UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date:______
I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:
It is entitled:
This work and its defense approved by:
Chair: ______
The Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch in Ghana: An Uncontested Embodiment of Disparate Sentiments—“National Identity” and “Freedom”
A thesis submitted to
Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati
In partial Fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning
2008
by
Aditei Puplampu
Bachelor of Architecture, Drury University, 2005
Committee Chair: Nnamdi Elleh, PhD Committee Members: John E. Hancock Abstract
The Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch in Ghana: An Uncontested Embodiment of Disparate Sentiments—“National Identity” and “Freedom”
Among its numerous roles in the pre-independent era, social historians agree that
imported architecture in colonial African landscapes “…provided forms for the specific purpose of subverting the cultures of colonized subjects, and created centers for domesticating colonial subjects…”1 Conversely, in the mid to late twentieth century (post-independent era),
“…architecture was [also] conceptualized as a tool for formulating national identity and unity,
and as a template for structuring national development policies.”2 Thus, just as architectural and
spatial organizational strategies were used to segregate, regulate, and ultimately facilitate
colonialism, they were also employed as an attempt to desegregate, deregulate, and as a counter
measure to the effects of colonialism.
This paper explores the cruel ironies as well as the propagation of fierce contradictions in
Ghana, focusing on the nation’s Independence Arch, a curious rendition of the Roman triumphal
arch, installed in the celebration of Ghana’s victory over British colonialists. Although the
seemingly baseless adaptation of an abstracted and idealized culture has been considered, and
may be understood as an effective and calculated strategy to unify the varied cultural groups in an emerging nation of Ghana, I propose that the Independence Arch also reinstitutes, perpetuates, and epitomizes the very ideologies it seeks to defy in its stance.
This research draws on a wealth of diverse sources: histories of the architectural strategies of the colonizer and the colonized (British Empire and Ghana), pre-and post- independence maps of Accra (the capital city), archival records of the inception and inauguration
1 Nnamdi Elleh “Architecture and Nationalism in Africa,” The Short Century: Independence and Liberation Movements in Africa 1945-1994) ed. Okwui Enwezor (Munich; New York: Prestel, 2001), p. 235. 2 Ibid. iii
of the monument, architectural treatises, and contemporary accounts of the use and meanings of
the monument.
I explore the design, evolution, sociopolitical functions, semiotics and interpretations of
the Independence Arch, including the opposing views of localism and internationalism.
The conception and evolution of the monument reveals the fierce contradictions
associated with the conceptualization and utilization of architecture—the very instrument and
language of colonizers—as an ideal mechanism for the infusion of cultural nationalism. It thus
provides insight into the grave dangers inherent in the pursuit of two radically divorced ideals—a legitimate national identity,3 and the claim to legitimacy and self-determination.
3 “Identity” is used here to mean a self distinct from that which was constructed and imposed by colonizers. iv
Acknowledgements
I have managed under some odds to complete this thesis because I have been properly
mentored, but also well supported by several loving and selfless people. It seems especially apt
then that I express my heartiest appreciation to those who have helped in one way or another, to
guide, inspire and encourage me through this challenging but nevertheless, fulfilling adventure.
First and foremost, none of this would have been possible without the strength, wisdom, and loving hand of God, to whom all praise is due. I am most grateful to my professors at the
College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning (DAAP) of the University of Cincinnati, who
provided me with the compass to navigate the complex topos of which this thesis is situated, and
all that is implicated within it.
I would like to especially express my gratitude to the members of my thesis committee,
Dr. Nnamdi Elleh, and Professor John E. Hancock for their invaluable suggestions throughout
the course of this project. Though the afore-mentioned professors directly influenced the
positive outcome of this work, others like Dr. David Saile, Dr. Rebecca Williamson, James
Bradford, and Dr. Aarati Kanekar, also helped, even if remotely, in shaping and moving this
thesis along.
I owe a bundle of special thanks to Dr. Don-Arthur for pointing me to valuable sources
during the research process, and for making the time to have a dialogue about issues surrounding
the Independence Arch even when hard pressed for time.
