It is on record that Busia cancelled and aborted the then teacher training colleges allowance which enabled the poor Ghanaian to also get some education so it is risible hearing you that your unpopular Busia championed a spon ... read full comment
It is on record that Busia cancelled and aborted the then teacher training colleges allowance which enabled the poor Ghanaian to also get some education so it is risible hearing you that your unpopular Busia championed a sponsorship scheme to Educate Ghanaians.
You really suck!!
Zuri 10 years ago
Some of you are just displaying "fat" English without any sense.What has been your contribution to the development of Ghana apart from senseless articles & more so a faceless writer hiding behind names. Aren't you a coward in ... read full comment
Some of you are just displaying "fat" English without any sense.What has been your contribution to the development of Ghana apart from senseless articles & more so a faceless writer hiding behind names. Aren't you a coward in the highest order?. Illiterate literate calling himself a professor.
Roland 10 years ago
Busia was no match to the great Nkrumah,the greatest African of all time.The evidence is overwhelming.Don't waste your time with your senseless articles.
Busia was no match to the great Nkrumah,the greatest African of all time.The evidence is overwhelming.Don't waste your time with your senseless articles.
Kwame 10 years ago
Dr. Kwame Okuampa Ahoofe, weapons of labour are produced to enhance the labour of man and make labour less laboureous.
Busia and Danquah are of the view that they are less animal than the white man's do and labour is for rea ... read full comment
Dr. Kwame Okuampa Ahoofe, weapons of labour are produced to enhance the labour of man and make labour less laboureous.
Busia and Danquah are of the view that they are less animal than the white man's do and labour is for reasonable beings. Busia and Danquah could not liberate themselves from mental slavery.
Chop chop 10 years ago
Nkrumah's contribution was not just a rhetoric one. He put it in practice and it worked. Busia was only good at blowing HOT AIR. The only plan that he executed was the alien compliance law for which thousands of Ghanaians we ... read full comment
Nkrumah's contribution was not just a rhetoric one. He put it in practice and it worked. Busia was only good at blowing HOT AIR. The only plan that he executed was the alien compliance law for which thousands of Ghanaians were killed in Nigeria as reprisal
Concerned 10 years ago
Just my sentiments. Talking is not the same as doing. The average Ghanaian academic is a jack ass who has no practical sense.Nkrumah did not just talk but he delivered.
I however feel the likes of Tony aidoo should shut u ... read full comment
Just my sentiments. Talking is not the same as doing. The average Ghanaian academic is a jack ass who has no practical sense.Nkrumah did not just talk but he delivered.
I however feel the likes of Tony aidoo should shut up as they are the very ones destroying Nkrumah's work. His party felt free SHS was a waste of time and he has alot in common with busia. Hot air merchants
Yawose 10 years ago
This Tony Aidoo man does not seem to understand what he talks about. He uses flowery language to bamboozle people. When you examine the contents carefully they are empty and meaningless. I have many times pointed this out to ... read full comment
This Tony Aidoo man does not seem to understand what he talks about. He uses flowery language to bamboozle people. When you examine the contents carefully they are empty and meaningless. I have many times pointed this out to him. His new word he is using to confuse people is 'phylosophical foundation' which has no bases in fact as far as the contents of his submission are concerned. Kudos Okoampa for exposing the empty braggart
Jojo Hammond, New Jersey 10 years ago
According to Prof Okoampa-Ahoofe, the only way one can make an intelligent/informed contribution to any discourse/discussion on Ghana's socio-economic development and political history is to read Dr. Busia and Dr. J. K. K. Bo ... read full comment
According to Prof Okoampa-Ahoofe, the only way one can make an intelligent/informed contribution to any discourse/discussion on Ghana's socio-economic development and political history is to read Dr. Busia and Dr. J. K. K. Boakye-Danquah.
Otherwise "don't waste our eyes". Yea, right!!!
My father used to say God is stupid to put wisdom in the head of only one person. No political tradition - CPP mor UP has a monopoly over good ideas in our society. To me, this is where Prof. Okoampa-Ahoofe's extremism in political discourse has no equal.
Jojo Hammond, New Jersey 10 years ago
I meant to write "God is NOT stupid" ......
I meant to write "God is NOT stupid" ......
