Articles by Janet Jagan
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RACE PREJUDICE
by Janet Rosenberg - September 2, 1942 - Room 1350 - Psychology 1
(1st known political writing by Janet Jagan, written while she was attending the Cook County School of Nursing)(Janet (Rosenberg) Jagan met Cheddi Jagan in early 1943)
SUMMARY
The psychology of race prejudice is not an instinctive antipathy caused by physical differences, but has its basis in fear. The cause of this fear may be traced to economic, social and political reasons or the fear that the “inferior” race might threaten the power and dominance of the “superior” race.
I chose this subject because I am interested in the attitude of the White man toward the Negro in the United States.
In making a study of the psychology of race prejudice, it is well to keep in mind that we are speaking of races from the anthropological point of view. There are three essential races, the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid. It is also well to keep in mind that one of the main accusations made by the prejudiced, that of differences in intelligence, is essentially wrong. W.I. Thomas expressed this clearly when he said that there are great differences in the mental abilities of individuals but not necessarily between different races.
Some authors maintain that the prejudices between the different races, particularly the White and Black, are instinctive. They claim that the Whites dislike living side by side with the Black and they resent intermarriage. This instinct they base on physical differences. Others, with clearer analysis, believe that such physical prejudices are a social creation rather than an instinctive aversion.
My point of view, in writing this paper, favours the latter. It is my belief that one of the main causes of race prejudice can be found in fear; the fear of one race being displaced by another.
I think that one of the main reasons for the strict taboo against intermarriage between Whites and Negroes can be found in the desire of Whites to keep the race pure, from fear I maintain, rather than from a strictly physical antipathy. This can be realised more fully if we look to South America, where we find a much lessened taboo and a gradual merging of the two racial stocks.
We can find the basis of the fear of the Negro by the White in the South. It is known that the Negro population is far greater than the White. The Negro there is restricted in countless numbers of ways – voting, opportunities of owning property, education, etc. Certainly all this cannot be accounted for by saying that the psychological basis is an instinctive dislike of their color and physical characteristics. I think that there is the psychological basis of fear – fear that the Negro, by his populational majority might control the governing bodies, over-run the professions and displace the Whites in it and acquire the domination of wealth.
We find racial prejudice manifested in many ways. We find an emotion of solidarity in the oppressed and a feeling of inferiority or an oppression psychosis. On the dominant race this is aggression. This can readily be seen in the South, with its Jim Crow laws and frequent lynchings. This can readily be seen in the army life today, with segregation of the Negroes, restrictions of the Negroes from various branches of the service and with small or no advancement permitted in the ranks. We know it is not a matter of ability, for it has been proven that the Negro is as capable as the White in learning the mechanical abilities of military life; again I say it is fear.
Then one may ask, “But what of the Yellow race, is there as great a prejudice against them by the White as by the White against the Black?” Again we have the same evidences. The laws passed against immigration of the Orientals to the United States are very stringent. The physical antipathy does not appear so great but the evidence of segregation and isolation of the Mongoloids on White territory are as great. In the United States this can be traced to an economic reason of fear – fear that the Yellow man working for smaller wages would displace the White man. In my opinion, it was not until the Yellow race in America created an economic problem that actual manifestations of racial prejudice began. If the latter is true it again illustrates that prejudice is a social creation rather than an instinctive aversion.
When we stop to consider that the White race is only one-third the population of the world, but is the dominant race, we must realise that it has been a continuous struggle to maintain that superiority. Much of this superiority has been maintained by creating these prejudices which have subjugated the other races. Of course, now, in World War II, we are in the process of attempting to overcome the growing superiority of a branch of the Mongoloid race. And so we see, by means of propaganda, etc., an increasing hate and prejudice against this race which is threatening the dominance of a branch of the White race.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Drake, Durant, Problems of Conduct, pp.429-430, Houghton Mifflin Co., Mass., 1921
- Miller, Herbert, Race, Nations and Classes, pp. 146-158, J. B. Linpincott, Pa., 1924
- Chesnut, Charles, The Negro Problem, pp. 81-83, James Pott Co., N.Y. , 1903
- Wissler, Clark, Men and Culture, pp. 296-301, Thomas Cromwell Co., N.Y. 1923
- Sat. Eve. Post, 214:14, June 22, 1942, The Case for the Minorities, Wendell Willkie.
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
(Article by Janet Jagan in 1961, first published in Thunder, tells of some of the forces who opposed independence for Guyana.)
During the Independence debate in the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Burnham spent some time on the question of guarantees and the liberties of the people. What guarantees, he wanted to know, will there be for the rights of the individuals, after independence ?
He was then reminded that at the initiative of the Majority Party, the Constitutional Committee had unanimously agreed that the new constitution should have a Bill of Rights providing for freedom of the individual as set out in the thirty articles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
But that did not please Mr. Burnham. Any government in power, he stressed, could change the constitution and take away from the individual the rights he enjoyed under the constitution. It must be made difficult to amend the constitution and urged that amendment must be by a two-thirds majority of the House.