I also appreciate the support of my colleagues: Kenneth French, Seunghan Park, Mitchell
Sipus, Juliana Zanotto, Priyanka Koul, Lindsey Guinther, Aparna Madhavan, Diana Leakas,
Dionisius Dwityabaswara, Florentina, Anna Botez, Daniel Madryga, Christina Glassgow,
v
Eleanor Luken, Kingkini Roy, and Randall Corral. I am thankful to the lot for enabling and
facilitating engaging discussions which informed every step of this endeavor.
Without a doubt, none of this would have been possible without the unbridled support of my loving family. To my dad, Dr. George Buerte Puplampu, who searched and produced vital information each time I reached a dead end, your tireless efforts and consistent support are thoroughly appreciated. I am immensely grateful to my mother Ms. Betty Djabatey, and my brothers, Adi and Adinor Puplampu, for the continuous words of encouragement.
I would like to thank Mr. Adrian Kobby Adams for providing some of the images used in this work, and Jeff and Wendy Silva for tolerating and permitting my work to be the center of many conversations. Mr. Oswyn Johnson and Sarah Stephens, I thank you for editing and proof- reading this work on such short.
It is true that those closest to you are the ones who bear the inconveniences. In that vein,
I would finally like to acknowledge Ms. Elizabeth Ghunney. Without you, this project would have been an even more taxing venture than it has been. I thank you for your patience, and for dedicating countless but scarce hours to this work. I am also thankful to you for allowing my work to be a temporary wedge between us. To you, I am deeply indebted and immensely grateful.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract iii-iv
Acknowledgements v-vi
Table of Contents vii
List of Illustrations viii
Introduction: A Ghanaian Emblem Rooted in the Ruins of Colonialism 01-13
Chapter I: Historical Background; the Makings of a National Monument 14-23
Chapter II: Monument as propaganda device in Ghana 24-39
Chapter III: Disparity in the Ideologies Proclaimed and Represented 40-56
Chapter IV: Dr. Kwame Nkrumah: Patriarch and Patron 57-70
Chapter V: Semiology, Encoding, Decoding, and the Production of Meaning 71-84
Conclusion 85-93
Bibliography 94-100
vii
List of Illustrations
Fig. 1. Front view of the Independence Arch looking West
Fig. 2. View of the Independence Arch looking North-West
Fig. 3. News Paper clipping showing a jubilant crowd and monument
Fig. 4. Front (obverse) side of newly released ten cedis banknote
Fig. 5. Back (reverse) side of the old ten cedis currency note
Fig. 6. Back (reverse) side of old ten thousand cedis currency note
Fig. 7. Back (reverse) side of twenty thousand cedis currency note
Fig. 8. Front (obverse) side of the old two thousand cedis note
Fig. 9. Front side of one of the Golden Jubilee postcard
Fig. 10. “The National Monument”, a commemorative postage stamp
Fig. 11. Ghanaian National Coat-of-arms/ Crest
Fig. 12. Front (obverse) side of the newly released fifty cedis note
Fig. 13. Arch of Septimus Severus
Fig. 14. Front (obverse) side of the newly released five cedis note
Fig. 15. Front (obverse) of the 100 French francs banknote.
Fig. 16. Front (obverse) of the 20 Moroccan dirhams banknote
Fig. 17. Kwame Nkumah and his compatriots dressed in Batakali
Fig. 18. Front view of the Independence Arch looking west.
Fig. 19. Front view of the Abraham Lincoln Memorial
Fig. 20. View of the Independence Arch looking North-West
Fig. 21. The Basic Semiological Triangle
Fig. 22. Semiological Triangle (Independence Arch)
Fig. 23. Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany viii
Introduction: A Ghanaian Emblem Rooted in the Ruins of Colonialism.
“They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented.”
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”
--Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
“Extricating a formerly colonized nation from colonial rule to a nation-state, generally entails the establishment of a distinct and unified national identity.”