YAW 10 years ago
I hope your little dose of "educated insolence" will get into the concrete mind of that "repulsive creep" aka Oko-ma-pa Ahoofe.His job is the orderly management of the decline and distortion of Ghanaian history to suit his us ... read full comment
I hope your little dose of "educated insolence" will get into the concrete mind of that "repulsive creep" aka Oko-ma-pa Ahoofe.His job is the orderly management of the decline and distortion of Ghanaian history to suit his useless academic ego.He writes more rubbish than most people pick up with their brooms in the gutters of NIMA.
As well, both analytic systems, revisionism and postmodernism, are in fact either cognates of or directly feed into or on deconstructionism. Again, the concept of deconstruction, on the other hand, makes it controversially possible for anyone, a group, or institutions to redefine, remodel, or rearrange the musical chairs of otherwise entrenched ideas at will, progressively popular systems of ideas, if we may add precisely that, especially those that uncomfortably confront the moral architectonics of one’s ideological proclivities, for personal gratification (gain) as well as for institutional arrestment of the processes of oppositional intellection, personal or collective. Arguably, social conditioning and behavioral geography may contribute to suffocating distortions in humanized psychological individuation. That said, let us also acknowledge that intellectual and social particularization may not necessarily constitute a gesture of genius, but rather an effigial symptomatology of analytic vertigo, however!
Finally, both postmodernism and revisionism have resurrected the failing and dead careers of many a scholar and brought them to the verge of unmeritocratic intellectual recovery. To an extent, therefore, these tortuous observations provide the required investigative and definitional technologies by which to splash the critical paint of pointillist historicism across the canvass of intellection. This automatically leads us to Malcolm X, Kwame Nkrumah, Manning Marable, and Amiri Baraka. Further, according to eagle-eyed conspiratorialists, part of the unsubstantiated grounds for Nkrumah’s rebuff of Malcolm X, allegedly, entailed carefully-weighed political and economic considerations on the part of Nkrumah not to be in bad odor with the West, particularly America, by associating with Malcolm X, either ideologically or politically, America’s number one enemy, public and domestic. Still, others have also alleged that Nkrumah purposively, if publicly, detached himself from Malcolm X as the West got wind of the news that he was on the verge of unleashing Malcolm X on Western societies to foment anarchy there.
In fact, the prescient Nkrumah had every right to disclose to C.L.R. James, author of “The Black Jacobins,” one of the best and authoritative historical accounts of the Haitian Revolution, and George Padmore, both Afro-Trinidadian friends of Nkrumah’s, that he was persistently haunted by the dangling specter of putschism, an anarchic project to be instigated by the West, particularly America. That will be confirmed later by the unruly actions of the military in conjunction with the CIA. Moreover, contrary to these allegations, those cited above, Malcolm X’s autobiography, co-authored with Alex Haley, records the following admissions: “In Ghana, or in all of black Africa, my highest single honor was an audience at the Castle with Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah…Then as I entered Dr. Nkrumah’s long office, he came out from behind his desk at the far end. Dr. Nkrumah wore ordinary dress, his hand was extended and a smile was on his sensitive face. I pumped his hand.” Essentially, this recollection of events is verifiably authentic, both historically and autobiography, if we may add.
That is not all, however. Malcolm X even addressed the Ghanaian parliament. In 1964, he also met with Maya Angelou, author of the seven-volume series “I know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” who lived in Ghana from 1962-1965, a year shy of Nkrumah’s overthrow. Also, a year before Malcolm X and Angelou had met in 1964, Dr. David Levering Lewis, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of WEB Du Bois, taught medieval history at Legon, University of Ghana. Admittedly, Prof. Lewis’ presence in Ghana coincided with the year of WEB Du Bois’ death. In 1961, Julian Mayfield, an African-American writer, activist, actor, lecturer, and director, who served as Nkrumah’s writer-in-office, also lived in Ghana, but left the country in 1966 following the CIA-instigated coup. George Padmore and others from the African Diaspora as well as from our own continent became part of the well-oiled machinery of bureaucracy.
