On Monday, I presented a paper, entitled 'From Sam Sharpe to Paul Bogle: Understanding their Biblical Hermeneutics', at the 34th annual Caribbean Studies Association (CSA) conference being held at the Hilton hotel.

The CSA is an independent professional organisation devoted to the promotion of Caribbean studies from a multidisciplinary, multicultural point of view. It is the primary association for scholars and practitioners working in the Caribbean region. Its membership base is worldwide, including the Caribbean region, North America, South America, Central America, and Europe. It was established in 1974 and has approximately 1,100 members.

Prophetic response

At my presentation there were persons from Guyana, Trinidad, Dominica, the United States, Columbia, and fellow Jamaican and panellist Carol Fider of Northern Caribbean University, who spoke on 'Integration of Faith and Learning.' My paper argued that Jamaican National Heroes, Sam Sharpe and Paul Bogle interpreted the Bible differently from the British missionaries and it ascribed unto them a Biblical hermeneutic of liberation.

It was claimed that their hermeneutic informed their prophetic response to slavery and colonialism. These ideas are developed in my upcoming book, The Cross and the Machete which should be released next month by Ian Randle Publishers. I was, therefore, excited to test these ideas on a diverse set of scholars.

On previous occasions when I declared my findings on our national heroes, my experience has not been good. In 2000, when I was chairman of the Jamaica National Heritage Trust, the Jamaican Historical Society asked me to address them and I claimed that Paul Bogle was a man of peace and justice. The gathering could accept that Bogle was a man of justice, but they could not accept that he was a man of peace.

Not the first

I am not the first minister of religion to try to correct the misunderstanding and maligning of Bogle. Henry Bleby, Wesleyan missionary who had visited Sam Sharpe in prison, on an occasion three years after Bogle's protest in 1865, said that he wanted to counter the widespread ignorance concerning the disturbances and defend the "deeply wronged and slandered people ... who are a meek, long-suffering, and forgiving race, and not the monsters of cruelty and vengeance they have been represented."

In addition, when in 'Miseducating CXC Students' (February 19) I challenged a review of the history CXC syllabus as unfortunate because, in outlining the movement towards emancipation in the British colonies, credit was given to British activities while totally ignoring Sharpe. And worse, the review of CXC syllabus stated that "The Somerset case results in the passage of a law which declares slavery illegal in England". I read a copy of the Mansfield judgment on the 1772 Somerset case while in England and it stated that enslaved persons in England cannot be forcibly removed from England. It seems to be re-inforcing slavery in England. Therefore, no credit should be given to Mansfield for abolishing slavery in England.

Very receptive

In February, Prime Minister Bruce Golding contradicted what he called myths about another national hero, Sir Alexander Bustamante. I wish him well. But there was a conspicuous silence to the PM's assertion.

The conferees at CSA were very receptive to my arguments and the lively discussion did not disagree with my assertion that Sharpe and Bogle were non-violent. I disagreed with those historians who said Sharpe was involved in an armed revolt. Sharpe claimed that the Bible was against violence and that he did not bear arms. He had prevailed on those enslaved leaders who wanted armed resistance because they felt that the Europeans would not peacefully treat them as freed persons.

Bogle and Sharpe defended justice and peace and should be perceived in their efforts to gain respect as free persons, as non-violent.

Devon Dick is pastor of the Boulevard Baptist Church and author of Rebellion to Riot: The Church in Nation Building. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.