Renaming, scripture, and cultural memory
Published:Wednesday | December 24, 2025 | 12:13 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Attorney-at-law Bert Samuels raises an important and timely concern about language, power, and identity in post-emancipation societies. His reference to Roots, adapted from the work of Alex Haley, is apt: the renaming of Kunta Kinte to “Toby” not “Tobi” was not a benign administrative act but a deliberate instrument of domination, erasure, and psychological violence. Naming, in the Atlantic slave system, functioned as branding.
Two clarifications and expansions may strengthen the public discussion.
First, the term “Christian name” is outdated and inappropriate in a multicultural society. Historically, “Christian name” emerged from European baptismal practice, where converts received a baptismal or saint’s name. Over time, the term slipped into civil usage in colonial administrations and legal documents.
In contemporary international practice — civil registries, passports, medical records, and human-rights instruments — the accepted term is “given name(s)”, paired with “family name(s)” or “surname(s)”. Persisting with “Christian name” is not merely archaic, it implicitly privileges one religious tradition over others and fails to reflect the plural realities of societies such as Jamaica.
Modern documentation should use neutral, inclusive terminology consistent with both constitutional equality and administrative best practice.
Second, the appeal to Genesis requires linguistic precision. Mr Samuels is correct to challenge careless readings of the biblical text, but the issue is not that “Adam is not an African name”. Rather, the problem lies in the misuse of Hebrew in English translation. In Genesis 2–3, the word ’ādām is not initially a personal name at all. It means “the human” or “earth-creature”, derived from ’ădāmāh, “ground” or “soil”. The text explicitly plays on this etymology: the human is formed min-hā’ădāmāh — from the ground.
Only later in the narrative does Adam function as a proper name. Treating “Adam” as if it were a conventional Western forename flattens the theology and obscures the Hebrew wordplay. The text is not naming an individual in the modern sense. It is describing the condition and origin of humanity. In this respect, Genesis aligns closely with African naming traditions that link names to circumstances of birth, origin, vocation, or destiny — precisely the point Mr Samuels highlights.
Finally, while the geographic identification of mythical Eden in Genesis 2:10–14 gestures towards regions associated with the Nile and the Horn of Africa, the deeper issue is not cartography but anthropology: the biblical narrative affirms a humanity rooted in earth, relationship, and meaning, not in imposed labels.
In light of this, the continued use of “Christian name” in official forms is historically tone-deaf and theologically careless. A society shaped by African retention, forced renaming, and religious plurality should adopt language that respects both history and present reality. “Given name” does exactly that — without erasing anyone’s faith, culture, or dignity.
DUDLEY MCLEAN II