Then Mr. Burnham was reminded that this very matter came before the Constitution Committee but his members voted against it. The voting on the motion that power to amend the constitution be vested in the Legislative by a two-thirds majority of those present was as follows:
How They Voted
FOR :Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Fredericks, Mr. Davis, Mr. Jai Narine Singh, Mr. Ajodha Singh, Mr. Saffee, Mr. Rai, Mrs. Jagan and Mr. Benn.
AGAINST: Mr. Tasker, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Kendall.
DID NOT VOTE: Mr. Bowman.
What better guarantees are wanted? In the existing Legislative Assembly there are 35 seats of which the Majority Party with twenty seats do not have the majority of representatives on the Constitution Committee. [The weakness of the members] of the Opposition is that their arguments are based on the wrong premises. They assume that the PPP, which is apparently the winning political party in BG (having won now three consecutive elections) will take away from people their liberties.
The shoe is really on the other foot, for it is the PPP which is the only political force in British Guiana which has consistently fought for the rights and liberties of the people. The PPP opposed the Emergency Laws, the legislation restricting the importation of literature, the bans preventing persons from entering the country, the detention without trial of persons.
More important than all, the PPP has fought fearlessly for independence which is the liberty of the nation to rule itself, which is really the basic human right.
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
by Janet Jagan (June 5, 2004)
Montalembert, a 19th century scholar said in 1863, this: "To judge the past, and really know what one is talking about, it is necessary to have lived the past. To condemn the past, one needs only to feel that one owes nothing to it."
That quotation passed through my mind when I read the PNC/Reform statement on Independence. The contents struck me as being in conflict with the reality and truth of the past.
The first is the PNC’s claim that "it is proud of the central role it played in achieving political independence for Guyana in 1966." In one sense it is true - in that the PNC struggled very hard and played every trick in the deck to ensure that independence did not arrive when it was out of office. They joined all forces, including working with and taking funds for dirty work from the CIA in order to delay independence.
The delay in independence, scheduled for 1963 when the PPP was in office under Premier Cheddi Jagan, satisfied the PNC, the United Force, the US government and the British Colonial Office. The PNC election slogan tells how much it supported independence — "No Independence Under Jagan."
The delay in independence was achieved by destabilizing the PPP government, but resulted in many deaths, many injuries, loss of many properties by fire and bombs and played on race, intensifying racial conflicts. So, yes, the PNC did struggle to prevent independence until all its allies maneuvered it into office by many means, including altering the whole voting structure to bring into being proportional representation (PR) which neither the USA or Britain would NEVER, EVER, continence for itself, or, for that matter, any other British colony.
The joke of that is - that is if one has a sense of humour - that now that PR has enabled the PPP to win government three times at general elections and at local government elections, the PNC wants to change the system and is doing its best to move closer to the former first-past-the-post system under which the PPP won three elections previously.
The second astonishing aspect of the PNC statement on Independence is this: "Our record in office aptly demonstrates our deep understanding and relentless efforts towards realizing this aspiration; true, the road has not always been smooth: our efforts, though all well-meaning, were not always successful and better decisions could have been made in instances. But the commitment of the PNC to nation building is indisputable... For too long the rights of our citizens have been trampled upon, to the extent that today the governing party believes it has the right to kill our fellow citizens at will" and so on.
So, according to the PNC’s understanding of its 28 years in office, it did a good job. In their way of thinking - yes - they did a good job - a good job of maintaining itself in office by massive electoral fraud - even killing two young Berbicians in the process! Police raids were rampant; PPP members were jailed and in one notorious case I recall - a prisoner was put in an ant’s nest in a lock-up in West Demerara.
Our civil rights were violated; the press was not free. I remember the trouble Mirror had when I was Editor, to get newsprint and supplies and to get printing equipment. Both the Mirror and the Catholic Standard were gagged by Burnham’s ingenious method of not banning the newspapers, but banning the newsprint!
Our mail was no longer private; our telephones were tapped; some were denied freedom of movement and could not leave the country. Parliament was a farce; paramountcy of the party was vaunted so shamelessly that the PNC flag flew over the Court of Appeal building in High Street.
The PNC accuses the PPP falsely, saying that the PPP believes it has the "right to kill our fellow citizen." What rubbish! A Commission has been set up to deal with the accusation about a phantom gang which the PNC hasn’t the common sense to welcome, because it has no evidence to offer.
People have been asking for too long, with no answer, about the brutal deaths during the PNC regime of Dr Walter Rodney, Father Darke, Vincent Teekah, Michael Forde at the Freedom House bombing, and others. Who was it that nourished and protected the deadly House of Israel? The list of criminal acts by the PNC is long and frightening. There is still a strong view that the PPP/C erred, when it took office in 1992, in not doing what was done in South Africa, having a national enquiry or a truth Commission into all the wrong-doings during the 28 years the PNC held office, and to lay charges against those guilty of misconduct.
