In recent times we have seen a resurgence of the renaming of public places to honour certain very important people who have made their mark on society. While these are all good gestures we have to ask ourselves if they are necessary if the place already has a name. The removal of a name just to put another one is foolish; it just does not make sense. Names carry significant associations, whether good or bad. They are treasured for posterity so that historians, anthropologists, scientists and social commentators can engage in meaningful analysis. I, for example, would want to know what message those names carry, and I would like to research Murray, Lethem and Cowan. I would like to dig deep into the history of Plantation Lochaber, my very own village, a place that is sacred to me and of which I hold fond memories. I would vehemently reject the renaming of my village to Cheddi Jagan or even Ramotar, all because they were good men. Plantation Lochaber is unique and precious to all of us, and must remain with the same name.
In the case of other names such as Murray, who is associated with heinous crimes, I would still want to know about him. Why should we remove an existing name with all the history that it carries for the so-called new and modern name? It simply does not make any sense. I want to learn of the history in those names that are already there as well as the newer ones.
The existing names of places should remain, while we explore the possibilities of naming other places, such as the numerous housing schemes that are springing up all over the place. Or else have a ‘Hall of Eminence,’ where all this country’s greats can be housed, each with their own history. Another route that can be taken is to have our sportsmen and women, politicians, poets, intellectuals, writers and other notable persons, memorialized in their respective locales. Guyana has a rich past and even an interesting present, so let’s preserve it properly.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Adams