In other words, Ghana was fundamentally run by an international consortium of noble, brave, experienced, and intelligent men and women. For instance, Julian Mayfield brought a hunchback of political activism (Civil Rights, NAACP, Freedom Riders, and Organization of Afro-American Unity) and Guyanese politics to Ghana. Clearly, we see a political and historical de-emphasis, probably conscious, of either Nkrumah or Nkrumahism in Michael Mann’s “Ali,” a biographic film featuring Will Smith as Muhammad Ali. Instead, Mobuto Sese Seko, America’s Cold War ally, not Nkrumah, makes marked theatrical presence in the movie. Understandably, this should be the case since Muhammad Ali and George Foreman fought in the then Zaire. Ironically, the bout between these two giant-like pugilists has been dubbed “The Rumble in the Jungle.” Which part of Kinshasa was a “jungle” when they fought there? In the meantime, Malcolm X’s historical and ideological association with Nkrumah is bowdlerized from the screenplay for “Ali”!
Even Spike Lee’s biopic “Malcolm X,” a very good movie featuring Denzel Washington as Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela, is equally guilty of the “crime” of intellectual hypocrisy or historical revisionism! Then again, even the spectral shadow of Idi Amin has two Hollywood-made biopics to his sepulchered legacy: “The Last King of Scotland” featuring Forest Whitaker, an Academy Award winner, and “Rise and Fall of Idi Amin” featuring the Kenyan actor Joseph Olita. Patrice Lumumba gets one by name “Lumumba.” This biopic features Eriq Ebouaney. There is also one for Nelson Mandela: “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.” This also features Idris Elba. Taken together, these are all relatively good and positive because they tend to globalize the collective agony, steeled will, continuing struggles, and triumphs of African peoples, though Hollywood is neither hospitable nor friendly to Africa. But Nkrumah needs to be in the pictorial mix somehow.
Technically, our African movie directors and producers have a noble responsibility to play in the graphic resuscitation of Nkrumah by converting disposable resources earmarked for asocial pictures into a creative biopic for Nkrumah, for it’s neither Hollywood’s duty to essentialize our struggles nor martyrize our great men and women. Those reservations aside, let’s continue from where Malcolm X exactly left off, writing of his fond encounter with Nkrumah: “We sat on a couch and talked. I knew that he was particularly well-informed on the Afro-American plight, as for years he had lived and studied in America. We discussed the unity of Africans and peoples of African descent. We agreed that Pan-Africanism was the key also to the problems of those of African heritage. I could feel the warmth, likeable and very down-to-earth qualities of Dr. Nkrumah.” The questions are: Why did Marable say Nkrumah ignored Malcolm X when Malcolm X said he had met with Nkrumah? On the other hand, granted that Malcolm X possibly visited Ghana more than once in his life time, on which of these occasions did Nkrumah ignore him? Marable, however, does not explicitly say! Let’s put that aside.
Having said all that, let’s advance another speculation, if that’s permissible under the circumstances, that Nkrumah may have exerted some measure of influence, by way of the presence of his magnetic personality, perhaps, on President John F. Kennedy, as well, because President Kennedy threw caution to the wind and went ahead to wield an umbrella over Nkrumah during a drizzle, in fact, this, against the objections of the Secret Service. There may be grounds for President Kennedy’s expressed hospitality toward Nkrumah. It appeared Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Bolden, the first African American Secret Service agent attached to the Protective Division of the American presidency, may have sufficiently educated President Kennedy about the plight of African Americans. Publicly, though, America’s racial Armageddon boiled in the televised cauldron of social inequality, of state-sponsored terrorism, and of white vigilantism. In effect President Kennedy was part of the viewership.
Moreover, the Irish from which President Kennedy and his family descended were branded “White Niggers” in America. Initially, Irish and Italian immigrants struggled at the lowest bottom of American society, until, at least, the political economy of white privilege catapulted the Irish and Italians into the limelight of racial superiority. It would not be long before the Irish and Italians joined hands with their Aryanized German and English American brothers and sisters in the economic, political, and social subjugation of African Americans, otherwise Busia “Negro African.” The Kennedy family knew this story very well. However, shifting our focus to another salient topic, let’s ask these questions: Why has Malcolm’s autobiography come under radical revisionist assault? Also, why has “Roots: The Saga of an American Family,” a popular book by Alex Haley, co-author of Malcolm X’s autobiography, come under radical revisionist attack? Why has the rich legacy of Kwame Nkrumah come under radical revisionist onslaught?
