Why are we so cursed?
Shakespeare is seldom wrong in his observations on the human condition and his consequent philosophies. In ‘Romeo and Juliet’, one of his best loved plays, he asked a question, “What’s in a name?” and in answering, proceeded to philosophise that "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
Advertisement
Three hundred and fifty years after him, in the 20th century, an African film maker, Kwaw Paintsil Ansah of Ghana asked the same question in his seminal work, ‘Heritage Africa’ and proceeded as the plot unfolded, not to philosophise in words but prove by deed that a name is everything.
What’s in a name? Kwame Nkrumah and J.B. Danquah knew their history and name-significances when they proposed the name, ‘Ghana’, to replace the ‘Gold Coast’ - one was a slave coast, the other was an ancient icon of African intelligence, economic and military might. When on August 4, 1984, Thomas Sankara (RIP) changed Upper Volta to Burkina Faso, he was saying that his country was not just a geographical spot on the map; it was a “land of the upright/honest people”.
Back to Ghana. As long as Edina remained “Elmina”, this geographical landmass and the people living therein represented nothing but a mine which had to be exploited to make Portugal and England economically powerful nations. The change was effected without recourse to the philosophies, history and emotional connotations that underpinned the values in the original name, “Edina”.
What has led to name-changes by certain people and among people-groups in Ghana?
Kwesi (Sunday born) became Quincy (whatever the meaning); Arthur (whatever the meaning!) replaced Atta (twin) and Bosomefi yielded place to Bosomfield. In the mind of this, Kwaw Ansah fictional character in ‘Heritage Africa’, the change of name was very critical to a glorious career and personal development: he had to think, look and sound like an Englishman, a prerequisite to upward mobility in the British Gold Coast civil service. In his confession to the British governor, he said “the very sound of my name, Kwesi Atta Bosomefi” was primitive and paganistic.
So to many educated Africans, it sounded – and still sounds - better and dignifying to be called Mensah instead of Mensa (third successive male); Eshun instead of Esuon; Aryeetey instead of Ayitey. For people such as these, it was easy to pick the British name nearest in sound. Thus Ghanaians called Akroma (Crow) found the nearest-sounding British name, Cromwell; people called Pete Esuon (in Fante, ‘Seven Vultures’) preferred Peterson; the Gyekyes became Jackson; Wudu preferred the British name, Wood; those named Esar (Fante, meaning, ‘omen’) went for the British Hayzel; the name Muni became Monney and Panyin Tsir (head of the clan) wished and preferred to be called Paintsil.
In some instances, the change was to make the name easier on the tongue of the white man. So Kyebi became Kibi; Sekunde became Sekondi; Komenda was preferred to ‘Ekitekyi’; Esema became Shama, Takorase (under a tree) changed to Takoradi.
I can understand; indeed, sympathise with all of the above. But will someone from the royal houses of Mowurey in the Central Region of Ghana please explain to me why the people do not shake their heads in protest when strangers call the town ‘Moree’! Also, why is Ntwaban (between Esema and Sekunde) in the Western Region being spelled INCHABAN today? They conveniently forget that there is no “c” in the Fante language.
Will my good friend, Dr Nii Aryeetey explain why he has not mobilised his people to protest against the mis-spelling and mis-pronunciation of ESIPUN, which has been corrupted by radio and television journalists into ESSIPONG! Dr Aryeetey knows and he should get the Sekondi-Takoradi FM stations to start correcting it, with the help of the etymology - that the first settler, Esi, was in the habit of burning the bushes. From afar, other people would remark, “Esi repun” (literally, “Esi is generating smoke”), thus, Esipun. When did ‘Pun’ become ‘Pong’?
To appreciate the workings of the minds of the Bosomfields of this world, one has to understand the nature of the personality change. When the coloniser, for 400 years painted for us mental images of ourselves as savages, cannibals, primitive and backward, only a few were left unaffected by the desire to look and sound British.
The process dates from long ago, with the audio-visual medium as the most effective tool. So films such as ‘Mister English at Home’ (1940) and ‘An African in London’ (1941) were produced to teach British etiquette to Africans. Films Such as ‘Lusaka Calling’ (1951) were used to introduce Africans to western goods such as transistor radios.
Thus was sown the seed of the phenomenon whose fruit we are seeing today when the African no longer needs to be chained and carried into ships against his will. At our peril, we are today crossing, dropping dead on the Sahara and drowning in the Mediterranean just for a chance to leave Africa.
The phenomenon has a history. Who would believe me when I say that Africa is not cursed; that we are blessed and are capable of everything we say or imagine... if we forsake our greedy ways?