“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots.” These famous words were spoken by Marcus Mosiah Garvey, Jamaica's first and probably most revered national hero. The words of the Pan-Africanist figure who influenced the black nationalist movement are often quoted, and his face is familiar to most Jamaicans, to whom he is symbolic of strength, self-respect and racial pride. However, a recently unveiled bust of Garvey provoked a huge wave of protest, both on social media and in the streets. To naysayers, the bust simply did not make the grade. Jamaicans have generally been ambivalent — and often downright dismissive — about public statuary, especially when it comes to iconic Jamaicans being portrayed. In 1981, following Bob Marley's death, a nine-foot tall, impressionistic statue of the musician created by the late Christopher Gonzalez was soundly rejected by the Jamaican government that had commissioned it, as well as by the Marley family. It was never officially unveiled, and stood at the National Gallery for nearly 20 years before it was moved in October 2002 to the Island Village theme museum in Ocho Rios. A representational statue by Alvin Marriott was erected near the National Stadium in 1985. The people of the eastern parish of St. Thomas were also generally not amused by a statue of another national hero, Paul Bogle, by esteemed artist Edna Manley, which stood outside the Morant Bay Court House. It was erected in October 1965 and declared a national monument by the Jamaica National Heritage Trust on April 3, 2003. Part of the problem with Bogle is that, unlike Garvey, there is only one image of him, contested by some. However, that statue has also been removed (its current whereabouts are not clear). So, why was the latest Garvey bust, which was unveiled on May 19, 2017 at the University of the West Indies’ Mona campus, so roundly rejected? For a start, it did not even look like him, Jamaicans declared; Garvey has always appeared in photographs as somewhat rotund, with a plump face, whereas sculptor Raymond Watson's depiction was of a lean-faced man with cheekbones. Well-known pastor Sean Major-Campbell posted, “Be honest! If you were asked, “GUESS WHO?” Would you have guessed Marcus Garvey?”: He compared it to a photograph of Garvey: Round head. Short face. Broad nose. Strong chin. No puckered mouth. Am I right or am I right? One Jamaican observed in a television “vox pop”: “It need more identity to prove that it is Marcus Garvey,” says this man. I think many would agree. @djmillerJA #TVJAllAngles pic.twitter.com/ORBdKzBPQF — Susan Goffe (@suezeecue) June 15, 2017 Yes – he even looks hungry – look how his jawline is lean #TVJAllAngles — OnthesideofJustice (@Agreewithsegree) June 15, 2017 Noted psychologist Leachim Semaj added: People are expressing what the “Garvey” bust is “saying to them”. Listen to them. This piece is not giving the right message.?? — Leahcim Semaj (@LSemaj) June 15, 2017 University-based blogger Annie Paul suggested this was “Garvey Lite.” And why a mere bust? For me, the problem wasn't so much that the bust didn't look anything like the Garvey we feel we've come to know and love. It's the scale and unambitious scope of the representation that bother me. The only other lifelike sculptures on campus are of Mahatma Gandhi (Indian) and Philip Sherlock (white), both full-body representations. Then for the champion of black identity, you have a modest bust. It's a problem, to say the least. In the weeks since the unveiling, calls have been mounting for the removal of the ‘fake’ statue of Garvey. The Gandhi and Sherlock sculptures were gifts to the university, and it may be that those who feel strongly about this might have to undertake to commission a better representation of Garvey that can be situated at the UWI or some other location. In future, any public commissions of art should be informed by the well-documented history of responses to public monuments in Jamaica. Edna Manley lecturer and first Stuart Hall Fellow Petrina Dacres has written an entire thesis on the subject. There is no excuse to be caught by surprise like this. Contrary to what many seem to think, commissions of public statuary are not occasions for artists to wield artistic licence and express themselves as they would with work meant for a gallery or private setting. The messages flooded in from members of the public.