Frederick Kissoon's personal testimony here isn't the least bit surprising. How, in his native land, a single empowered front-man could dictate the economic survival of entire classes, including the intelligentsia. (Guyana, about the same population as Nashville, TN., was a special type of isolated imperial experiment---but one not nearly so bad as that used on the Philippines.) The fascist powers-that-be in the United States and Europe had likewise corrupted nearly every field of higher learning and endeavor at least a quarter-of-a-century before. Leftist leanings, like the communist witch hunts in the '50s at colleges and in media; or the following purge of homosexuals at the State Dept. as the public's attention span waned, were only bugaboos for the real mandate---which was the imposition of a thought control on the general population, with the accrual of knowledge and history for everyone. Any "brainwashing" had nothing to do with the "cultists," who obviously were read-in to some kind of low-level clandestine operative business that looks like it cost most more than it paid. They didn't have to watch scenes of horror being endlessly looped on TV until Gallop had pronounced us indoctrinated. Doesn't this sound familiar?
With the Jonestown deaths we saw the last spasms of integrity in fields like medical pathology and mortuary science, where the despicable doings at Dover caught the attention of such honorable men as Dr. Lawrence K. Altman, writing for the New York Times. The old gray lady had let the dotty doctor carry on, lest they take a slip in their credibility of the Judith Mitchell variety. But these parts of the historical record which should have served as an indictment of the federal government, were simply shifted to a Plan B, which was to take a gulp, and dump it down the ashcan of consciousness
Let it be said that there were no further grumblings from establishment loose ends by the time Dover was again called upon to handle a large volume of, ummm... irregular...mortality, which followed the "attacks" of September 11th, 2001. By this time even the fundamental sciences had become so flawed that we went through the looking-glass, not down a memory hole. A world where someone's "no one ever thought they would fly airplanes into buildings," could dissolve two tall steel structures into a pair of giant pyroclastic mushroom clouds raining nuclear dust down on the heart of a, televised, metropolis.
For me, the question did Burnham kill Rodney is a moot one, since apparently someone else came along and killed Burnham while he was still at the height of his powerful Guyanese mind- or ballot-box control. I do think Burnham was involved, for the simple reason, he really did relish erudition in his fellow native Guyanese; but Rodney had committed the unpardonable sin of much-too-much; as he grew in intellectual stature and standing even after Burnham had banished him into irrelevance.
June 30, 2013, Kaieteur News, Letter, Did Forbes Burnham see me and Walter Rodney as Socrates’ children?, by Frederick Kissoon,
This is my final reply to Minette Bacchus. To continue a polemic with Bacchus is to encourage her in her pretence to intellectual claims. All her outpourings are banal repetitions of the same offering – Burnham didn't kill Rodney; provide the evidence; Rodney was an adventurer; WPA knows what happened and it goes on ad naseum. She will respond to any argument with these repetitive asininities. She did it with Tacuma Ogunseye, M. Maxwell, me and Errol Harry. She will go on doing it. All you end with is self-abuse by continuing any discussion with this woman.
But in her jejune attempt to come across as an intellectual discussant, she has self-destructed. The supporters of Forbes Burnham are going to maul her after which they will exile her. Was Forbes Burnham a dictator?
Guess who describes the nature of Burnham's rule after which the only conclusion is that Burnham was a dictator. Here is Bacchus in her own words. I urge readers to read this quote twice or maybe thrice or four of five times.
Bacchus wrote the follows words about how Burnham saw me (KN June 25); "The Forbes Burnham Government refused to employ a dishonourable person to lecture in Guyana's highest institution of learning. Kissoon was however fortunate under other administrations to be employed where he was given the opportunity to influence young and impressionable minds." (end of quote)
In 1974, after UG approved an appointment for Walter Rodney, Burnham intervened. Ten years after, he did the same thing to me. I came home from Grenada in 1984, got a UG appointment but Burnham intervened. What I am only learning now twenty eight years after, was that Burnham denied me employment at UG because I was not good enough to teach young people. Socrates was charged for treason for corrupting young minds. So I guess Burnham thought that Walter Rodney, Frederick Kissoon, Andaiye, Bonita Bone, Dr. Mohammed Insanally, Dr. Kathleen Drayton were not good enough to be exposed to young students. So we were either denied employment or sacked.
So Burnham, as we are now told by Bacchus, determined who work in their own country. UG was Burnham's personal institution so he decided who could be employed there. But if my memory served me right, Burnham didn't have an electoral mandate to decide who worked at UG. According to the political studies I did at three universities, this kind of action by Burnham would be classified as dictatorship. But Bacchus would say no. Burnham was right. He had the right to chose which Guyanese was to be employed where in their own country. I wonder if Bacchus supports the same practice under the PPP in today's Guyana?
< So there we have it. Burnham was a dictator and it came from the mouth of Minette Bacchus. I hope the Governor of New York is not inclined to decide who should work at which place in New York where Bacchus lives. If he assumes that power, I wonder if Bacchus would approve of him sacking her from her job. Now I am assuming all (not most) readers would like to hear from Bacchus as to where Burnham got those powers that he used against the names I referred to above. But I could answer that. Bacchus would tell us that Burnham was the elected President of Guyana therefore he had the right to decide who worked in Guyana period! Finally, Bacchus wrote that I pointed to some great achievements of Burnham but when she does the same I criticize her. What Bacchus left out (and which she is incapable of understanding) is that I criticize her because she leaves out the other half – the bad side of Burnham. I write on both sides when it comes to Jagan and Burnham. They had great qualities and horrible qualities at the same time. But let me acknowledge that Bacchus may be changing. Her description of Burnham's illegal and immoral denial of Guyanese the right to work in their own country is admission that Burnham was a dictator. I close my letter by saying that I can forgive Burnham for my employment denial, not the victimization of my wife. Burnham had no right to victimize her. She was purely a non-political person Frederick Kissoon