It was Mr Eusi Kwayana who first drew attention in a letter to the name-change on the board outside the archives on Homestretch Avenue from ‘Walter Rodney Archives’ to ‘The National Archives’. Exactly when this happened is not altogether clear, but it seems to have been more than a year ago. The fact that it was done without any public announcement, and most significantly, without reference to one of the partners in the APNU alliance, i.e., the WPA, has given critics leverage to accuse the PNCR component of harbouring political motives for the change.
Whether or not the decision was politically inspired, the argument for reverting to something close to the original name for the institution does not hinge on political considerations, but rather on technical ones. Unfortunately, however, the issue has now become conflated with others which are indeed political in character, such as the government’s failure to publish the report of the Rodney Commission of Inquiry from 2015.
It is true that the naming of the public archives in 2008 under a PPP/C government was likely done for political reasons. The building in Homestretch Avenue was new, and questions about the full circumstances of its construction and whether or not it met international criteria for preservation purposes have never been fully answered. It has now emerged that the name given to the archives after they were transferred from Main Street was not gazetted, so strictly speaking the ‘Walter Rodney Archives’ has never been a legal designation. That, however, is neither here nor there, since the situation could have been regularised at any point.
Similarly, the PPP’s current criticism of the name-change is also undoubtedly political in character, with former presidents Donald Ramotar and Bharrat Jagdeo inveighing against the erasure of the Rodney name from the signboard. Former Minister of Culture Dr Frank Anthony was quoted by this newspaper as saying: “I think it is a travesty that Dr. Rodney’s name is removed from the National Archives…it is just malicious and I don’t know what it would gain in trying to erase some people out of our history.” Dr Anthony, one would have thought, has been around the political firmament too long not to know that the PNCR does not seriously believe it can efface Dr Rodney from the historical record by the mere removal of a board.
All of that aside, the central question relates to the conventions surrounding the naming of public archives and the reasons for these. Nearly all major collections of public records in the world are called ‘National Archives’ or ‘State Archives’ or some similar appellation. The reason is simply that they represent the papers generated by the state or its agencies at some level, and/or non-state public institutions like churches, for example, or newspapers, etc.
They do not represent the papers of a private individual, although some national collections contain documents from private sources. These are often not integrated into the main sequences as a condition of the donor, or else if they are on long-term loan. They will be called the ‘x’ collection or ‘x’ papers, or even, perhaps, if the records are particularly voluminous, the ‘x’ archive. They will also be indexed separately.
Our public records, attenuated though they are, nevertheless fall fully within the standard definitions for national collections. Those that have survived begin in the seventeenth century and continue into modern times. They are not associated with any one person or any limited period, and they do not represent the papers of the late Dr Walter Rodney in any sense. It is misleading, therefore, to categorize our public documents as being those of Dr Rodney; they are not. A nation’s archives cannot belong to one man or woman; they should carry the description ‘National,’ or something similar to indicate they are part of the nation’s patrimony.
The irony of all of this is that the man who probably would have objected most strongly to the initial renaming of the national archives would have been Dr Rodney himself. This was not just because he was an inherently modest man, but because as a consummate historian who had worked in archives on more than one continent, he would have recognised the misnomer that the name ‘Walter Rodney Archives’ represented. Of all people, he would not have wanted his name usurping that of the nation. Furthermore, it must be emphasised that Dr Rodney never confused his role as a professional historian with his political activism.
There is nevertheless a solution to this particular contretemps, and it was first suggested by Prof Mary Noel Menezes back in 2008, after then President Bharrat Jagdeo had been informed that to call the national archives after Rodney was inappropriate. As is known he took no notice. Prof Menezes proposed that the archival collection should remain the national archives, but that the building itself could carry the name of Walter Rodney.
It might be noted that this is in line with what obtains in the case of Castellani House, which houses the National Gallery of Art. The collection itself is not known as the Castellani Gallery, but the building reflects the name of the 19th century architect who designed it. In common parlance people often say they are going to ‘Castellani’ when they want to view an exhibition, and the name of the structure in the public mind is evocative of the art found within its walls.
If the present government at some level failed to make public its decision on the name, then it has to be said that when the PPP/C administration instituted the first change, they did so without any reference to historians in the field or anyone familiar with such matters. At the time the new building was under construction, then Minister Anthony said it would be decorated with historical artefacts – what kind was never divulged − and that a painting of Dr Rodney done by an artist affiliated to the WPA would be hung in a prominent place. So was the painting done? Does it hang in a prominent place if it was? It is an associated matter, one might have thought, the WPA might have an interest in.
Finally, it speaks volumes about our politicians’ concern for our archives and sensitivity to historical matters that it took more than a year and a letter from someone who does not even live in this country, before they became aware that the name of the archives had been changed again. One could only wish they had as much interest in the substantive issues relating to the repository, such as how our records are generated, preservation questions, the management of documents, conditions in the building, and the like.
