THE EDITOR: As a Trinidadian political scientist, I am duty-bound to pay my respects to Prof Selwyn Ryan on his passing. It is my honour to do so. He is an elder statesman and distinguished veteran in the profession.

Ryan's work looms large and dominant in the accounts of our political history. His lifetime dedication remains palpable, material and enduring. It is evidenced in the continuous stream of publications since his own PhD thesis from the University of Toronto was published in 1971 as the seminal 'Race and Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago.'

Ryan left an invaluable chronicle of our political development - through the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s - even if some of us were often vexed by his interpretations. He took it upon himself to document and chronicle political history as it happened. For that civilisational task of leaving a written record of our past, for future generations to ponder, learn from and debate, Ryan must be highly honoured. Sadly, no one has taken up the baton that he has left with his passing.

To be frank, we disagreed on quite a bit. In fact, my PhD work was a direct challenge to his. I became aligned with Lloyd Best on that side of the debate on how best to understand our politics and sociology. For many years, Ryan and I were printed side by side in the Sunday newspapers, presenting our differing views of current political developments.

Yet, despite our sometimes deep philosophical and academic differences, we were able to have a personal relationship of respect and collegiality. The respect he had for profound differences of opinion is the mark of a true professional, dedicated to his craft and devoted to the discipline. He knew that intellectual debate is crucial to the development of one's own civilisation. This understanding, sadly, appears to be lost in today's cancel culture.

I remember writing my own dissertation (later published as a book), trying to couch my profound disagreement with Ryan in civil and respectful, even subtle, terms. I summarised my criticism of his work as having a 'concentration on racial and ethnic issues above all else and a parsimoniousness with regard to facts.'

I anxiously waited for his response. How was he going to take it? I wondered. His response came in his review of my book published in the Sunday Express. He good-naturedly acknowledged and referred to my criticism of him. He then countered that he thought I had cluttered my own analysis with too many facts. Fair enough, I thought. He was magnanimous. I was grateful.

Notably, our general disagreement occurred within a wider, common, shared context. This is extremely important. We respected intellectual work and intellectual differences. We highly regarded our Caribbean predecessors like Gordon Lewis, Lloyd Braithwaite, MG Smith, CLR James, Eric Williams, Daniel Crowley, Hewan Craig and others. Even if we didn't always agree with our predecessors, we knew and respected what they said and thought.

We also agreed that the experience of independence for TT fell short of what wa