December 6, 2012Dear Sir,With reference to your reviewer Adam Gauntlett’s review of my recent book ‘Peace, Prudence and Prosperity: A History of Bermuda from 1919 to 1939’ in today’s newspaper, it is tempting merely to remark that if (as it seems) Mr Gauntlett could not be bothered to read my book properly, he might at least have spelled my name correctly. However, as Adam Gauntlett’s review will have given readers a quite misleading impression of my book, I feel that I should respond at some length.I was particularly surprised and affronted by Mr Gauntlett’s airy and unsubstantiated statement that my book suffers from “a lack of sufficient research”. I can assure readers that a great deal of diligent and careful research was undertaken by me to produce the book. This involved (among other things) countless hours spent reading through all the old Royal Gazette newspapers for the period on microfilm at the Bermuda National Library; also all the ‘Bermudian’ magazines for the period that I could get my hands on, whether on microfilm or in original hard-copy (including some that are not available in public collections in Bermuda); similarly all the official ‘Colonial Reports’ and ‘Blue Books’ for the period (the former, incidentally, not being available in public collections in Bermuda, had to be read off-Island); also the extant files of the Trade Development Board, and the Governor’s Despatches to Whitehall, held at the Bermuda Government Archives; some issues of ‘The Recorder’ and other newspapers; as well as numerous old guidebooks, almanacs, tourism and other ephemera, memoirs, and even relevant novels and plays, of the period; in addition, of course, to numerous secondary sources (history books and the like).I respectfully doubt whether many (if any) historians covering Bermuda’s history have gone to quite such lengths as I did in familiarising themselves with the period about which they were writing. The book is extensively footnoted (mostly to original source-materials of the period) for those who wish to pursue researches further. That being so, and bearing in mind that I was writing a relatively brief and wide-ranging general history of Bermuda for the relevant period, I believe that the extent and quality of the research done by me for it was more than adequate. There is also, I might add, a rather good index, which your reviewer seems not to have availed himself of.With respect to Prohibition, Mr Gauntlett faults me (a little oddly) for not analysing the liquor-export-tax receipts of Nassau in the Bahamas, but it was surely quite enough, in the circumstances, for me to stick to such matters pertaining directly to Bermuda. The reader will (contrary to Mr Gauntlett’s assertion on this score) find Prohibition mentioned on no fewer than ten pages of the book, including (at footnotes 583 and 594) discussion of liquor-export-tax receipts of the Bermuda Government during the Prohibition/’rum-running’ period. I also variously note Bermuda’s Liquor Control Act of 1922, the Bermuda Police’s searches of departing US-bound passengers’ bags at the Hamilton docks, the cat-and-mouse games played by rumrunners with US Coast Guard vessels in Bermuda waters, including diplomatic ructions between the US and Britain caused by them, as well as the positive effect that Prohibition had on Bermuda’s tourism and mercantile economy during the period. Adam Gauntlett’s breezy assertion to the contrary is patently false.Turning to the Tucker’s Town clearance of the early 1920s (to make way for the creation of the Mid-Ocean Club development and later the Castle Harbour Hotel), Adam Gauntlett again lazily or mischievously mischaracterises my book. The prior residency there of about 400 black Bermudians who were required to vacate their properties, and the forcible eviction of the one person who declined to go along with the compulsory-purchase of her property (Dinnah Smith) are discussed at page 99, and it is also more briefly mentioned elsewhere in my book. I also note that the matter was controversial and somewhat distressing.With regard to the two 1920s Bermuda novels of Amy J Baker, Mr Gauntlett wrongly states that her comments “earn Evans’ displeasure”. They did not. Personally I very much enjoyed both books. The displeasure I was referring to was that felt by Bermudians of the time, as I made clear. I was not particularly referring to the ‘passing for white’ aspect of one of the protagonists in one of the two novels (‘The Painted Lily’), which Adam Gauntlett for some reason focuses on in venturing his criticism of me, since Amy Baker’s criticisms of Bermuda were considerably more far-reaching than that. These matters have been set out by me in much greater detail in a paper (cited in footnote 374 of my book) that is forthcoming in the Bermuda National Museum’s ‘Bermuda Journal of Archeology and Maritime History’ (unfortunately, as it happens, a much-delayed publication). Adam Gauntlett’s comments in this matter are rather presumptuous and off-target, so far as they relate to me.With regard to Dr EF Gordon, I discuss him at pages 102-103 of my book, in the context of discussing the way in which West Indian immigrants were viewed warily or even demonised by the white ‘Establishment’ of the day; and I would encourage readers to read what I actually said, rather than merely the excerpt from it which Mr Gauntlett has vomited out.As regards my passing mention (at page 86) of what I believe to have been an error on the part of another historian in a recent, widely-circulated book, where it was alleged that the Bermuda Railway service was racially segregated, I would say that to the best of my knowledge (which, as it happens, is quite considerable) Bermuda has never had legally-mandated racial segregation on public transport (unlike, for example, in the southern states of the USA). With specific reference to the railway, I had never (in all my extensive delving into the period) come across any suggestion that the railway was racially segregated. As a retired lawyer and an active historian, with a good knowledge of Bermuda legislative history, public policy and the rule of law, I have never seen anything that would lead me to think that the other historian’s assertion was correct. Additionally, she was unable to substantiate her assertion when I raised the matter with her. My referring to the point was wholly in a factual spirit, and not in a “polemical” spirit as Mr Gauntlett suggests.Mr Gauntlett is entirely welcome to his opinions, but for him to leave your readers with the statement that my book “falls short” “on so many fronts”, is, I think, to do both me and the reading public a considerable disservice.I would also like to remind you that in addition to the website (lulu.com) from which people may purchase my book (which your reviewer duly noted), they may also do so from The Bermuda Book Store on Queen Street. I did mention this to you some weeks ago.Thank you for allowing me the space to respond to your reviewer’s sometimes-misleading assertions about my book, which I think people will actually find to be a rather better book than your reviewer would have them believe.I would appreciate the courtesy of a suitable retraction by your paper in relation to the above.JONATHAN LAND EVANSPaget