These are questions we may later want to explore in some appreciable detail. In the meantime, we want to stress that Kwame Nkrumah’s and Amiri Baraka’s greatest gift to world politics is Afrocentric humanism. What is Afrocentric humanism? Definitionally, Afrocentric humanism is simply part of the progressive framework of social philosophy, which, among other goals, seeks to promote racial and ethnic equalization, rather than inferiorization, against the backdrop of differences, be it cultural, economic, social, historical, intellectual, biological, and what have you. In this context, Afrocentric humanism rejects any philosophy which attempts to elevate one race, nationality, or ethnic group over another. In other words, the Akan is not superior to the non-Akan. The African is not superior to the Asian or the Caucasian (Westerner). The Asante or Akyem is not superior to the Zulu, Wolof, Ewe, Dagomba, Gonja, or Ga. Continental Africa is not superior to the African Diaspora. Ghanaians or Ethiopians are not superior to Nigerians or Algerians. The African Diaspora or continental Africans are not superior to millions of their African brothers and sisters who have lived for more than 800 years in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, India, etc. The Asantehene is not superior to the Togbe, the Yaa Naa, or the Igwe.
Paradoxically, Afrocentric humanism translates the hieroglyphs of human differences inscribed on the moral plinth of universal socialization exclusively in terms of ethnic, racial, and national equation. Better yet, questions related to essentialism and human genomics do not have to set races, nationalities, or ethnicities apart. In fact, they are written into the concreteness of nature as well as of the environment. Yet again, environment is both man-made and malleable and, therefore, subject to manipulation, though, nature, for the most part, is still a mystery. That is, nature is as deathly mysterious as the ghostly mind of man trying to unravel it. Man has yet to fully capture the rhythm and cadences of nature and its mercurial musicality. It is for this that Bob Marley believed a “suckling” or “baby” was more likely to have a telling acquaintance with the depths of cosmogony than the wise and prudent in society (See “Forever Loving Jah”). That aside, Afrocentric humanism imbues human agency with ontological instruments of social equality.
For instance, the legacies of Malcolm X, Mother Teresa, Gautama Buddha, Kwame Nkrumah, Walter Rodney, Desmond Tutu, Confucius, and Nelson Mandela represent different wavelengths of Afrocentric humanism along the social spectrum of philanthropy. Further, Afrocentric humanism constitutes the foundational power of Pan-Africanism, the theory of Afrocentricity, the Harlem Renaissance, the Organization of African Unity (African Union), the Black Arts Movement, the Molefi Kete Asante Institute for Afrocentric Studies, and Afrocentricity International, among others. This is why the theory of Afrocentricity does not necessarily view whites as biologically evil. Namely, the theory of Afrocentricity rejects any notion which includes “biological evil” in the framework of white essentialism. In other words, evil deeds are, by definition or nature, human. This does not mean the historical and contemporary scale of crimes committed by the white world are paralleled anywhere in human history. They are not!
However, despite our internal problems, Wole Soyinka uses his new book “Of Africa” to make a strong moral argument that Africa has a role to play in humanizing the world. Ironically, Ali Mazrui makes another interesting case that it was high time Africa possessed nuclear bombs because that was the only way her seemingly “weaker” nation-states could acquire global respect and politico-economic leverage in a world where, unfortunately, military polarities determined the biological survival or extinction of a section of humanity as well as protected the economic interests of those in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Mazrui believes Africa could use them as bargaining chips on the world stage (See “The African Condition: A Political Diagnosis”). On the other hand, how do we expect the political dynamics of oil economics in the Middle East to have been if Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini had actually possessed nuclear bombs? Do we recall the OPEC oil embargo (1973 oil crisis) and how it nearly crashed the global economy, particularly those of the West?
Then, coming back to Ali Mazrui and to his theoretical flirting with a nuclear weaponization of Africa, China, India, and Pakistan do, indeed, use them, weapons of mass destruction, as bargaining chips with the West and with each other. Apartheid South Africa built some of these weapons with the aid of Israel but were destroyed with the aid of the West as soon as political power shifted hands between Black South Africa and White South Africa. Understandably, no one in the West wanted to see a sizzling nuclear bomb in the arthritic hands of a brutalized people! However, regarding the Soyinkan thesis on Africa’s humanizing the world, Mazrui believes Africa could play that role through Christological, or, possibly, through Islamic, religionization of the West. But Africa does not need nuclear bombs. Interestingly, Kwame Nkrumah, a politician and thinker of high standing, a man of whom Wole Soyinka consistently describes as one of Africa’s progressive leaders, did not use nuclear bombs to dismantle colonialism and to put the white man in check.
