Renaming of Lady Musgrave Road
Dear Editor,
Recent exchanges in one of our daily newspapers on the renaming of Lady Musgrave Road highlight how we perceive our past as slaves and colonials, and our present as free and independent people.
Self-respecting countries use place names to recognise and represent highly valued aspects of their history which make them proud. With very few exceptions, however, this does not appear to be the case in Jamaica. Our counties, parishes, capitals, cities, towns and many of our major streets still bear the names of those who presided over the enslavement of African Jamaicans, indentureship of Asians and the evils of colonialism. Yet, little if any concerted or comprehensive effort has been made to rebalance this in a sensitive and responsible way that would engender pride in ourselves, our ancestry and our triumphs over dehumanising oppression. No wonder then that we have not yet developed a vibrant, committed society and nation, one that is sure of itself.
It is not clear to me what there is in Lady Musgrave that is so elegant that it cannot be captured in another name. What is it about Lady Campbell, Lady Glasspole, and Lady Cooke – wives of three post-Independence governors general – that makes them less elegant than the wife of a colonial governor who is alleged to have been racist enough to spend taxpayers’ money to avoid driving by the elegant (?) home of a black Jamaican? History tells us of the views of the esteemed governor himself.
AG Gumbs’ letter reminds me of the very self-serving and specious arguments used to justify slavery and colonialism by those who denied the humanity and dignity of the enslaved in Jamaica for hundreds of years. Indeed, in the context of modern Jamaica, “infamous” better describes many of the names which the writer views as deserving of worshipful protection. There is an appropriate place in our history for them, but not as a projection of who we are as a new nation and people with a varied heritage.
Ironically, the disdainful reference to “Reggae Land”, “Anancy Island”, “Busta or Manley Republic” tellingly makes the argument for changes which AG Gumbs so patronisingly and haughtily dismisses. If his tongue was in his cheek, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, for he ought to be careful lest he, rather than Mr Penso, validate the belief that racism, which he claims to reject, is in fact not “dead and gone”, but alive and well.
H Dale Anderson
hdaleanderson@hotmail.com