Barbarous chiefs, savage rulers, great assassins
and
Six million ounces of gold.
On the flat roof of Elmina Castle there are two
small, separate rooms, which the tour guides refer to as Prempeh’s
apartments.
In 1895, the Asantehene, Prempeh I, sent an embassy
to London under the leadership of the brothers John and Albert Owusu-Ansah,
in a desperate attempt to bypass the hostile Governor at Cape Coast
and persuade Queen Victoria’s government not to invade his
country. Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Secretary, refused to
see the delegation. The British subsequently imprisoned the brothers,
back in the Gold Coast, on a trumped-up charge of forgery. The invasion
went ahead. The Asante, weakened by years of civil war and intimidated
by the reputation of the Maxim gun, did not resist. The expeditionary
force entered Kumase and on Monday 20th January, 1896, abducted
the Asantehene. Prempeh was brought to Elmina Castle, together with
an entourage of family and elders.
Asante was an independent state. It was not at
war with Britain. The British described their action as arrest and
deportation; but how did they justify it in law?
They could not. Three days later, on 23rd January,
the Governor of the Gold Coast Colony, William Edward Maxwell, Esquire,
C.M.G, caused to be passed in the Legislative Council, Ordinance
no. 1 of 1896, conferring on himself “the necessary power
for the detention and deportation of certain Political Prisoners.”
“Whereas it is expedient that certain Political
Prisoners . . . should be detained during Her Majesty’s
pleasure; and, if necessary, that they or any of them should be
deported from the Colony, etc. etc.”
Clause 1 legalizes acts “done, permitted
to be done, or sanctioned by the Governor . . . prior to the passing
of this Ordinance.”
“No proceeding,” it tells us, “calling
in question the legality of such acts shall have any effect whatsoever.”
Maxwell did not sign the Ordinance until 3rd February,
1896, two weeks after the abduction.
The British subsequently sent Prempeh to Freetown
and then to the Seychelles. They did not allow him to return to
Kumasi until 1924.
The Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain described
these events thus:
“You cannot exercise control over savage
countries which, previous to your arrival, have been in a state
of constant anarchy and disorder without occasionally coming into
conflict with these savage rulers and having to shed some blood
. . .
“During the past twelve months we, the
present Government, have redeemed from barbarism in Ashanti and
in the Soudan, with a small expenditure of life and treasure,
by expeditions which have been admirably planned, splendidly led,
and successfully prosecuted, two provinces where previously trade
was impossible, because no man could call his life or his property
his own, or consider himself to be safe from the tyranny and cruelty
of his native rulers . . .
“These countries were ruled by two princes,
whom I think I may describe as ‘great assassins.’
”
He told his Permanent Undersecretary, Sir Robert
Meade,
“The attempt to excite English sympathy
for the King of the Ashanti is a fraud on the British public.
He is a barbarous chief who has broken the Treaty, permitted human
sacrifices, attacked friendly chiefs, obstructed trade, and failed
to pay the fine inflicted on him after the war.”
That is not the end of the story.
Edward Ayensu tells us:
“Late in 1897, the principals of the newly
formed Ashanti Goldfields Corporation led a team that dragged
and carried 40 tonnes of equipment nearly 200 km from the coast
to begin exploitation of their new property at Obuasi.”
The Ashanti Goldfields Corporation shipped the
first consignment of gold from its Obuasi mine in July, 1898. During
the following fifty years the mine yielded some six million ounces
of the precious metal.
An Amazing Disgrace:
Sufferings No Tongue Can Express and Home-Made Buttered Popcorn.
The movie Amazing Grace was made by Walden
Media. Walden Media is owned by Philip Anschutz. Forbes magazine
rates Anschutz as the 31st richest man in the United States of America.
He is worth at least five billion U.S. dollars, spread through some
100 companies in land, oil, farming, railroads, telecommunications,
gambling, newspapers and entertainment. He is a strong supporter
of George W. Bush and the Republican Party, opposes gay and lesbian
rights and supports the teaching of “intelligent design”
in American schools. Anschutz controls some six thousand movie screens
in the U.S (nearly one-fifth of the total) and determines what may
or may not be shown on them. Forbes rates him the “greediest
executive in America” and the BBC has described him as a “corporate
vulture.” He is a strong supporter of conservative Christian
causes.
The movie Amazing Grace purports to show
how the great white Christian hero, William Wilberforce, almost
single-handedly, against great odds, freed Africa from the scourge
of the slave trade. It is a clever confidence trick, a piece of
propaganda masquerading as history but so full of falsification
that it is best regarded as fiction.
The historian Peter Linebaugh has demolished any
pretensions this movie might have had to historical accuracy. I
have borrowed my sub-heading from his review, which deserves a lengthy
quote:
“Far from being a majestic human drama
involving millions of human beings on three continents in the
protracted and mighty struggle of greed and cruelty against liberation
and dignity, Amazing Grace presents an English story of pretty
people either having tedious tea-parties at various country estates
or compromising with one another in boring rhetoric in that exclusive
British men's club, the House of Commons . . .
“This movie omits drama because it avoids
the historical conflicts: the primary conflict was between the
slave in the plantations and the master, the secondary conflict
was between the worker in the factory and the boss. You wouldn't
know that from this whitewash.
