Jamaica Gleaner News - LETTER OF THE DAY - 'Misleading report on history lecture' - Sunday

Moore

The Editor, Sir:

It was with dismay that I read the reportage of my lecture last Tuesday, March 24, in The Gleaner. It is in part inaccurate and consequently, misleading. I would imagine that your reporter was armed with a tape recorder which enabled him to quote some sentences verbatim. But how those quotations are used, and what is written around them, is very troubling.

As an academic, words and language (whether Creole or English), and how they are used, are very important, and I take very great care in crafting my statements, written and oral. So it is annoying to see them misreported and misinterpreted.

It is true that my lecture will be published soon so that interested people will have access to the actual text rather than having to rely on The Gleaner's account; but the vast majority of your readers will never avail themselves of the published lecture and so are wholly reliant on your short report. That is why I am seeking to correct some glaring errors and misimpressions in your account, what is in fact an 'interpretation', not just a straight report.

Erroneous impression

In different parts of the piece, the erroneous impression is conveyed that I regard the people's culture as degrading, and it is also seriously misleading in other respects. Let me quote:

"The violence that came with the rebellion, along with the excess vulgar African-type practices of the black population, was proof to them ... "

The black people's African-type practices were not vulgar, nor did I say or imply that. This was a perception of the elite classes. More careful wording could have avoided this misunderstanding.

"... One will find Jamaica at the same crossroads - argued guest presenter at the 2009 Elsa Goveia Lecture, historian Professor Brian Moore - still wrestling with itself to tame the black beast-like practices of the lower classes amid the spate of crime and vulgarity."

Here again, I did not describe the practices of the lower classes as "beast-like". This is both misrepor-ting and misinterpretation. Besides, the substance of my lecture stressed the point that it is the elite cultural impositions, largely imported, that are the problem, not the lower-class creole culture. So to attribute to me the idea that Jamaica is "wrestling with itself to tame" the latter is grossly inaccurate. It prompts me to ask: who or what is "Jamaica" in this sense?

"... (Jamaican music's) explosion on the international scene proves the profundity of the music of the masses."

I never said this! This is another example of misinterpretation, and indeed, quite inaccurate reporting.

The whole tenor of the report seems designed to generate sensationalism, which is unfortunate. A glaring instance of this is the following sentence: "... The new-found acceptance of dancehall and reggae music on the international scene had only given rise to the foul hypocrisy of the cultural elite in its treatment and acceptance of the language of the masses."

This is hyperbolic and grossly misleading! I certainly never used the term "foul hypocrisy".

"Hypocrisy", yes; there is a huge difference. Besides, I am not sure I understand the sentence anyway.

Misguided quest

To "fast-forward to 2009" from 1865, as your reporter does, completely ignores the entire core of the lecture which analysed not just upper, but especially middle-class attitudes to the culture of the lower classes in the context of a misguided quest to "civilise" them. One has to understand the thinking of these "cultural elite" classes to make sense of the quotations or 'sound-bites' that are liberally sprinkled throughout the report.

And the penultimate sentence is perhaps indicative of the way the whole piece was put together. It needs editing: "Moore went on to point out that the features of the imported music were similar to and even raunchier forms of sexuality displayed on public television and in front of children."

Let me be clear: I stand by every word in the lecture. It is solidly based on empirical historical research and will be published by the Department of History and Archaeology very soon. But since most of your readers may never access it, I am requesting that you publish this letter to correct the misunderstandings that the report might generate in their minds about what I actually said and meant.

I am, etc.,

Professor Brian L. Moore