Subj: Our Past, Present and Future : Part 1

Date: 18/02/97

To: Okyeame@mit.edu

CC: chronic@ghana.africaonline.com

CC: indep@ghana.africaonline.com

CC: ghana_think_tank@databack.com

Compatriots,

Comment on "SIR CHARLES MACARTHY" and "THE ASHANTI IN THE FACE OF DISCRIMINATION" ,The Ghanaian Chronicle, 3-4 February 1997 : Comments

I have been reviewing postings on Okyeame forwarded to me and articles in the Ghanaian tabloids with a hawk's eye, and cannot but comment on SIR CHARLES MACARTHY by Francis Asamoah which was posted on Okyeame and "The Ashanti in the Face of Discrimination" by Abiri Osei Kwame which appeared in the Ghanaian Chronicle of 3-4 February 1997. Both pieces appear to be a load of myths , ignorance and prejudice. Asamoah's piece is good-natured and crypto-intellectual; Kwame's article is typical of the hog-wash that has come to symbolise the quality of Ghanaian journalism. In particular, the Chronicle article re-hashes many well-worn and discredited pro-Asante arguments.

Here I propose to dissect the more interesting and misleading aspects of both writings. I have sent a copy of this to the Chronicle and wait to see if they will stand true to their supposed commitment to freedom of speech and publish something which is thourough and based on true scholarship but obviously runs counter to their dangerously sectarian agenda.

The Purpose of History and the Whitewashing of Slain Africans

I had previously commented that the unwitting effect of the tendency to cast our history as an Asante versus European conflict is to trivialise our past and bury our heads in the sand where African on African violence is concerned. To portray the activities of Sir Charles Macarthy in the Gold Coast as Asamoah does is to confuse effect with cause; and to fail to appreciate the deepest causations in our pre-colonial history (my emphasis). I emphasise, not for the first time, that Ghana became a colony in 1874; events preceding that date therefore fall within our pre-colonial history.

By compartmentalising and dramatising Macarthy's memorable spat with the Asantes, Asamoah or the source he relies upon, gives the impression that aggression was initiated by the European merchants. Crucially, Asamoah fails to mention or perhaps understand that the European force on the coast prior to 1874 was not an extension of the British state, but a collection of mainly untrained local fighting men organised by merchants engaged in normal mercantile activities.

A corollary of this is to understand that the military force fought by the Asantes was not the British Army, but a rag-tag and motley group which preceded the British colonial army (emphasis mine); the distinction is crucial to assessing the might of the Asante. After all, Asante's lemming-like military strategy was based on strength of numbers rather than inherent military might or superior tactical organisation; and is summed up in "Kum apem apem beba", in other words using one's own military manpower as cannon-fodder to saturate the enemy. It was impossible for a small group to operate such a strategy.

On the other hand, the British colonial army normally comprised a regularly drilled Hausa constabulary and West Indians with the bulk of fighting men being drawn from native tribes. The Gold Coast colonial army, when it came into being, was usually officered by superannuated or pensioned English, Welsh and Scottish personnel, effectively making it a Dad's Army of old war horses and a few third-rate officers; a tradition which was maintained even within the West African Frontier Force. Just by way of comparison, by the time some of these so-called fights against the "British Army" were raging on the Gold Coast, Britain's finest officers were in fact engaged in such battles as Waterloo (1815).

Assuming Asamoah follows my explanation of the mercantile nature of the European presence he should have no difficulty appreciating that coastal potentates also had their own mercantile interests, frequently threatened by Asante blockade of the trade routes. It was no coincidence that the fighting force under Macarthy included large numbers of enthusiastic locals.

The beheading of Macarthy may have commanded attention in Westminster, but the majority of the war dead were Fanti. Writing our history in a way that ignores such killings, and purely glorifies Asante exploits is mischievous. I am sure Asamoah may want to dissociate himself from the motives of the writer he has so extensively quoted/paraphrased; but he cannot argue with the perception that he was presenting such material with all its defects on Okyeame for some form of entertainment, "edutainment" as he chose to call it at the commencement of his third post.