“The two historical faults with the movie
are, first it does not show us that the English abolitionist movement
owed its beginning, its thrust, and its ending to the activity
of the slaves themselves. The second fault is that it does not
consider the historical proposition that the abolition of the
slave trade could only succeed at the moment in economic development
when other sources of exploitation became available to English
capital, namely, the working class in England. . .
“This movie is part of the self-congratulation
of the English ruling class excusing itself for the most odious
and reprehensible crimes in history.”
The third British Council event commemorating the
1807 Act was billed as the African premiere of Amazing Grace.
At the request of the British Council, Walden Media
supplied the film free of charge and sent the reel direct from U.S.
The net cost of the screening at the National Theatre was about
£4,500.
Walden Media explains its generosity thus:
“Mr. Philip Anschutz's hope to bring about
social impact through filmmaking could not have been more powerfully
demonstrated through this momentous cultural moment.”
In his introductory remarks, the Director of the
British Council expressed the hope “that tonight we will inspired
by the film to make Amazing Changes, first and foremost in our own
lives (as individuals), then our families, our communities, our
nations and who knows, the world.”
He expressed his thanks to Walden, “whose
passion and vision for what Amazing Grace represents led to the
donation of the film.”
The British Council’s Communication Manager
introduced her report of the function with a quotation from Wilberforce:
“Africa, your sufferings have been the
theme that has arrested and engaged my heart . . . Your sufferings
no tongue can express, no language impart."
“Tickets for the show,” she tells us,
“were sold out by noon on the day of the premiere leaving
the Accra National Theatre, with a seating capacity of 1500, packed
beyond our wildest dreams. There wasn’t an empty seat in the
house! . . . For the audience . . . the film provided a strong narrative
of the life of the once young politician turned radical God-centered
Christian and how his deep spirituality helped to change the moral
outlook of Britain at the beginning of the 19th century. Clad in
Hollywood style frocks, tuxedos and black ties, guests were treated
to a red carpet entrance, home-made buttered popcorn, ‘New
York’ style hotdogs and creamy vanilla ice-cream to add to
the evening’s authentic ‘going to the pictures’
feel.” “At the end of the evening . . . the audience
held hands with baited breath. . .” and resolved “ .
. . to change the world we live in and leave it a much better place
than we met it.”
Many of the audience were schoolchildren. Given
that history is now merely an optional subject in Ghanaian senior
secondary schools and subsumed in other disciplines at junior secondary
level, Amazing Grace may be all that many of these children will
ever learn about the slave trade.
Evasion, concealment, propaganda
and false modesty.
John Prescott dodged an encounter with the harsh reality of British
history. The Council went further: in at least two cases it concealed
shameful aspects of that same British history and in a third it
went out of its way to propagate a sanitized lie.
Did the British Council bureaucrats know what they
were doing? Shall we be charitable? Were they perhaps the unwitting
victims of their own ignorance, so that we may fairly charge them
with no more than insensitivity or, perhaps, intellectual sloth?
The truth is rather that their actions were fully
consistent with the ideology of their employer (and by extension,
with that of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office; and by further
extension, with that of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair and
his New Labour Party and government.)
The British Council is the UK's principal agency
for cultural relations abroad and an integral part of the UK's overall
diplomatic effort.
The Secretary of State for the Foreign & Commonwealth
Office is answerable to Parliament for the policies, operations
and performance of the Council; the appointment of the Director-General
is subject to the Secretary of State’s approval.
Apart from acting as an evangelist for the English
language through the provision of libraries, the Council’s
functions include:
- enhancement of the United Kingdom’s reputation in the
world as a valued partner
- increasing the impact of and respect for British policies
and values overseas, and
- promotion of the export of British educational and cultural
goods and services.
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office provides
strategic guidance to the Council and ensures that the Council’s
objectives and priorities are compatible with its own. It partly
funds the Council’s activities
Research commissioned by the Council reported finding
“. . . evidence that perceptions of the UK among young people
in sub Saharan countries is dated and negative.” The Council’s
consultants recommended activities that would, “reinterpret
and celebrate the shared heritage between the UK and Africa.”
The Council’s target audience is “teachers
and youth community leaders able to influence interests and development
of young people” and “those in positions of influence
and power” who, the Council hopes, “will be inspired
. . . to advocate further change and partnership with the UK.”
These “leaders and influencers” are expected to collaborate
with the Council in implementing project activities, from which
they may expect to be direct beneficiaries.
“Relationships brokered by the British Council
broaden the international view of young people.”
The Council will measure its success by the extent
to which it succeeds in effecting a “change in understanding
of young people in Africa of the UK and of those in the UK of Africa.”
The Council plans to
- radically challenge existing perceptions of the UK and “.
. . stereotypes based on old development models that assume
human dependency and need”
- stimulate “ . . . reflective but forward-looking debate
about shared African-UK heritage” and “ . . . interest
in recent African-UK history and in social and democratic processes
in the UK . . .”
- “. . . contribute to a reappraisal of past and current
realities in the African-UK relationship in a non-confrontational
way . . .” and
- offer “greater understanding of and new insights into
recent African-UK history.”
The Council assures us that its project “.
. . does not offer a triumphalist approach – look how well
the UK did . . .”
But the truth is that the UK did do extremely well,
out of the slave trade and out of its Empire.
I give Jacques Depelchin the last word:
“A system which is rooted in crime and
destruction would prefer to be seen as a system which is responsible
for all the comforts of the present, as well as containing the
seeds of a more comfortable future.”
|