Dear Editor,
One may think that the case was well-made, as if one were necessary, for the location of a monument to commemorate the 1823 Demerara Slave Revolt in Independence Park, formerly Parade Ground. This should hardly be a matter for protracted disputation; the historical evidence being overwhelming. Our society, regrettably, has become less and less susceptible to reasoned arguments particularly on matters of a sensitive nature and, after a year of intense acrimony and recriminations in the political sphere, an exchange on the state of the weather can incite a storm.
We are fortunate to have some thorough and incisive accounts on the revolt and there is very little more that can be said. Foremost is the superb analysis by Professor Emeritus, the Rev Winston McGowan, highlighting, inter alia, the impact of the uprising on the institution of slavery in the Americas and especially on the anti-slavery movement in England that would eventually culminate in the abolition of slavery in August 1834. Further, two editorials in the Sunday Stabroek of December 9 and 23, 2012, carefully explored the historical evidence on the rising as well as remarking on the three anniversaries that fall in this year.
Additionally, there is the recent meeting of a number of African interest groups at the Bethel Brethren Church that left no doubt about the participants’ resolve to have a monument placed at Independence Park. The group included representatives from the African Cultural and Development Association, the African Guyanese Council, the Pan African Movement and the Guyana Institute of Historical Research. Among them were recognized historians, political scientists and attorneys. There has also been increasing contribution from private individuals as is the current one.
When the revolt is viewed against the wider global developments of its time, its historical mark is even more impressive. In its climacteric consequences on the future and the fortunes of people of African descent in the entire Americas, as well as on the peoples of the African continent, it cedes priority in historic grandeur only to the French Revolution of 1789 and the ensuing uprisings in Saint Domingue that led to the independence of Haiti.
The Demerara Revolt preceded the revolutionary wave in Europe of the 1830s that commenced, as expected, in the Paris communes in July; then in Au-gust the Catholic Walloons and French-speaking sectors broke away from the Dutch-speaking Netherlands to establish an independent Belgium; then Poland, partitioned and reformed, tried again to break away from the Russian empire. In England, after widespread pressure, the first of the wide-ranging changes in the electoral system took place in the first Reform Act of 1832 that ended the rotten boroughs and opened the path to the full democracy we know.
The Demerara Revolt has been internationally recognized as a major event in the resistance to subjugation and in the advance of freedom. It therefore finds a place in the International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, published by Blackwell, alongside the three French Revolutions of 1789, 1830 and 1848; the last two being considered as having as immense an impact as the first. On the American side, the Encyclopedia of Slave Resistance and Rebellion, published by the Greenwood Publishing Group, also gives fair attention to the matter. Thus, the 1823 Revolt has already established a monumental presence in the historiography of revolution and resistance. We are late in our considerations of a monument; perhaps the national attention rightly paid to the earlier Berbice Revolt of 1763, may have diminished our concerns for the later event.
It is interesting that, although at a public ceremonial event twelve years earlier, on August 1, 2000, an official decision to erect a monument at Independence Park was indicated, reminders of that act have come only from the proponents of Independence Park; there has been no statement or reference to the ceremony from official quarters. Like so much that has occurred over the last decade, the good faith in the commitments made comes into question.
Thus, an opportunity is lost to rally the nation to contemplate certain extraordinary achievements as truly national occasions, rather than partisan, and to cultivate understanding and appreciation of the continuing contribution of every citizen to the consolidation of the state void of lip-service. The passing of Philip Moore, eminent citizen, was allowed to occur without timely and appropriate national recognition. The posthumous Lifetime Achievement Award eventually extended six months later, and specifically created, may have shed some of its lustre in time.
Did the Demerara-Essequibo slaves know anything about the turmoil unfolding in slave-based societies? The late eighteenth century was packed with slave revolts and other insurrections. The acclaimed French uprising would have inspired the revolts in Saint Domingue and Guadeloupe; whereas those in Berbice, Grenada, Jamaica, Suriname, Venezuela and the Windwards may have been home-grown. The early nineteenth century saw no abatement; there was such vehemence and single-minded purpose in the revolts in Richmond, Virginia (1822), Demerara (1823), and Jamaica (1831).
Geographically separated and almost hermetically sealed by the rigidities of the institution, though, as in the case of Demerara, the activities of the London Missionary Society had opened some information to the slaves, only the masters may have known about the global developments. Yet knowledge of external happenings may not have been critical. For, in the long course of human history, the irrepressible instinct to rise against tyranny and oppression has never been subdued. And if the Demerara-Essequibo slaves were unread, they certainly were not unlearnt.
That is why the colonial authorities, fully grasping the implications, reacted with such barbarity and savagery. From time to time English colonial policy has displayed such inhumanities as is currently evident in the newly available documents, previously secluded for over six decades, on the Mau Mau uprisings in Kenya during the early 1950s. (One report asserts that some documents on British Guiana in the early 1960s are also at this previously undisclosed destination.)
The decision to locate a monument to this major revolt must be guided primarily by the evidence of history. Second, due respect ought to be given to the judgment of the citizens of African descent and the organizations which represent them. Arbitrarily, to do otherwise, whatever misunderstandings and miscommunications are being claimed, will be another reminder of colonial attitudes and strengthen the apprehension that other speculative motives exist.
This year of anniversaries can also be one of national commitment. On our part, citizens of African descent and their representative organizations may find value in a commitment to accept any financial requirements to complete a commemorative project in a place of our choice, notwithstanding the fact that our ancestors have already fully discharged this undertaking.
Yours faithfully,
Cedric L Joseph