Nkrumah merely needed to use his great mind and what he appropriately called “consciencism,” as “nuclear bombs,” to destroy colonialism. Amiri Baraka’s “nuclear bomb” came in the form of protest poetry and the Black Arts Movement. Leopold Senghor’s came in the form of Negritude, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “non-violence,” Molefi Kete Asante’s the theory of Afrocentricity, Nelson Mandela’s and Desmond Tutu’s Ubuntu, Chinweizu’s the theory of Afrocentricity and Black Orientalism, Mau Mau’s asymmetric and guerilla warfare, etc. This was why the progressive politics of Nkrumah, unlike those of his ideologically puerile enemies, transcended the trivialities, frivolities, and narrowness of ethnic politics. Indeed ethnic politics does not feed into Afrocentric humanism. In other words, intellectual identification with ethnic politics to the exclusion of progressive nationalism, of the kind advanced by Nkrumah, Malcolm X, Patrice Lumumba, Asante, Mazama, Garvey, Karenga, Rodney, Biko, etc., or of unified continentalization of Africa, is a symptomology of cultural, psychological, and spiritual de-centering, given that progressive nationalism potentially renders ethnic rivalries null and void, at least in theory!
Admittedly, the present crises in South Sudan, Somalia, Mali, and Eastern Congo, among others, underscore a need for an active revitalization of progressive nationalism as it makes “ethnic Balkanization” supremely irrelevant. In fact, progressive nationalism is the primary cause of China’s, India’s, Brazil’s, and Japan’s rising economic, military, and political power in world affairs. America shot to industrial and economic fame through militant nationalism. Nazi Germany shot to scientific and economic fame through militant nationalism. A leader who genuinely thinks about his or her country in nationalistic terms, that is of his or her country first, is not likely to be corrupt! Again, Nkrumah is a good example. Watch out! We used the word “likely.” Let’s call it linguistic probability. Anyway, in principle, progressive nationalism potentially dissolves presidential and parliamentary allegiances to ethnicized constituencies in the body politic. We are not talking about “statism,” however.
Didn’t Marcus Garvey say “intelligence rules the world while ignorance carries the burden”? Is the forest of Amiri Baraka clear enough to see the Iroko tree of the great Kwame Nkrumah and the great Marcus Garvey?
We shall return…
Okyenhene 10 years ago
Dishonest Okoampa-Ahoofe
This is from Okoampa-Ahoofe from Chapter 2 ("Harvest of Foolery") of his collection of essays published on 2004. When did his lobotomy occur? When he found out that he was related to J. B. Danquah.
... read full comment
Dishonest Okoampa-Ahoofe
This is from Okoampa-Ahoofe from Chapter 2 ("Harvest of Foolery") of his collection of essays published on 2004. When did his lobotomy occur? When he found out that he was related to J. B. Danquah.
"And here, it is significantly instructive to observe that none of the myriad putsches and coup detats have been staged by any other than bona fide members of the Ghanaian military. Granted, some rascal civilians are known to have staunchly backed regressivley Darwinian means of political access, including a world-renowned University-educated former prime minister. Interestingly, in July 1956, when President Nkrumah's Convention People's Party (CPP) won a landslide victory, Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia rode herd on a delegation to the British office in London, to petition the British Crown, and Ghana's extant colonial overlord, to desist from granting the already-scheduled return of Ghana to self-governance. Fortunately, Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia and his right-wing bourgeois reactionaries did not succeed. He would, however, succeed ten years later in backing the military junta that unseated the Nkrumah administration and facilitated the precipitous devolution of Ghanaian national destiny.
Indeed, it is interesting to observe that Ghana's major and, to-date, only international airport is named for General E.K. Kotoka, the very Darwinian outlaw who spearheaded the grossly unimaginative overthrow of the constitutionally elected government of the CPP. For many detractors and outright enemies of Nkrumah, Kotoka's greatest—if also sole—achievement was simply getting rid of an elected dictator. It has often been said, largely by Western academics, that Nkrumah was a heartless and fatuous dictator; these days, one hears Mr. Jerry John Rawlings, the career soldier who ran Ghana for twenty harrowing incontrovertibly bloody years, described as a "benign dictator." It is significant to observe that Mr. Rawlings, whose agnatic parentage is purported to be Scottish, presided over the dastardly kidnapping and summary execution of three Ghanaian supreme court judges, all of whom belonged to a single ethnic nationality.
