Latest update March 28th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jun 12, 2011 Letters
Dear Editor,
Vishnu Bisram exhibits a deviousness that is simply amazing. So devious that absent a coherent response to any challenge of his skewed perspective on any issue, he invents his own formulations to argue against.
And what can be more descriptive of this than his letter captioned “Banning Foods that were important to Indian Dietary Habits was wrong”.
Here again we witness the predisposition of Bisram to ignore facts and realities that do not correlate with his agenda. He set out to make a case that the banning of certain foods under the PNC was directly targeted at the dietary habits of Indian Guyanese.
In so doing he ignored and continues to ignore the unequivocal fact that the items he cited formed as much an important part of the dietary habits of all Guyanese, including Guyanese of Indian descent.
And this was the central point I made in my response to his original slanting and mischievous missive.
To accept Bisrams’ position on this issue, one would have to deny or ignore the reality that food items like Potatoes, Split Peas, flour etc was important to the dietary habits of not only Indian Guyanese, but all Guyanese.
I particularly cited dietary preparations that that involved items like flour, split peas, potatoes etc. that formed the basis of meals Guyanese lived on.
Bisram’s inability to accept that these products were not exclusively used by Indian Guyanese in meal preparation is an example of his ignorance of what takes place in the kitchens of the other half of the Guyanese population.
Bisram attempts to buttress his looney arguments with assertions that I am unaware of the importance of these food items to Indian Guyanese, and that I did not think it was wrong for them to be banned.
Again, since nothing in my previous letter was even remotely indicative of this position, I have to conclude that Bisram is, as usual, trying to guilt people into accepting his line item veto of certain facts and realities.
And I will reiterate that someone who is incapable of objectively analyzing the effects of the banning of the food items he referenced in his first letter on the entire Guyanese population certainly cannot be trusted or counted on to objectively interpret the response to polling questions.
I am of the opinion that the prism through which Vishnu Bisram looks out upon this world and Guyana has no peripheral view or vision. And that is the foundational trait that gives growth to prejudice and intolerance. C’mon folks! The basis of his argument is that the use of bread is an insignificant dietary habit of Guyanese.
That is an unequivocal implication in any argument that suggests that a nation in which flour is banned only affects those who use it in the preparation of roti.
His argument also carries a proprietary racist implication, because it ignores how deeply the dietary habits brought by Indians to the shores of Guyana have become imbedded into the taste buds of the Guyanese mosaic.
But what can I say. Every nation has its Bisrams I suppose. And those that don’t would have to invent one, if just to provide an example that intellectual learning and advancing ludicrous arguments are not mutually exclusive individual characteristics.
Robin Williams
OAO Technology Solutions
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 28, 2024
Minister Ramson challenge athletes to better last year’s performance By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Guyana’s 23-member contingent for the CARIFTA Games in Grenada is set to depart the...B.V. Police Station Kaieteur News – The Beterverwagting Police Station, East Coast Demerara (ECD) will be reconstructed... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]