror and scare among its citizens. You didn't have the same amount of liberty when PPP came into power later on 1992.

PNC members and supporters have harassed and murdered there own black based group that are non-violent when they have disagreements with them,in contrast to the PPP that hardly attacks their own Indian based group.

The police are big PNC based and look at how much people they slaughtered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 10:38 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,934,609 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrizeWinner View Post
Well the PNC were aggressors,as they still are and the PNC attacked more than one party including the WPA and UF.PPPs problem was with you guessed it the PNC.

Id.
You are a PPP supporter as your rant is pure PPP propaganda.

I suggest that you read Eusi Kwayana's version of the events of the early 60s. He is no pro Burnham person and if you suggest that he is you will show your PPP bias.


I hope that you know who Eusi is.

Note that the WPA is now part of a PNC dominated gov't so apparently they don't particularly love the behavior of the PPP in their years of power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2018, 08:50 AM
 
295 posts, read 181,377 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post
You are a PPP supporter as your rant is pure PPP propaganda.

I suggest that you read Eusi Kwayana's version of the events of the early 60s. He is no pro Burnham person and if you suggest that he is you will show your PPP bias.


I hope that you know who Eusi is.

Note that the WPA is now part of a PNC dominated gov't so apparently they don't particularly love the behavior of the PPP in their years of power.
Being anti PNC doesn't make me a PPP supporter.


Kwayana is much regarded but Kwayana like others try to defend PNC out of fear since Kwayana was a part of them and even had to step down his position out of fear of Burnham thinking he has too much of a following.


The WPA is not part of the current PNC government they just had an alliance with them for the last election just like the other opposition part of the AFC. I don't know why you are so delusional,even if they did doesn't take away the fact that PNC you used to hunt WPA members down like Walter Rodney and Kwayana.

So much for Burnham being about black solidarity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Caribbean
7,577 posts, read 2,437,292 times
Reputation: 2743
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrizeWinner View Post
People here don't need to know what century it is or what your definition is by early on. Fact of the matter is disturbances occurred during the 1960s that's not early on in Guyana's history (meaning Essequibo,Demerara,and Bebrice)which goes back to the 1500s regarding colonialism.
Clearly we are speaking about earlier relations between East Indians and Africans. East Indians weren’t around in Guyana in the 1500s. Furthermore, wasn’t this your comment in the other thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrizeWinner View Post
Well these references you date back to the 70s and late 80s,the climate has not only changed but in reference to the time,many of the race relations would be biased because under dictator regime,social interactions among different ethnic groups are not going to be transparent.

Add to the fact that many of these reporters aren't going to research enough.
If you’re talking about references “dating back” to the 70s and 80s, too early to be treated as relevant, then to consider the 60s “early on” when it comes out to East Indian/African relations shouldn’t be an issue either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 04:58 PM
 
295 posts, read 181,377 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineDeCoeur View Post
Clearly we are speaking about earlier relations between East Indians and Africans. East Indians weren’t around in Guyana in the 1500s. Furthermore, wasn’t this your comment in the other thread?
We no,I don't know what you are speaking about.You must have a personal definition of early on. The early history of Guyana is 1500s or 1600s and down the timeline.Yes Indians came around 1838 I still don't see how that fits early on as the 1960s.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineDeCoeur View Post
If you’re talking about references “dating back” to the 70s and 80s, too early to be treated as relevant, then to consider the 60s “early on” when it comes out to East Indian/African relations shouldn’t be an issue either.
This is exactly what I am talking about what gives you the idea to call the 60s and 70s early on?


I never said the talked about references dating back to the 70s and 80s early on, you were the one that said there was a violent incident early.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineDeCoeur View Post
Early on there was one major violent incident in Guyana but that’s about it.




You can't define early on by your own definition , there has been pretty much serene interactions between blacks and East indians since the 1840s in Guyana. Problems came later on down the line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2018, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Caribbean
7,577 posts, read 2,437,292 times
Reputation: 2743
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrizeWinner View Post
We no,I don't know what you are speaking about.You must have a personal definition of early on. The early history of Guyana is 1500s or 1600s and down the timeline.Yes Indians came around 1838 I still don't see how that fits early on as the 1960s.


This is exactly what I am talking about what gives you the idea to call the 60s and 70s early on?