When one agrees with the Western ideological mythology that Nkrumah was a raw-boned dictator bereft of vision, then it begins to make sense that Kotoka's statue should continue to command the august facade of Accra International Airport, thus perpetually humiliating those of us who incurably believe in democratic governance. Needless to say, the 1966 Kotoka-led coup initiated the barbaric, neo-colonial military dynasty that Ghanaians continue to suffer….
That Ghana's post-colonial political dilemma transcends military dictatorship cannot be honestly gainsaid. In fact, many of the most vociferous civilian opposition party leaders, some of whom are currently sitting in parliament, representing misguided and hoodwinked constituents, are known to have collaborated with Kotoka's so-called National Liberation Council to unseat President Nkrumah. It is also significant to observe that these largely superannuated rascals and executive national, fiduciary muggers continue to dominate whatever passes by the name of "the legitimate opposition." This state of affairs, coupled with a largely under-educated and under-informed electorate, has made it almost impossible to rectify the prevailing socioeconomic chaos ravaging the country.”
Taken from “SOUNDS OF SIRENS: ESSAYS IN AFRICAN POLITICS & CULTURE”, Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr (2004)
G. K. Berko 10 years ago
I remember a few pieces that Professor Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr. PhD. wrote in praising, or, at least, in approval of Dr. Nkrumah. But this one totally escaped me.
This is so much unlike the Professor. What changed in him to t ... read full comment
I remember a few pieces that Professor Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr. PhD. wrote in praising, or, at least, in approval of Dr. Nkrumah. But this one totally escaped me.
This is so much unlike the Professor. What changed in him to take such an 180 degree turn on Dr. Nkrumah, then? Not even the most avowed Nkrumahists that I know, today, could have showered these implied accolades on the late President, and vilify the late Prime Minister Dr. Busia so scathingly.
Nevertheless, we probably have to concede the fact that people do undergo many transformations in their lifetime for various reasons, and we must not rush to judge their motives for succumbing to resultant changes.
However, given the fact that by his professorial clout Dr. Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr. might have easily captured the trust of many a student that passed through his classes, there would be huge numbers of folks who his diametrically opposing views on our pioneer Political leaders might have divided into opposing camps.
So, how does the Prof. intend to bridge the gap between the two different groups of his old students? I suggest if the Prof. could come out and explain to us all the basis for his drastic change of view on these leaders, it could add to his lessons to all those he impacted in the past regarding the need and freedom to change one's opinions.
It would be a bold effort on his part, too. We have to note that the Prof. could be so persuasive that he could literally present a rebuttal to his own Doctoral thesis that earned him the PhD, to either have his Doctorate overturned, or earn him a second PhD on the same theme.
How fair would it be that students of the same Professor would be going for each other's throat in an intellectual debate religiously drawing on the knowledge the Professor fed them with? Isn't there a moral obligation here for the Prof. to clear up the confusion in the supple minds he captured?
I have stated elsewhere in consonance with the Prof.'s other view, though, that these meritorious comparisons of our pioneers ought to be handled under their special contexts or abandoned totally, because they do not do Justice to the leaders. All of them had laudable attributes that uniquely must add to our National pride but might have been perceived wrongly otherwise.
We must find a way to celebrate their qualities, and understand to forgive their shortfalls, or we will forever be debating inconclusively as to who trumps who. And that almost always drives a wedge between us to detract from what we need to build consensus on to grow our Nation.
If we need to assess these leaders, we must be truthful and not emotionally charged to overlook the facts and circumstances.
Long Live Ghana!!!
KK 10 years ago
We understand busia and j.b are your relatives.Unfortunately, they could not come close the Dr Kwame; so please like it or not he is the greatest of all. You can not change history.
We understand busia and j.b are your relatives.Unfortunately, they could not come close the Dr Kwame; so please like it or not he is the greatest of all. You can not change history.
Okyenhene 10 years ago
"What changed in him to take such an 180 degree turn on Dr. Nkrumah, then?"
