Dear Editor,
Jamaican reggae superstar Chronixx reminds us in his song Captive Land, this (Guyana and the rest of the Caribbean region) is all ‘captive land’.” In other words, every parcel of land we now occupy sits on a history of conquest, dispossession and forced labour. In such a context, the idea that some Guyanese can be labelled “squatters” on Guyanese land is not just illogical – it is deeply offensive.
Recent media reports emanating from the Government about Mocha Arcadia “squatters” begin processing land ownership documents highlights an important and positive step: families who have lived for years in Mocha Arcadia are finally being regularized and given security of tenure. That is welcome. But the term used to describe them – “squatters” – tells its own story, and it is one we should retire with immediate effect.
Words shape how we see people. “Squatter” is a criminalising, dehumanising label. It suggests lawlessness, disorder and illegitimacy, as if the people in these communities are somehow less deserving of dignity, services and rights. It erases why informal settlements exist in the first place: unequal access to land, unaffordable housing, historic and ongoing discrimination, lack of a social housing policy and the failure of planning systems to keep pace with people’s needs.
In Guyana, of all places, we cannot ignore that land was taken from Indi-genous peoples, carved up into plantations, then redistributed in deeply unequal ways after Emancipation and Indepen-dence. Generations of African Guyanese, Indian Guyanese, Indigenous and mixed-heritage families have had to “make out” in whatever space they could access – whether or not a bureaucratic title existed. To now call those same people “squatters” on land in a country that is legally and morally theirs is a bitter irony.
The lands in Guyana belong to Guyanese. That does not mean we do not need planning regulations, zoning, or safety standards – we absolutely do. But it does mean that the language we use must recognise the basic legitimacy of people’s claim to live and build a life in their own country. No Guyanese trying to house their family on state land should be reduced to a term that implies they are trespassing in their own home.
We already have more accurate and respectful terminology: “informal landholders”, “informal settlers”, or “residents in informal settlements”. These phrases describe the reality – people occupying land or housing without formal title – without stripping them of dignity or implying criminal intent. They also align better with how international human rights and development frameworks speak about housing and tenure.
I therefore urge the media, government agencies and policymakers to:
Discontinue the use of the term “squatter” in all official and public communications.
Adopt people-centred language such as “informal landholders” or “residents in informal settlements”.
Frame regularisation exercises, like the one at Mocha Arcadia, not as ‘clean-ups’ of squatters, but as the long-overdue recognition of Guyanese families’ rights to secure, serviced, safe communities.
If we are serious about building a just and inclusive Guyana, we must start by talking about our people in ways that reflect their humanity and history. Retiring the term “squatter” is a small but necessary step in that direction.