I never said the talked about references dating back to the 70s and 80s early on, you were the one that said there was a violent incident early.


You can't define early on by your own definition , there has been pretty much serene interactions between blacks and East indians since the 1840s in Guyana. Problems came later on down the line.
LOLOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2018, 10:39 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,037,574 times
Reputation: 5213
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny View Post
There is no defined notion as to who considers themselves "mixed". In fact one brother might identify as "black" and another as "mixed".

Yes, and that's dumb. How can you be from the same parent but two different races? That makes no logical sense whatsoever and highlights just how stupid race designations are. Race was invented as a political tool. Black people were treated like whites before somebody got the bright idea to establish an institution based on the oppression of a designated "out" group. Honestly, the best thing America could have done was to institute a "one drop" rule. They didn't realize it then, but it really solidified the identity of blacks in America and inadvertently set the stage for us to come back to who we really are. Without it we'd be like Brazilians and other people of color in the Caribbean who can't get their act together because they have a million different race designations. In a twisted way, America gave us a gift.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2018, 01:02 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,934,609 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrizeWinner View Post
Being anti PNC doesn't make me a PPP supporter.


Kwayana is much regarded but Kwayana like others try to defend PNC out of fear since Kwayana was a part of them and even had to step down his position out of fear of Burnham thinking he has too much of a following.


The WPA is not part of the current PNC government they just had an alliance with them for the last election just like the other opposition part of the AFC. I don't know why you are so delusional,even if they did doesn't take away the fact that PNC you used to hunt WPA members down like Walter Rodney and Kwayana.

So much for Burnham being about black solidarity.
I see that comprehension isnt your forte. Do you deny that APNU is PNC dominated? Well the WPA is part of APNU. Describe any ability of the various elements of APNU to thwart whatever it is that the PNC wants to do.


In the worst of Burnham's dictatorship Eusi was one of the heroes who stood up to him.

Your notion that he was afraid of Burnham, so peddles the PNC line is laughable. He did NOT leave the PPP with Burnham. He left when he realized that they had become Indo centered and so had no room for him as an Afro Guyanese.

He QUIT the PNC and set up ASCRIA which became one of the foundation groups of the WPA. Were he afraid of Burnham he would have drunk PNC soup like many others. It was Eusi who gave Rodney the space to round up an opposition element within the Afro Guyanese population towards the Burnham regime.

So I trust Eusi's analysis of the 60s more than I trust yours given that you repeat word for word the PPP's interpretation of what happened then.

And when did I say that Burnham was for black solidarity? The very fact that he hunted down Eusi and Walter gives credence to the fact Eusi has no reason to whitewash the PNC's role in the 60s. YOU on the other hand paint the PPP as angels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2018, 01:05 PM
 
7,437 posts, read 5,934,609 times
Reputation: 3799
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
Yes, and that's dumb. How can you be from the same parent but two different races? That makes no logical sense whatsoever and highlights just how stupid race designations are. Race was invented as a political tool.
It makes no logical sense to you as an AMERICAN. To most non Americans calling Adam Clayton Powell a black man is ridiculous. The man does NOT look black and in fact passed for white whenever he wanted to. If he had a brother looking like MLK believe me society would have treated them radically different. BOTH blacks and whites.

As to the ODR. You do know that all blacks aren't treated alike and never were. Rest assured that in the USA light skinned blacks are treated BETTER by BOTH black and white Americans than are the darker ones. In other societies they understand this so classify each as being part of different groups, given that each have different experiences.

Here is the difference between the USA and other parts of America. The light skinned "blacks" were excluded by law so used the more numerous darker blacks to battle this. It was a POLITICAL decision for them to adopt a "black" identity to garner the support of the majority darker blacks. That instead of fighting ODR. The joke is now light skinned blacks have incomes = whites while the darker ones remain considerably poorer. So I wouldn't be boasting ODR as much as you are. Many light skinned black Americans are loathe to have their kids marry dark skinned people.


Btw don't cry for the blacks of the English speaking Caribbean as I don't think that they are worse off than American blacks. The levels of black poverty one sees in the USA surely doesn't give me the impression that life for blacks is worse in those countries. One can see far more examples of black excellence in those majority black societies.

Last edited by caribny; 09-10-2018 at 01:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top