--Joshua B. Forrest
“Ghana was born at midnight. The Union Jack was lowered at the National Assembly building in Accra and the red, gold and green flag of Ghana fluttered into the night air. The Gold Coast was no more. Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah was carried shoulder high out of the Assembly and passed through the tens of thousands of cheering Ghanaians to a stand in the Old Polo Ground. And there he started to [dance to] highlife music from the Police Band. Then the vast audience was hushed. And Dr. Kwame Nkrumah made his dramatic midnight message announcing freedom. He said: ‘At long last the battle has ended. And thus Ghana, our beloved country is free for ever…We are going to…create our own African personality and identity; …We again rededicate ourselves in the struggle to emancipate other conditions in Africa, for the [independence of Ghana] is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.’” 1
And so he did. Ghana would seek to create an emblem of its identity by way of the
Independence Arch. Perhaps the most prominent edifice inspired by, but also embodying the ideologies of, emancipation and African unity, the Independence Arch (also referred to as the
Freedom and Justice Arch), provides the ultimate focus for this thesis. An exploration of a structure such as the Freedom and Justice Arch can involve numerous cross-disciplinary investigations. However, for the purpose of this thesis, I will limit my investigation to the colonial relationship between Britain and Ghana, the social context in which the object was
1 Jubilee Ghana: A 50-year news journey thro’ Graphic. p.8. 1
created, the ideological intentions of Ghana’s political culture of the era as embodied by the
person of Kwame Nkrumah, the arch as a victorious symbol of anti-colonialism, and the need to
formulate a post-colonial collective national memory and national identity.
In the early months of 1957, the Public Works Department (PWD) of Ghana, under the
orders of socialist-style leader, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah erected a monumental stone edifice—the
Independence Arch—in the heart of Accra. The edifice was completed on schedule in eight
months, just in time for the celebrations marking the new nation’s birth. It was intended to stand
boldly, monumentalizing the country’s achievement in securing its independence from a host of
successive colonialists (Swedish, Danish, Portuguese, and English) since the fourteenth century.
It was therefore no surprise that the inaugural ceremony of the Independence Arch would
be one of the main highlights of the elaborate celebrations marking the emergence of Ghana, the first black African country to become independent. It took place on the night of March 5th,
1957, only some hours before the nation’s formal liberation from colonial rule, and only a few meters from where that formal liberation and the now-famous midnight speech were to be made.
The ceremony to unveil the monument was well attended by crowds of jubilant Ghanaians, and several dignitaries including the Duchess of Kent, a royal representative of the Queen of Great
Britain for the particularly ceremonious events in her former “model colony.”2 Others, including
then-Vice President of the United States, Richard Nixon, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm
X, Muhammad Ali, Richard Wright, Puali Murray, Maya Angelou, George Padmore, and even
Lucille Armstrong, wife of the jazz trumpeter and vocalist Louis Armstrong, all flocked to
Ghana before, and in some cases, visited just after the country’s liberation.
2 Mark Crinson. Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. p. 127. Here, Crinson notes that Ghana was not only viewed, but also labeled as the “model colony” by the British, its colonial rulers. 2
Though several projects, including a monumental bronze statue of Nkrumah were
commissioned and realized in recognition of the same historic event, the Independence Arch is
only one of three of the most obvious monuments dedicated to Ghana’s independence; the other
two are the then-new State House and the Prime Minister’s residence. Unlike the others, the prominence of the Arch in its placement and grandeur suggests, even at first glance, an utmost reverence for the unprecedented achievement of independence. The monument’s acclaimed function in commemorating the commencement of self-governance and political freedom in the former West African colony is quite unparalleled.
The immense white concrete arch, clad by sandstone and marble, looms in the vicinity of the Christainsborg Crossroad, and Independence Square—a national assembly grounds formerly known as the Black Star Square. The Square, with a 50,000 seating capacity, is home to other monuments as well, including a War Memorial dedicated to “the Unknown Soldier,” the “Flame of Liberty” (“African Perpetual Flame”), and the Presidential Seating Stand. At the cost of
51,000 Ghanaian Pounds,3 the Independence Arch stands at fifty feet high, spans seventy-five
feet, and measures twenty-nine feet in its thickness. It stands, surrounded by brightly colored
flora, in a traffic circle disrupting vehicular traffic on 28th February Avenue4 for some 100 feet.
