Dear Editor,

It is very disturbing that whenever we celebrate Emancipation the fictitious stories that are told by many of our historians are taken as factual by many of us.

In particular, this very false notion that our ancestors abhorred slavery has been nurtured by our so-called historians to the point that very few of us think anything else could be true. A clear understanding of slavery proves that, while many would not want to have been slaves themselves, the institution of slavery itself was not seen as evil.

Take the case of the Jamaican Maroons. Many of our historians are clearly very determined to rewrite history to suit today’s political correctness. Jamaica’s Maroons are always presented as fierce anti-slavery warriors. However, the Maroons were not actually fighting slavery at all. The Maroons were actually fighting British rule. Many historians routinely confuse the two.

This fact is clearly backed up by the peace treaty that the Maroons signed with the British. Among other things, the Maroons agreed to help the British defend the island from foreign invasions and they agreed to help the British maintain order on the island. Perhaps most importantly was the fact that that peace treaty obligated the Maroons to return escaped slaves to their owners. Indeed, slavery continued long after the peace treaty was signed, with no further Maroon resistance. How do our historians manage to twist this fact into an anti-slavery struggle is beyond me.

Then we have the case of Jamaica’s Samuel Sharpe — a national hero. Again, Sharpe is always presented as a slave determined to end slavery. His famous statement that he would rather die than be a slave has been so misrepresented and taken out of context that Sharpe himself would have been shocked if he was alive today.

Thanks to our “historians” most of us are unaware of the fact that Sharpe’s original quarrel was not about Emancipation. Sharpe initially wanted the slaves to remain slaves. His initial issue with the planters was not about freedom, but reduced working hours. When the planters refused to give him the time off that he wanted, it was then that he began to have bigger aspirations. Imagine what would have happened if the planters had agreed to his original demands.

The correct context that Sharpe’s statement about him preferring death to slavery is not that he abhorred the institution of slavery, but that he himself did not want to be a slave. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

There are cases of former black slaves, after winning their freedom, becoming slave owners themselves. Indeed, it is little known that the first slave in America was actually owned by a black man.

To put the whole issue about the dislike of slavery then into its correct context is to see it within the context of some type of jobs that none of us would like to have today — but which must be done. Take the job of cleaning septic tanks for example. No one wants to do it, but it has to be done.

The whole truth of the matter is that most of the Africans who were shipped here came from environments where slavery was the norm. To the vast majority, their new slavery wasn’t much different from what they were accustomed to in Africa anyway. How then do these so-called historians expect us to believe that these Africans would then be so opposed to the institution of slavery?

Another truth that is uncomfortable to many is the fact that Emancipation has more to do with economics and less to do with morality. Indeed, if the economics of the institution of slavery was profitable, we would most likely still be slaves today. Let’s therefore celebrate Emancipation in truth and not wishful thinking.

Michael A Dingwall,

michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com