Comments on: Birdsong Battles in Little Guyana

By: Pavani

Pavani — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:45:57 +0000

As mentioned above, if RH is home to NYC’s biggest concentration of Sikhs and also the Little Guyana community, then it’s hardly surprising that Sikhs would appear in some of the photos in a story on Little Guyana. I guess I would add to pind’s questions…If Sikhs can be pictured, especially in the lead/main photo for the story, why can’t they be mentioned? The story feels incomplete, and perhaps suggesting to some — especially with its choice of lead/main photo — that turbans are a significant part of the Caribbean Indian heritage, when there is no mention of “Sikh” in the story.

By: Pind to Ghetto

Pind to Ghetto — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:56:15 +0000

Yeah but if that Sikh couple was in Little Guyana… where is the deception? Trying to say that there are no Sikhs living in Little Guyana? If they are part of the neighborhood why can’t they be pictured?

By: Pavani

Pavani — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:28:25 +0000

Inspired by the comments here and another SM blogger who has written to the NYT, I wrote to the writer of the Little Guyana piece about the discussion here re: misleading photos. Kilgannon wrote back to say that he'd mention it to the desk and see if they can revise. Also, the photographer and writer worked separately on it, it seems, but I do not know how to directly contact the photographer.

I'll comment here or update the post if I learn of any changes or revisions.

By: guyanese

guyanese — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:44:29 +0000

lemmie tell yuh. Tha picture is definatly Indian Sikhs and not Guyanese of any form. Guyana has absolutely no sikhs and we are a different people from traditional Indians. We are of indian descent just like jamaicans are african decent.

By: Pavani

Pavani — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:02:14 +0000

Thanks for the additional info. It looks like Richmond Hill has the largest Sikh community in NYC in addition to having a Little Guyana and the photos portray that but seem out of place in an article that is not about RH's Sikh community and doesn't mention them other than to note turbans. And I would agree that the article has an exoticizing/orientalizing tone to it, even sans dance video, just opening up with "One must first reconcile the sight of saris and turbans with lilting English inflected with Creole."

By: Pind to Ghetto

Pind to Ghetto — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:16:31 +0000

Indo-Caribbeans are not "exotic" enough, we don't wear turban or speak a South Asian language. So the NYTIMES had to orientalize us, in an effort to categorize us.

They should've just posted a video of someone doin' the "Trini wine", that's pretty exotic. LOL.

By: Nalini

Nalini — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:06:28 +0000

No. Indo-Caribbeans are not Sikh. They are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or atheist. Maybe some have converted to different religions over the years, but generally Punjabis went to Canada in the nineteenth century, not to the sugar colonies. Indo-Caribbeans are not “exotic” enough, we don’t wear turban or speak a South Asian language. So the NYTIMES had to orientalize us, in an effort to categorize us.

By: Pind to Ghetto

Pind to Ghetto — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:20:16 +0000

Could some of the Indo-Caribs be Sikhs? Know anything about the Sikh diaspora in the Caribbean?

I know that Yogi Bhajan has quite a following in Trinidad.

By: Amitabh

Amitabh — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:05:37 +0000

That’s a misleading article. It talks about Indo-Caribbeans yet the picture shown is of Sikhs; and the description of people in turbans also has nothing to do with Indo-Caribbeans. Richmond Hill does indeed have a lot of Indo-Caribbeans but it has a lot of Sikhs too.