3 The Ghanaian Pound was the currency of Ghana from 1958 until 1965. Before then, the country used the British West African pound, and in 1965, the cedi was introduced. 4 The 28th February Avenue is a prominent central axis located a few hundred feet along the Gulf of Guinea (Southern Coast of the Atlantic Ocean). 3
Fig. 1. Front view of the Independence Arch looking west. Image courtesy of Adrian Kobby Adams (January 2008).
The date for which this avenue was named commemorates an uprising during which riots, looting, and some fifteen fatalities, galvanized the indigenes and ultimately propelled the then- colonized Gold Coast towards liberation. In fact, the Independence Arch is sited at the spot where some of the revolution’s casualties—three demonstrating members of the ex-servicemen union—were shot dead by British colonial police officers.5 This is why Dr. Kwame Nkrumah described the monument’s site “as one which will always remind us of sacrifices which individuals have made and for the suffering which people have endured to make independence a reality.”6
5 Mark Crinson. Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. p.154. 6 The Ghanaian Daily Graphic. “…She Unveils Our Monument” March 6, 1957. 4
Through the ensuing years, the avenue has been further established by a planning strategy which situated the majority of the nation’s governmental agencies and other monuments along this axis. Other prominent buildings—the National Sports Stadium, the Supreme Courts, the
Parliament building, the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum (the final resting place of Africa’s premiere vice president, and Ghana’s first president), the National Art Center—all contribute to defining this unmistakable artery in the city of Accra.
Inscribed in large letters high on the structure are the characters “A.D. 1957.” The words
“Freedom and Justice” are also inscribed just beneath the cornice. The date recorded on the
Arch recalls the year of Ghana’s liberation, and the latter projects the new country’s motto.
Commenting on these inscriptions, the Duchess of Kent is reported as saying that: “There are no more potent words in the English language than the words [freedom] and justice. It seems to me entirely appropriate that Ghana should permanently and publicly affirm for all to see how deeply she cherishes the combination of these two great principles.”7
On top of what would be the flat superstructure, or attic, of the triumphal arch sits an enormous black five-pointed star, which can be seen from a distance. On this attic, the five- pointed star, which commonly appears as a two-dimensional motif on the nation’s flag, national crest/coat-of-arms, currency notes, coins, and even the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum, is duplicated three other times. In essence, the transformation of the planar shape of the black star into a three-dimensional object affords views of the motif from several perspectives.
7 The Guardian. “Hoisting the Flag of Ghana” March 6, 1957. 5
Fig. 2. View of the Independence Arch looking North-West. Adrian Kobby Adams (January 2008).
Secured to the white edifice is a bronze plaque which reads: “Ghana’s Independence.
A.D. 1957. Let this monument hold sacred in your memory, the liberty and freedom of Ghana.
The liberation and freedom, which by our struggle and sacrifice, the people of Ghana have this day regained. May this independence be preserved and held sacred for all time.”8 In its original design, an eternal flame lit by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and dubbed the “Eternal Flame of African
Freedom,” was housed within the clad walls of the Freedom and Justice Arch. In the absence of proper upkeep this eternal flame fell into disrepair and has remained so ever since.
Beyond the Arch’s barricaded boundaries, 28th February Avenue resumes its role undisrupted, very much like the Arc de Triomphe on the Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris.
8 Source: Plaque on the Independence (Freedom and Justice) Arch, Accra; Ghana. 6
Their similarities are striking, unmistakable even, and it is no secret that the Independence Arch in Accra was fashioned after the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which has been cited as a symbol of
French patriotism. Perhaps through this mimicry, the monument in Ghana attempts to evoke a similar meaning despite the divergent histories of France (itself an Empire) and Ghana
(colonized and subject to the rule of the English Empire).