Yes, the PNC has a "record in office" that bears close examination, but it is not a record of service to the people. The PNC built up a massive foreign debt with nothing to show for it - a debt which the PPP has had to deal with and which harmed our economy and the welfare of its people. So poorly handled were the social services, that the PNC had to close down its Housing Ministry.
Another touch of humour is when we hear PNCites screaming that the Housing Minister isn’t doing his business to their satisfaction! - after he’s distributed over 60,000 house lots, caused thousands of new houses to be built and has regularized the squatting areas that grew during the PNC regime because it had no housing plans or policy!
So much for their "record in office." I don’t have space to go on, but everyone who has lived through the 28 years knows what it was all about, including the ban on bread, flour, peas and so on. It was a "record in office" so great that the PPP/C in the first free and fair elections since the 60’s, won more votes than it did in any previous elections - well over the 50% needed to form the government!
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
Canadian Seamen in Guyana -1949
I thought of recording a piece of history which, probably very few Guyanese know. I believe that just about everyone involved in the incident is dead except for me.
It was one of Guyana’s early encounters with Canadians, but not high-level executives and engineers like those at the bauxite company in Mc Kenzie, now Linden, but with Canadian workers and trade unionists.
The happening took place in April 1949 when two Canadian vessels lay at anchor in Georgetown harbour, the Sunavis and the Sunwhit, owned by the Aluminum Company of Canada, Alcan. The Canadian Seamen’s Union had called a worldwide strike which meant that all ships in port with union members on board, were on strike, whichever port they were in. The Canadian Seamen’s Union (CSU) was seeking better pay for its seamen, a shortened work week of 48 hours at sea and 40 hours in port and a closed shop. There was also a jurisdictional dispute with ship owners trying to force CSU members to join another union, Canadian Lake Seamen’s Union and if not scabs were introduced to get CSU members off ships.
So it was in all, a highly explosive situation and one the CSU decided to fight by calling a worldwide strike of its seamen. In Georgetown harbour, when the strike began, police officers boarded the ships and eventually, when it was clear that the boats were not going to move, went for warrants for the arrest of the seamen.
According to the account in the book “Against the Tide” the story of the Canadian Seamen’s Union by Jim Green: “While there Sunavis crew waited for the warrants to be served, they were able to secure the backing of the British Guiana and West Indies Federated Seamen’s Union which vowed not to touch any CSU ships.
The British Guiana Trade Union Council declared that if this action was not sufficient, it would find other means of support. The seamen secured the gangplank and maintained watches. On April 4, two truckloads of steel helmeted police armed with revolvers, tear gas and rifles assembled on the docks and were loaded into police launches. They cast off and headed for the Sunavis.” The seamen were able to head off the show of force with words. They said “This is Canada” (meaning the ship) and as the book reported: “Amazingly the police turned and left without boarding or attempting to serve the warrants.”
The author expressed the belief that this was because a major sugar strike had just concluded and the Governor was anxious to avoid any more bloodshed. (Was he referring to the Enmore strike of 1948 which continued after the killing of the Enmore Martyrs on June 16, 1948?)
Scab crews were flown in from Canada, but there was some confusion because they were used to receiving higher rates than those offered to man the two Canadian ships. In the meantime, the crew of the Sunwhit did not do as well as those of the Sunavis. They were arrested and taken ashore and thrown in prison. They were charged and put on bail the next day.
The author records how the crews were supported during the strike: “Unknown to the authorities, the CSU members had two secret links to the shore. One was Cheddi Jagan, leftwing politician and organizer destined to become Guyana’s first premier elected under universal adult suffrage, who rowed out to the ship in a skiff to bring news and food.” The other shore link was a sailor who used to swim back and forth to the boat, unknown to the police.
I remember the period well. Dr Jagan, myself and others used to row out to the ships almost every night carrying water, loaves of bread and other food and news. We helped the crews to obtain the services of local lawyers and helped arrange accommodation and meals for the seamen who had been arrested and put on bail.
It was a heady period and the seamen were strong and courageous men, loyal to their union. We learned a lot from them.
The local unions, unfortunately were not strong enough to resist pressures. The TUC weakened and the Waterfront Workers’ Union members loaded and unloaded Canadian ships. Finally, the crew men of Sunavis were arrested and on June 1, 1949 they were behind bars in the prison.
The book notes that they were “driven up the street like a bunch of cattle to the court.” They were held in prison for 16 days before being released.
The story as it relates to Guiana ends thusly: “After attending a party thrown in their honour by Cheddi Jagan, they were flown home.” And so ends the story of the Canadian Seamen in Guyana.
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
Canadian Seamen in Guyana – 194