"When did his lobotomy occur? When he found out that he was related to J. B. Danquah."
"What changed in him to take such an 180 degree turn on Dr. Nkrumah, then?"
"When did his lobotomy occur? When he found out that he was related to J. B. Danquah."
G. K. Berko 10 years ago
Mr. Arhin, many of us share your disapproval with the Professor, every now and then, and you are free to express your views, but could you please spare the Prof. these body parts insults? They kind of sour the taste for cons ... read full comment
Mr. Arhin, many of us share your disapproval with the Professor, every now and then, and you are free to express your views, but could you please spare the Prof. these body parts insults? They kind of sour the taste for constructive arguments like the way you provided Baraka's piece. Help keep the ideas clean but strong.
Long Live Ghana!!!
Kwadwo Arhin 10 years ago
Ok.
Ok.
mpaibu 10 years ago
you Okoampa or whatever..
you fool too much
why is the webmaster entertaining this annoying daily gibberish?
senseless
you Okoampa or whatever..
you fool too much
why is the webmaster entertaining this annoying daily gibberish?
It is on record that Busia cancelled and aborted the then teacher training colleges allowance which enabled the poor Ghanaian to also get some education so it is risible hearing you that your unpopular Busia championed a spon ...
read full comment
Some of you are just displaying "fat" English without any sense.What has been your contribution to the development of Ghana apart from senseless articles & more so a faceless writer hiding behind names. Aren't you a coward in ...
read full comment
Busia was no match to the great Nkrumah,the greatest African of all time.The evidence is overwhelming.Don't waste your time with your senseless articles.
Dr. Kwame Okuampa Ahoofe, weapons of labour are produced to enhance the labour of man and make labour less laboureous.
Busia and Danquah are of the view that they are less animal than the white man's do and labour is for rea ...
read full comment
Nkrumah's contribution was not just a rhetoric one. He put it in practice and it worked. Busia was only good at blowing HOT AIR. The only plan that he executed was the alien compliance law for which thousands of Ghanaians we ...
read full comment
Just my sentiments. Talking is not the same as doing. The average Ghanaian academic is a jack ass who has no practical sense.Nkrumah did not just talk but he delivered.
I however feel the likes of Tony aidoo should shut u ...
read full comment
This Tony Aidoo man does not seem to understand what he talks about. He uses flowery language to bamboozle people. When you examine the contents carefully they are empty and meaningless. I have many times pointed this out to ...
read full comment
According to Prof Okoampa-Ahoofe, the only way one can make an intelligent/informed contribution to any discourse/discussion on Ghana's socio-economic development and political history is to read Dr. Busia and Dr. J. K. K. Bo ...
read full comment
I meant to write "God is NOT stupid" ......
I hope your little dose of "educated insolence" will get into the concrete mind of that "repulsive creep" aka Oko-ma-pa Ahoofe.His job is the orderly management of the decline and distortion of Ghanaian history to suit his us ...
read full comment
Feature Article of Friday, 17 January 2014
Columnist: Kwarteng, Francis
What Amiri Baraka Said About Kwame Nkrumah (ll)
Email this
Share This
Print This
Comments (3)
 ...
read full comment
Dishonest Okoampa-Ahoofe
This is from Okoampa-Ahoofe from Chapter 2 ("Harvest of Foolery") of his collection of essays published on 2004. When did his lobotomy occur? When he found out that he was related to J. B. Danquah.
...
read full comment
I remember a few pieces that Professor Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr. PhD. wrote in praising, or, at least, in approval of Dr. Nkrumah. But this one totally escaped me.
This is so much unlike the Professor. What changed in him to t ...
read full comment
We understand busia and j.b are your relatives.Unfortunately, they could not come close the Dr Kwame; so please like it or not he is the greatest of all. You can not change history.
"What changed in him to take such an 180 degree turn on Dr. Nkrumah, then?"
"When did his lobotomy occur? When he found out that he was related to J. B. Danquah."
Mr. Arhin, many of us share your disapproval with the Professor, every now and then, and you are free to express your views, but could you please spare the Prof. these body parts insults? They kind of sour the taste for cons ...
read full comment
Ok.
you Okoampa or whatever..
you fool too much
why is the webmaster entertaining this annoying daily gibberish?
senseless