In spite of this difference, the Freedom and Justice Arch was intended to emblematize resistance to an imperial process and symbolize the struggle between indigenous and colonizing forces, but also stand for the birth of an emerging nation-state. Ghana’s identity has been systematically predicated on this edifice which has evoked among critics a variety of stylistic associations. Janet Berry Hess has classified the Arch and other projects commissioned and realized within the post-independent era as “a modified version of the International Style…”9 In a sentiment shared by others, Mark Crinson has also described the Arch in Accra as bearing a
“Soviet aura.”10 This view has been echoed by other authors/journalists, including Andrew
Simmons, a British Broadcasting Company (BBC) correspondent who covered Ghana’s most recent presidential elections. In a world news article entitled “Ghana’s Grown-up Politics,” first published on December 11, 2004, Simmons characterizes the Freedom and Justice Arch as an
“imposing Soviet-style monument…”11
One can barely disassociate the Independence Arch from the mere mention of Ghana’s independence, and the nation’s identity for that matter. They—the idea of independence and the edifice—are inseparable and perhaps rightfully and deliberately so. More than anything else, the use of the national monument suggests that it has indeed been made synonymous with Ghanaian identity. Radio waves diffused vivid descriptions of the monument during Ghana’s most recent
9 Janet Berry Hess. “Imagining Architecture: The Structure of Nationalism in Accra, Ghana”. p.45. 10 Mark Crinson. Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. p.155. 11 Andrew Simmons. “Ghana’s Grown-up Politics” a BBC news article. 7 anniversary (March 6, 2008), but it also served as the tireless backdrop during televised broadcasts.
The Freedom and Justice Arch has also remained the dependable, and perhaps default illustration for newspaper and journal articles which have covered the nation’s progress. The
Arch inspired the title “White Eminence” in a Time Magazine article published on September 30,
1957. Images of the monument also function as the main illustrations to several news articles, including “Do You Remember Ghana’s Independence?,” published by the BBC on March 2,
2007. Also, published transcripts of “Ghana: Winds of Change,” a two-part BBC World Service
Series profile published on March 5, 2007, rely on the iconic image of the Freedom and Justice in Accra.
On the internet, the Independence Arch persists as the focal point and preferred illustration of most bloggers who journal about issues pertaining to Ghana. In Ghanaian popular culture, the image of the Arch is probably the most recognizable depiction. The image of the mnemonic has also been recalled through various media, including educational pamphlets, currency notes, postage stamps, printed texts, photographs, wax print cloth, books, postcards, coins, phone cards, and even depictions on public transportation.
Evidently, the Arch is a monument familiar to its immediate and not-so-immediate audience. Too familiar, perhaps, for its meaning(s) is rarely questioned, as evidenced by the sheer lack of exhaustive studies thereof. As an indelible and overly-pronounced national, regional, and arguably, global marker, the monument has managed to elude cogent and thorough criticism or questioning. That is, in spite of its unparalleled significance, grandiosity and overly conspicuous stature, the mnemonic in Accra has yet to encounter anything more than the fragmented, summarized, or abbreviated analysis demonstrated only in a handful of existing
8
texts. As a result, the Freedom and Justice Arch has been perhaps licensed unduly to perform the
role(s) it was envisioned to play—presenting and preserving renditions of the past, and the others
it has taken on. This outlook merits the use of “The Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch in
Ghana: An Uncontested Embodiment of Disparate Sentiments”—“National Identity” and
“Freedom” as an appropriate title for this thesis.
It is important to state here that commemorative edifices of this nature are not unique to
Ghana, or even distinct to the African continent. In fact, post-independence monuments are a
familiar feature in several other African and non-African countries. In Architecture, Power, and
National Identity (1992), Lawrence J. Vale reports that “many successful movements of national
liberation that have proliferated in the last half-century have tried to use architecture, urban
design, and planning to advance their status following independence.”12 And as in Ghana, these other commemorative edifices have also been erected to monumentalize the struggles on the path to freedoms regained or achieved.
Without much toil, one soon discovers that the list illustrating this fact is indeed lengthy.
Mali monumentalizes her liberation from colonial rule by way of Le Monument de l'Indépendance (the Independence Monument), dedicated in 1995; Togo’s Independence
Monument was completed in 1960; Nigeria’s own Tinubu Square (formerly known as the
Independence Square) was completed and inaugurated in 1960; and Mexico’s Independence
Monument (also known as the Angel Statue or Angel of Independence) was completed in 1910.
