Whenever I make a mistake in this weekly column I try to correct it as soon as possible. The reason for that is the youngsters who almost naturally take anything written or said in the media as gospel. There are some who believe that I carry on too much about mistakes, which to them even border on trivia. But if they were thinking of their children and grandchildren who are taking examinations they would never come to that conclusion.

There are some who like research to find the truth. There are others who view the subject of history as something to be merely passed to make up the number of subjects or credits that one has to either get for tertiary education or to get a job. And that is important, especially in these days. But even so, if that is all that research is for some, then let us help them to pass the examinations by being accurate.

About a month ago I wrote about a senator who spoke in the Senate about wanting to change the “national dish” when there is nothing to change because Jamaica does not have an official national dish. In writing that the constitution of Jamaica does not speak to a national dish but a national fruit, which is the ackee, some wrote that this was too trivial an issue to be taking up column space. How wrong they are! It can make the difference between a child passing a general knowledge test or not.

On a radio programme the view was expressed that many things are considered “national” without being symbols, like the so-called national dress. The difference this time, however, is that the senator spoke in Parliament about changing a symbol that does not exist. What the senator said sounded like an unofficial notice that a motion would be introduced to make a change in the constitution. And how do you that if the thing does not exist in the first place?

On election night in 2007, many will remember that while doing a political analysis on television, I corrected a young politician by stating that Sir Donald Sangster, not Portia Simpson Miller, was the shortest-serving prime minister. All I had in mind was the children who are doing examinations so I said so, and yes, I was annoyed at the careless statement. But it is also true, I admit, that I have an uncomfortable feeling with any inaccuracy, however slight, and I am usually annoyed with myself when I make such mistakes, let alone when anyone else makes them.

So you might say that all history students in Jamaica up to the 1980s passed history examinations by stating that when Christopher Columbus arrived here he saw Arawaks. Now we know that Columbus did not see any Arawaks but Tainos when he came to Jamaica.

Archaeological research has shown that the bones match the Tainos and not the Arawaks. But we can all be forgiven because we were all taught about Arawaks, and in my case also taught it to students in 1973 who were able to pass exams based on that information.

National Hero Sir Alexander Bustamante was known for exaggerating stories about himself. Like just about everyone else when I was a child, and even as a young adult, I believed all those stories he made up about being adopted by a Spanish governor and being taken to Spain. In 1969, Bustamante’s first cousin National Hero Norman Manley died and his unfinished biography was published in 1973. It was then that l learnt that Busta’s story was as much a tale as some versions of Saint Nicholas or Santa Claus, who did in fact exist.

But I learnt that Bustamante’s adoption story was not factual, after an experience that I had the year before. Prior to the Jamaican Movement for the Advancement for Literacy Limited (JAMAL) and later the Jamaica Foundation for Lifelong Learning, the lone government agency that provided for a handful of Adult Literacy classes islandwide was the Literacy Section of the Social Development Commission. I was employed there in 1972 and my job was to simplify information from the Jamaica Information Service for the classes.

I recall checking information on the telephone with Lady Bustamante about her husband being adopted by a Spanish governor. And Lady B was very happy to tell me that what I had written was correct. Today no serious history student could write in a history exam the sort of tales Bustamante made up about himself and expect to pass. After all, serious research is not the same as nursery rhymes like “this little piggy went to market”.

Many years later, Frank Hill’s book on the Bustamante letters was published. On the back blurb of the book there was a letter written in 1962 by Norman Manley. In that letter, the elder Manley wrote that it was “carrying a joke too far” when it was written in a JIS booklet on great Jamaicans at political independence in 1962 that Bustamante was adopted by a Spanish governor. So I am in good company if I feel uncomfortable with inaccuracies. But more important, please be accurate for the sake of the children.

ekrubm765@yahoo.com