Factual Inaccuracies and Quality of Sources

But is Asamoah really competent to interpret the history of Ghana the way he purports to do? Sutor ne supra crepidam judicaret - Let not the cobbler criticise a work of art above the sandal. Asamoah claims: "Sir Charles's head also went to Kumasi where the cast of the skull was taken in pure gold. The skull itself became part of the "skull fetish". Wrapped in white cloth, it was paraded through the streets once a year at the Festival of Yams."

Asamoah is entitled to eulogistic praise of the act of decapitation and the parading of human heads; but his facts are not entirely accurate. Macarthy was killed in 1824; in 1826 his skull was captured at Katamanso. This last is documented by C.C. Reindorf History of the Gold Coast and Asante, Basel: Basel Missionary Society 1985, pp. 191-192 and at p. 196 ff. See also H.J. Ricketts, Narrative of the Ashantee War, London: Simpkin & Marshall 1831, p. 122 showing that the captured skull was sent to England. Of course, this sort of misrepresentation could have been avoided if Asamoah had spent time cloistered in some library checking his facts and gaining mastery of his sources before putting material on Okyeame.

Secondly, Asamoah does not seem to appreciate the momentous historical consequences of the disastrous Cape Coast campaign led by Osei Yaw Akoto after the death of his uncle Osei Tutu Kwamina. The battle of Cape Coast was the first defeat by the Asante army on the coast. Again, Europeans were mere sidekicks to the essentially African fighting force made up largely of Fanti and Ga troops. Indeed the Ga role in the defeat of Osei Yaw Akoto at Cape Coast was the cause of the Katamanso war on the Accra plains, Monday 7 August 1826.

Boahen wrote in his article "Politics in Ghana, 1800-1874" in J.F.A. Ajayi & M. Crowther, History of West Africa, London: Longmans 1974 Vol. 2, pp. 167-261 at p. 197: "Asante's decline began with the defeat of the hitherto invincible Asante army near Cape Coast in May and July of 1824." Yet Asamoah treats this significant event as though it was another footnote in Asante history.

Osei Yaw Akoto resolved to punish the Ga for helping the Fanti defend themselves, and thus led the Asante nation to disaster on the Accra plains. One would have loved to see Asamoah dwell on aspects of the Asante preparation for Katamanso, especially the consultation of Muslim Kramo priests and the Dente oracle at Kete Krachi.

(The Dente oracle was after 1875 to play another yet crucial role in the history of Asante when the Dente priest supported the secessionist Juabens, Brongs, Kwahus and others). These sources predicted a devastating defeat on the coast. Osei Yaw Akoto ignored them and proceeded to Asantemanso, the first town of the Asantes, praying to his ancestors and causing large quantities of palm oil to be poured into the rivers.

Finally, one must state that Katamanso battle was a battle to punish the Ga, fought against the Ga, and on Ga soil. Moreover, Ga-Dangme troops constituted over two-thirds of the fighting men, and King Taki Kome I was King Paramount of all the fighting forces. Yes, some Akwamu and Akyem fought in support of the Ga, but so too did some Assins, Hausas and Akyems who fought on the side of the Asante. None of this changed the fact that it was a fight between the Asante and the Ga; just as the presence of some West Indians, Indians, Africans, etc. in the British forces during the Second World war does not change the British character of the victory.

Both Reindorf and Ga oral sources attest to the nature of this essential Ga versus Asante war. Until the Anglo-Dutch exchange of forts in 1868 the Ga were predominantly within the Dutch and Danish spheres of influence. Thus English accounts tend to dwell on the contribution of nations within the English sphere of influence and do not always fully state the Ga character of the war. Read Reindorf 1895, p. 196 ff. if you want to see the basically Ga character of the war.

To be Continued

Onukpa Kwei