All of these undoubtedly demonstrate the customary, if not excessive or even compulsive use of the independence monument as a typology.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that the triumphal arch is a fairly recognizable mnemonic device around the globe. Andreas Volmahsen succinctly illustrates this observation
12 Lawrence J. Vale. Architecture, Power, and National Identity, p. 44. 9
in “The Imperial Axis: Palace, Obelisk and Triumphal Arch,” a chapter taken from her Imperial
Delhi (2002). As the name of the chapter might already suggest, Volmahsen characterizes the
triumphal arch as merely a component for creating grand axial avenues.
The “symbolic trio of power,” as the author labels the components (palace, obelisk and
triumphal arch) of the axial avenue, has remained a standardized strategy employed in the
“representation of power, or military demonstration of power…in town plans,”13 according to
Andreas Volmahsen. In this highly adopted scheme of creating axial avenues, the triumphal arch
is rendered almost as common as a street sign in cities and towns planned within the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. Paris (France) for instance, has its Arc de Triomphe, just as Berlin
(Germany) has its Victory Arch, New Delhi (India) boasts of her All India War Memorial,
Brussels (Belgium) showcases her Arch of Cinquantenaire, Lisbon’s (Portugal) Arco do Triunfo,
Madrid’s (Spain) Arco de la Victoria, Berlin’s (Germany) Brandenburg Gate, Dublin’s (Ireland)
Fusilier’s Arch, and Banjul’s (Gambia) Arch 22; the list carries on almost infinitely, but certainly
insipidly.
In spite of the archetypal manner by which newly-independent nations have attempted to
preserve collective memories and the seemingly universal utilization of the triumphal arch,
Ghana’s Independence Arch is nevertheless a particularly intriguing case. The arch in Accra can be set apart from the above-motioned (at least those in the African context) because of the nation’s pioneering role in the liberation and Pan-Africanism14 movements of which Dr. Kwame
Nkrumah, the very individual who commissioned the Independence Arch, is known to have been
more than an instrumental and iconic figure.
13 Andreas Volmahsen. Imperial Delhi: the British Capital of an English Empire. p 75. 14 Pan-Africanism is a general term for various movements in Africa that have as their common goal, the unity of Africans and the elimination of colonialism and white supremacy from the continent. 10
In his Africa South of the Sahara: A Geographical Interpretation (2004), Robert F. Stock
records the assertion that Ghana was catapulted to the pioneering position of leading other
oppressed nations15 onto the world stage not only because it was the first to regain independence,
but because “it also had in Kwame Nkrumah a charismatic leader who gave voice to the
aspiration of the people throughout the continent [of Africa].”16 In fact, due to his preoccupation with African unity, a passion also made clear in that midnight speech, the Independence Arch, though anchored in Accra, is arguably a symbol better-suited to the desires and aspirations of not
only Ghana, but rather the entire African continent.
Mr. K. B. Asanti, 17 a close associate, advisor and aide, to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah,
revealed during an interview that the intelligent and ambitious iconic leader aspired “to make
Ghana the gateway of Africa…”18 Perhaps this very fundamental idea of the leader
affectionately christened Osagyefo19 (Giver of Victories or the Savior) by his countrymen,
crystallized into the Freedom and Justice Arch. It is worth mentioning at this juncture that the
triumphal arch as a typology is best described as “a gate-like structure...”20 an accurate description utilized in Arthur Segal’s From Function to Monument (1997).
The Independence Arch in Ghana is not merely of great importance to Ghana, but is perhaps even more so a crucial artifact; a socio-cultural, political, and historical relic for the entire continent of Africa. At the risk of sounding overly audacious, one could even argue that,
15 After Ghana’s independence, (by 1960) 17 more colonies had gained their independence. 16 Frank Stock. Africa South of the Sahara: A Geographical Interpretation. p. 3. 17 Mr. Asanti was also part of Nkrumah’s special envoy to the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and later, an ambassador to Britain. 18 Source: podcast of “Ghana: Winds of Change”, BBC’s Documentary Archive. 19 In The Demigods: Charismatic Leadership in the Third World (1970), Jean Lacouture discusses the etymology of the title Osagyfo saying revealing that, the translation of the title which means the Giver of Victories, is also the translation of “Nesser”. “But in the Egyptian leader’s case, the word refers to God”. 20 Arthur Segal. From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia. p. 129.
