An Interesting Sarcasm and Irony

I refer to the purported “peace brokering” and so-called “nation unifying” postings by John Afoun who also signs off as Komla. Ironically, I noted a very interesting sarcasm in his posting of September 17th, 2009 entitled “Tribal Unity is the Key to Ghana’s security and Future”.

The third sentence of the fifth paragraph runs: “If an Akan boy decides to sell dog chain, and engage in shoeshine business, that is his business and must be respected and encouraged to do so”. Would he write this in his quest for peace and unity? By the way, this comment underscores the gross inequity and lawlessness in the allocation of national resources which threatens that peace that he is looking for.

The Akans who are in the majority in Ghana, sit on and are also surrounded by hundred percent (100%) of the nation’s natural resources namely gold, diamonds, timber, cocoa, coffee, bauxite which are the nation’s revenue earners on the international market.

Wealth impacts availability of educational institutions and avenues or opportunities to education. The unlawful deprivation of such educational opportunities would translate into less fortunate individuals in a society vending dog chain and shoe-shine services. I am an Akan myself and I know my people very well. In the face of daunting challenges, such as the unlawful and divisive tribalistic anti-Akan agenda perpetrated by Rawlings and his Ewe criminals, the entrepreneurial spirit, industry and the urge to succeed within the Akan never gets dampened. It is no wonder that after the Ewe tribalistic rule spanning the period 1979-2000, the Akan still remains wealthiest tribe in Ghana.

Knowing the Akans and their strive for excellence very well as well as their intolerance for poor or average living conditions, I can guarantee that they would be in a minority within the population of shoe-shiners and dog chain sellers. Notwithstanding, there is no rational or justification which would reconcile the prevalence of the nation’s natural resource wealth within the Akan lands and the presence of such unfortunate individuals among the Akans. As small as their number might be within the Akans, the presence of shoe-shiners and dog chain sellers is not acceptable to the Akans, because their condition is the direct consequence of the unlawful deprivation of the wealth from their lands and the associated educational opportunities which could lift them up from such unfortunate conditions. Over the period of 1979-2000, the wealth from the land of the Akan, was disproportionately and unlawfully used to educate exclusively, the lazy Ewe whose land produces no natural resource and spends most of his energy on worshiping satan, tribalism, practicing voodoo and the associated human sacrifice.

In the last US presidential elections, I had opportunity to look at the resume of former Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin. Alaska is a major oil and gas producer. One of Gov. Palin’s accomplishments was using Alaska’s oil revenue to provide some kind of financial relief to the tune of at least $1500 per person, before integrating the rest of the revenue into the Federal system. I believe similar situations can be found in other states within the United States. So you see that this concept of allowing the proceed from a natural resource of a land to benefit the immediate persons in whose land the resource is located, is a universal one and it is practiced and respected even in Federal systems of government, where one might expect all resources to be centered.

Thus, the status of the Akan shoe-shine person or dog-chain seller is the direct consequence of the unlawful deprivation of the bona fide wealth of his land and the associated and unlawful deprivation of educational opportunities that would lift him up from the unfortunate condition. This is the issue that threatens the peace that Komla is looking for.

Komla had suggested that the Akan be left alone in his shoe-shine and dog-chain vending operation. Sometimes others must not be allowed to do what they want to do because what they want to do may not be in the societal interest at large and I will give two examples. These unfortunate shoe-shine service providers and dog-chain vendors would be in a tiny minority within the Akan group. However, their status would not be acceptable to the Akans, because it would be a direct consequence of the unlawful deprivation of the wealth in their land and the associated denial of educational opportunities, which would otherwise raise them up from the unfortunate condition and offer them opportunity to make better contribution to the society. As a second example, the Ewe on the other hand must not be allowed to continue the practice of laziness, stealing, voodoo worshiping, human sacrifice, murder instincts, craftiness and tribal animosity because it is not in the interest of society.

Onipa Ba