AT the 50th independence anniversary celebration at Fort Charlotte, Prime Minister Philip Davis declared: “Independence was the first big step on the long journey that continues to take our nation forward and upward.”

He remarked: “In just a few short hours, come midnight, our Bahamian flag will be raised once again. It will be an echo of that moment, 50 years ago, on July 10th, 1973, which marked the birth of our nation...”

Disappointingly, core elements of his remarks were historically deeply problematic and inaccurate. He demonstrated a misunderstanding of Bahamian history and the concept of nationhood.

He was poetically and narratively misleading: independence was not the “first big step” on “our long journey” as Bahamians.

Mr. Davis stated: “Moses led his people out of slavery and into the desert. That was their Independence.” Though he may have meant this poetically, his suggestion was simplistic theologically, scripturally and historically.

It was a misinterpretation of the complex history of Israel, beginning with ancient Israel and Judah, and within the context and sweep of world and Biblical history.

Mr Davis pressed: “But Moses did not live to enter the Promised Land. It was Joshua who led the people forward on their journey.” But what about the history of Israel before Moses? What of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others?

What of the history of the development of the Jewish people, consciousness, identity, religion and “nation” during various exiles, including in Assyria, the Babylonian Captivity, in Egypt, and other geographic areas in ancient times and other periods of history?

The history of the people of Israel appears to go back to the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, though the fuller historicity is complex and debated by historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, theologians and scholars in myriad disciplines.

Of critical and compelling note, it was not until 1948 that the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the State of Israel. In 1949 the U.N. General Assembly admitted Israel as its 59th member-state.

The advent of the State of Israel is a milestone in Jewish history but it was not like a baby borning or the first big step.

Tragically, the Palestinian people and nation are still awaiting the fuller recognition of their status as a nation-state, with a secure homeland and internationally recognized borders.

Prime Minister Davis continued: “We – all of us – are the Joshua Generation. Each of us is called to continue to play our part to build on our inheritance. Each of us is called to join our footsteps on the road to our Promised Land…” Is not the fuller sweep of Bahamian history and nation-building integral to our inheritance?

As an aside, making dubious parallels between political and scriptural figures can go horribly wrong. To wit, if Sir Lynden Pindling was Moses, who was Joshua and are we still awaiting a Promised Land that we have yet to fully understand or enter?

By suggesting we are part of “the Joshua Generation”, Mr Davis is ironically noting a history previous to July 10, 1973, a history of previous generations crafting a Bahamas nation.

Still, curiously, he actually contradicted his dubious assertion that we first became a “nation” at independence, and that 1973 was akin to the big bang-like creation of a Bahamaland.

While we became an independent sovereign nation-state from the British Empire in 1973, our development as a people and as a nation constitutes a longer history.

There is an essential distinction between a nation and a nation-state. This is not splitting geographical or historical hairs, particularly given the struggle against colonial and imperial subjugation by various empires.

While Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are a part of the United Kingdom, they consider themselves as nations within the UK. Moreover, many indigenous peoples refer to themselves as First Nations.

Dictionary.com defines a nation as: “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own.” The Palestinian and the Kurdish people understand themselves as nations.

The constitutional and political development of The Bahamas was central to nation-building. The Colony of The Bahama Islands got its first codified constitution in 1964 following a conference in London in 1963. It was enacted by the British Parliament and brought into force by Order in Council of the Queen.

Before that, The Bahamas had what the late venerable Eugene Dupuch described as “representative but not responsible” government. There was a parliament, the House of Assembly, which had been established since 1729, and an Executive Council appointed and presided over by the British Governor.

The 1964 Constitution for the first time provided for the establishment of a Cabinet to be presided over by a Premier who headed the majority in the House of Assembly at the time. Our first Premier was Sir Roland Symonette who headed the United Bahamian Party (UBP).

Under the 1964 Constitution considerable responsibility was given to the Cabinet but the Governor retained direct responsibility for a number of matters including external affairs, defence, internal security and the Police Force.

The 1969 Constitution was brought into effect after the same process, beginning with a conference in London the previous year. In this Constitution the designation of Premier was changed to Prime Minister.

The Governor was still responsible for external affairs and defence but limited responsibility for these items could be exercised by the relevant Ministers. Provision was made for a Security Council presided over by the Governor, with the Prime Minister as one of its members, to consult on matters relating to external affairs, defence, internal affairs and the Police Force.

The 1973 Independence Constitution gave The Bahamas complete sovereignty with responsibility for all of its affairs but retained the British monarch as Head of State. The monarch appoints a Governor General as his representative in the Bahamas.

Just as the General Strike of 1958 heightened the political consciousness of black Bahamians, especially those living at New Providence, Black Tuesday, April 27, 1965, proved a pivotal moment in the struggle for majority rule, a watershed moment in our nationalist struggle and consciousness.

That change, the denouement of a certain stage of the struggle, when the consciousness of the majority reached an historic apogee, arrived on 10 January 1967 when the Second Bahamian Emancipation was ushered in by the mass of Bahamians.

In addition to political development, a national story is woven together by myriad narrative threads. Such threads bear the names and personal narratives of peoples spanning the globe.

Migratory passages and trails from Africa, the Caribbean, the Americas, Europe and Asia are integral to the Bahamian story, including that of the modern Bahamas. The name Pindling has become thoroughly identified with The Bahamas even though it is not a common name in the country.

Surnames more commonplace include Rolle, Smith, Albury, Hanna, Roberts, Chea, Maillis, Johnson, Lowe, Bethell, Wong, Moss, Butler and Pinder, as well as Deveaux, Moncur, Bonamy, Dillet, and other names of Haitian derivation.

The Bahamian family and experience are constituted by an alphabet soup of national origins and family names and now include surnames such as Paul, Georges, Joseph and Duvalier, such as in the person of Maureen Duvalier, who became a national and cultural icon and thoroughly Bahamian, and Eustace Duvalier who opened the first cinema Over-the-Hill.

A friend recalls a mother whose father, the friend’s grandfather, refused to let his school-aged children attend Empire Day celebrations on Clifford Park in the 1940s. Her father, an officer on the Royal Bahamas Police Force, insisted, “We are not British. We are Bahamian!”

As noted by Bahamianology: “… In 1903 The Bahamas had initially rejected the proposal of a Victoria Day/Empire Day but soon after was eagerly celebrating it for more than 50 years hence…

“There was probably one very important reason why pressure was brought to bear on the Legislative House in Nassau to accept Empire Day.”

The website suggests that because The Bahamas had one of the oldest parliaments in “the British colonial empire, therefore observing [Empire Day], held particular significance to Britain.”

The parallels of history are curious. Though the mostly white legislative leaders of an earlier era originally rejected Empire Day, today’s mostly black leaders still want to retain the Crown or are ambivalent about the final decoupling from a foreign head of state and a foreign system of honours.

It is unfortunate when national leaders do not better grasp our history and are unable to articulate and communicate Bahamian nationhood and identity to successive generations. Every Prime Minister of The Bahamas has such a solemn responsibility.

Moreso, our leaders have an obligation at minimum to not mislead, misinterpret or misrepresent Bahamian history because of a lack of knowledge or on purpose.

The late Lee Kwan Yew, the father of modern-day Singapore, insisted that while economic and infrastructural development were critical to his country’s national development, the forging of a unified people was perhaps more essential to Singaporean nationhood and identity.

Mr Lee instructed: “A nation is great not by its size alone. It is the will, the cohesion, the stamina, the discipline of its people and the quality of their leaders which ensure it an honourable place in history.”