11
the arch transcends its locale and holds immeasurable meaning(s) for oppressed peoples with the
shared struggles of walking the path to liberation.
It has been “reported that Doctor King told Richard Nixon on [Ghana’s independence]
day, I want you to come and visit us in Alabama where we are seeking the same kind of freedom
Ghana in celebrating.”21 For others, such as Kevin K. Gaines, who have also documented the
significance of Ghana’s independence, “on Ghanaian soil, Nixon was compelled to meet with
King, who had vainly sought to engage an apathetic Eisenhower administration on the issue of
civil rights.”22 Thus, Ghana’s independence as symbolized by the monument had a rippling
impact throughout Africa and even across the Atlantic. While there is no telling the impact the
physical edifice of the Arch might have had on the Civil Rights Movement, the recorded
statement by King to Nixon, is proof enough that the message behind the monument, or the
message it symbolized, had a significant impact on the fight for independence of oppressed
peoples well beyond the borders of Ghana.
On the basis of the research of archival documents, government publications, journal
articles, newspaper articles, conversations with Dr. Don Arthur (the prominent architect who
designed Dr. Nkrumah’s mausoleum), site visits, recordings from Dr. Nkrumah’s famous
Independence Day speech, news podcasts23 and their transcripts, this undertaking explores the
(in)compatibility of the ideologies which inspired the Independence monument, and the rhetoric employed to project them. That is to say, is this significant monument an ironic work because it adopts the rhetoric of the triumphal arch—a typology already steeped in meanings which have supported and best epitomized imperial ideologies—the very ones the Independence Arch seeks
to defy in its stance?
21 Farai Chideya. “ ‘Our Ghana’ at 50” Transcript Document from News and Notes National Public Radio (NPR) 22 Kevin K. Gaines. American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates and the Civil Rights Era. p. 5. 23 Web-based audio broadcasts, accessed by subscription over the Internet. 12
Conversely, is the appropriation of foreign-style iconography, in spite of the availability of indigenous precedents of entry arches and pylons, a deliberate or even subversive act, as proposed by Nnamdi Elleh in his “Architecture and Nationalism in Africa?” (2001)24 Even more intriguing, what does it mean to be “independent?” Perhaps “independence” should allude to the liberty to express oneself beyond the expectations and pressures of employing a purely cultural/indigenous language. Perhaps the tendency and default disposition to communicate in indigenous rhetoric is rather shackling, colonizing, and thus an attitude which reinstitutes and perpetuates the ideologies of the colonial enterprise. Or is it?
In an effort to sufficiently orient readers, this thesis will commence with a narration of the pivotal events which sparked Ghana’s independence, inspired the creation, and also indicated the placement of the Freedom and Justice Arch. In Chapter One, I examine the idea, dimensions, and the intentions of a “national identity” where it pertains to Ghana. Chapter Two investigates the evolution of the Independent Arch, and also explores how the monument functions, through its multiple uses and within its varied contexts. Chapter Three focuses on what the monument means, and how it communicates or transmits meaning(s). The concluding chapter, Chapter
Four, covers a critical examination of the hypothesis furthered here.
24 Nnamdi Elleh. “Architecture and Nationalism in Africa,” in The Short Century: Independence and Liberation Movements in Africa 1945-1994. p. 237. 13
Chapter I: Historical Background; the Makings of a National Monument
“Ghana, Land of freedom; Ghana, Land of freedom Toils of the brave and the sweat of their labor Toils of the brave which have brought freedom.”
--E.T. Mensah, Highlife King and The Tempos
As one of the oldest colonies of the English empire on the African continent, Ghana was viewed by England as a model for its colonial enterprise.25 Conversely, in the view of nations
then yet to be liberated, Ghana became the prototype of decolonization in Africa—as it was the
first of the sub-Saharan African states to achieve independence, and subsequently, the first
independent African member of the British Commonwealth.
