„…Simpletons…Mr. Duodu neglects the fact that if there were two distinguishing traits between Kwame Nkrumah and J. B. Danquah, they were the latter’s insistence on „Independence Not Now“…The UGCC, after all,…was NOT a political party…It is all about Unitary-Ghana, stupid!…Tell Ghana’s children, Mr. Duodu, the part about the most active agent in history…No…In this particularly case, there are actually „several lifes“, but just one (1) Founder of Ghana…It is in the record of Kwame Nkrumah’s life!…Darn…So much for talk by self-claimed „Doyen of Gold Coast“ politics…Kwame Nkrumah is the Founder (Father) of Ghana…“ (Prof Lungu, 19 Aug 17).
We’ve just finished reading Mr. Cameron Duodu’s, „Is there one ‚history‘ or are there several ‚histories‘ (See Note below).
In the paper about the version of the history about the „founder of Ghana“ that is without blemish, versus the „flawed…Nkrumahist“ version, Mr. Duodu summarily dismisses „Nkrumahist“ with a single sentence at the top. In so doing, Mr. Duodu swiftly goes to bat for the „Danquah-Busia political tendency“, proffering what to us is sadly a rather childish chicken-versus-egg theory. It is all about „tree..foliage…branches….stem….roots…“, all of 4 complete paragraphs on behalf of the so-called, „Danquah-Busia political tendency.“
Mr. Duodu neglects the fact that if there were two distinguishing traits between Kwame Nkrumah and J. B. Danquah, they were the latter’s insistence on „Independence Not Now“ and „Self Government Under J. B. Danquah“, instead of outright independence for the Gold Coast.
The history shows plainly that J. B. Danquah, Kofi Abrefa Busia, and others failed in their attempts to sell their „Confederation for Ghana“ idea. That self-serving agenda was stopped in its track by the forces of „Independence Now“ that was spear-headed by Kwame Nkrumah. As a major agenda, „Unitary Ghana“ is indeed the hallmark of the Kwame Nkrumah political agenda for the Gold Coast. It is the most significant ideology for the Gold Coast, soon to be Ghana.
That idea itself is the major reason the Volta Region, the last and only area of land added to the geographic extent of the Gold Coast, became part of Ghana with the same rights and privileges as the then-existing Regions, including Ashanti, Northern, Western, etc. It was through the singular efforts of Kwame Nkrumah that the Volta Region, all of its 20,570-km/2 (7,940 sq mi) land mass, became an integral part of Ghana.
Left to Danquah and his followers, not necessarily representative of all Ashantis and Akans, that would NEVER have occurred to the benefit of Ghanaians, as citizens living under a Unitary State banner, Ghana.
With all due respect to the effort and singular contributions of Paa Grant, the UGCC, after all, for all practical purposes, was NOT a political party!
Mr. Cameron Duodu, in his latest „diss“ of Kwame Nkumah, observes of „‚Nkrumahist‘ simpletons“:
„…If you are an Nkrumahist, the answer is simple: Kwame Nkrumah, as the prime minister who received the instruments of Ghana’s independence from the Duchess of Kent on 6 March 1957, automatically became the “founder of Ghana.”
That is what we will call „Kankan-Nyame conjecture“!
How about „Independence Now“! How about „Unitary-Ghana“! How about Volta Region! All that, just to start, Mr. Cameron Duodu? As „history“ goes, we expected better judgment in this matter.
Fact is, if we know anything about Ghana at all, Mr. Cameron Duodu has been a practicing journalist for more than 2 generations of Ghanaians (and other readers, some, in the land of Ghana’s colonial masters, we imagine).
But now, we must surmise that Mr. Duodu just recently figured out from a „…retired Professor of History…University of Ghana, Dr Robert Addo-Fening…“, that politics is a factor of the human condition, that who people pay homage in history and culture is subjective.
Rather odd and not at all re-assuring at our age and experience, „‚Nkrumahist‘ simpletons“ would conclude!
So, did our retired professor, Dr. Addo-Fening, also take time to explain to you the difference between a colony and an independent country; a country versus a morass of dysfunctional communities; a Danquah-Confederate state versus an Nkrumah-type unitary Nation-State, precisely the kind Ghanaians still enjoy?
What exactly is Dr. Addo-Fening’s opinion on the matter?
Must we conclude it is wishy-washy, as the air flows, in the wind?
To the point, of what good is a Nation-State if their Peoples cannot identify one (1) individual in their history (and culture) who is singularly most responsible for the commencement and actualization of that same Nation-State; the one single individual responsible for the break with their plundering, cheating, and arrogant colonial masters?
What election(s) did self-proclaimed „Doyen of Gold Coast politics“, J. B. Danquah, ever win, even in his own Kyebi neck of the woods?
What projects, what programs, did J. B. Danquah ever cause to be planned, built, commissioned, for Ghana?
Darn! So much for talk by our self-claimed „Doyen“!
But, it is all about Unitary-Ghana, stupid! Maybe Mr. Duodu will show us what serious „Nkrumahist“, what serious student of Ghana’s history and development, ever advanced the pedestrian idea that Nkrumah is the Founder of Ghana, (i.e., the Father of Ghana) simply because it was he who received „the instruments of Ghana’s independence from the Duchess of Kent on 6 March 1957“.
Who ever said so, Mr. Duodu? What does Mr. Duodo understand by agency — what people actually did; what people actually said; what people actually preached, when it really counted?
Knowing what we know now, who was NOT for „Independence Now“ and preferred the colonial masters delay „independence“ for the Gold Coast, until sometime later?
Knowing what we know now, who was for secession and confederation the night before independence in 1957?
Tell Ghana’s children, Mr. Duodu, the part about the most active agent in history!
Tell them who among the so-called „Big 6“ stood their ground and actually defended the anti-colonial demonstrators and the inalienable right of the People of the Gold Coast to freely demonstrate 28 February, 1948, before the colonial master, in their stripped prison garb, but Kwame Nkrumah, alone!
Tell them who, through advocacy, struggle, and working with communities, including the same colonial power, in fact added to the Ghana geographic foot print, and as a result ensured additional territorial space, as we know Ghana’s footprint, today!
No, Mr. Cameron Duodu. In this particularl case, there are actually „several“ lifes, but just one (1) Founder of Ghana.
It is in the record of Kwame Nkrumah’s life! It is in the record of Kwame Nkrumah’s ideology – archived and still breathing, in Accra all the way to Zurich!
It is in his singular achievements for the Ghana Nation-State, from Akosombo Dam to university education, down to secondary schools, unlimited; precisely the kind Akufo Addo, like millions of other Ghanaian citizens, would later enjoy, and still do!
But, one must first move, Mr. Duodu, beyond those depraved smearing „Kankan Nyame“ conjectures that have absolutely no bearing in fact or science, and the history you now question and trivialize.
Give us a break, Kankam-Nyame creator! Buy no! Humbly, one must to be sufficiently reflective and balanced in political orientation to appreciate the answer to the most significant question with respect to the Ghana Nation-State history.
There is one (1) history! There is one (1) Founder! There will always be one (1). Kwame Nkrumah is the Founder (Father) of Ghana! So it goes, Ghana, simply! NOTES/SOURCES: (1) Cameron Duodu. Is there one “history” or are there several “histories”?