Displaying President Burnham's portrait
Editorial
A debate had arisen in our letter columns over whether former President Burnham's portrait should be hung in the National Cultural Centre. It had been there, was taken down for cleaning and is to be replaced. Those who objected said Burnham had been a dictator who had oppressed Indians. He had also, they said, arbitrarily used funds from the Indian Immigration Fund to build the Centre which he had no right to do. Let us assume for the purpose of this discussion that Indians have a case and that there had been systematic discrimination against Indians by the Burnham regime. Would that justify the argument that his portrait should not be publicly displayed at the Cultural Centre, and by extension in Parliament or anywhere else? And what about places named after him and his family? Of course naming a lot of places after a political leader is never a healthy sign and is suggestive of a sycophantic society. But should each era impose its own sense of propriety and political correctness and view the past with a modern consciousness? Should history be rewritten and statues and paintings pulled down because they are not in keeping with what is now considered progressive or accceptable? The issue raised by the objectors is much broader than the narrow confines in which they expressed it. We firmly believe that history should neither be erased or rewritten. Each era had its own reality, harsh or unacceptable as that may now seem. But each generation should not sit in judgement on the past. The whole of our history has made us what we are. We should preserve it with integrity. Yet there are obvious exceptions to what should be publicly displayed. Stalin and Hitler were the two leading mass murderers of the twentieth century. Stalin's statues have been pulled down in Russia (there may be one or two paintings still around) and there are no public monuments to Hitler in Germany. Both men are, of course, referred to and dealt with in the modern histories of their countries though there has been some criticism of how Hitler has been dealt with in German textbooks for students. One doubts, too, whether any public portrait of Pol Pot can be found in Cambodia or of the leaders of the Hutu genocidaires in Rwanda or Idi Amin in Uganda. These men by common consent deserve no public respect or acknowledgment, though small minorities exist in Russia and Germany who still remember Stalin and Hitler with respect for ideological reasons. Even Burnham's worst enemies would not contend that he was remotely comparable with any of those tyrants. But more than that, there are a not insignificant number of Guyanese who still remember Burnham with respect as a man they believe achieved much for Guyana. A pulling down of Burnham's portraits would therefore be divisive, even if it could be argued, for example, that the portrait of a man who destroyed democracy should not be displayed in Parliament. Two broad principles can tentatively be established. First, past names of streets should not be readily changed nor statues and paintings pulled down. The past should be viewed tolerantly and with a sense of history. If one went through the museums and galleries of developed democratic countries many a rogue and vagabond, according to modern sensibilities, would be found displayed therein. Secondly, names of modern politicians and other eminent persons should not lightly be substituted for leaders of the past. There is some scope for their names being used perhaps when new areas are opened. And a nation certainly needs its heroes, ancient and modern. One can think of perhaps five or six famous Guyanese, all now dead, for whom there would be fairly widespread support for public statues or other acknowledgments, perhaps in the new millennium. 
|