The dichotomy, as clearly embodied in these histories, could present clues and perhaps
viable reasons for the curious character displayed in the Independence Arch as it stands in
commemoration, and in celebration of the birth of the pioneering nation. For this very reason, the unique conditions and circumstances which prompted Ghana’s independence, and consequently burdened it with the leading role in the movement toward African liberation and unity, ought to be sufficiently discerned. Additionally, in order to understand yet another defining facet of the Arch, Ghana’s role and status of “model colony” as used by colonialists, and as revealed by history, also needs to be discussed.
Ghana’s reputation as “model colony” has been documented and commented on by
authors like John Hughes of the Christian Science Monitor, and Russell Warren Howe. John
Hughes once stated that "Ghana [had] come to be looked upon as a kind of experimental
25 For a paralleled discussion see Mark Crinson’s “Dialects of Internationalism: Architecture in Ghana, 1945-66” in Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. (Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), 128. 14
laboratory, the results from which can be used to gauge African ability and responsibility in,
successive nonwhite territories rushing pell-mell toward self-rule."26 Though comments such as
Hughes’ reveal a clear bias for prolonged governance by colonialists, it nevertheless chronicles
the perception of Ghana’s role as a pace-setter for other African nations. Hughes’ assertion,
however partial, also alludes to the pressures and anxieties inherent in its status as “model
colony.”
Russell Warren Howe’s “Gold Coast Into Ghana,” published in The Phylon Quaterly
soon after Ghana’s independence, is another article which evidences not only the perception of
Ghana’s leadership role, but also sheds some light on the conception of the label, “model
colony.” In Howe’s words, “[when the phrase: ‘Ghana has saved herself by her exertions. She
will shortly save Africa by her example'] was first coined, in the Nineteenth Century, with
‘England’ in place of Ghana and ‘Europe’ in place of Africa, it was never intended to be more
than a stirring piece of slick rhetoric.”27
The phrase was adopted, as Howe suggests, modified by a Ghanaian editor,28 and published in one of Ghana’s newspapers29 a day after its independence. In his article, Howe
further describes the use of the appropriated rhetoric as “… [simple] and adequately [stating] the
historical meaning of Ghana’s nationhood.”30 Although Russell Warren Howe’s article reveals
that appropriated rhetoric such as the above-mentioned can be interpreted as a reason for
Ghana’s role as a pace-setter, others have argued otherwise.
Janet Berry Hess suggests that it was the act of achieving independence itself, rather than
appropriated rhetoric after the fact, which cemented Ghana’s status as a trend-setter for the rest
26 Stephen A. Smith, ICPP Project: Bibliography on Party Politics in Ghana, 1950-62, 27 Russell Warren Howe, “Gold Coast into Ghana”, p. 155-161. 28 Editor Therson-Cofie according to Howe, rewrote the phrase in Ghanaian terms. 29 The article was published in the Daily Graphic. 30 Russell Warren Howe, “Gold Coast into Ghana”, p. 155-161. 15
of the African continent,. According to Hess, “[Ghana’s independence] was a powerful
psychological and ideological force, [which broke open the African continent to independence
movements, and shaped the traditions of decolonization…].”31 Here, Janet Hess’ poignant
words point not to the propaganda embedded in an adopted and shared clause, but to the actual
feat of regaining independence as the compelling force which attracted Ghana’s label of trend-
setter.
Remnants of this perceived status/role are still quite prevalent in modern times as
illustrated during Ghana’s fiftieth anniversary celebrations held around the vicinity of the
Independence Arch on March 6th 2007. In his official address during the main events of these celebrations, Ghana’s president, John Kufuor, alluded to the fact that the celebrations marked
Ghana’s independence, but also celebrated the entire African continent.32 The lingering presence of this perceived role was further demonstrated by several other African presidents who acknowledged and echoed president Kuffour’s words during the same event.
For the colonialists, however, the Gold Coast (as Ghana was then known), was a “model colony” because of the manner in which it was operated—indirectly by the British with the support of traditional chiefs. The then-English colony was considered to be exemplary in the eyes of its oppressors because it was relatively peaceful and stable in comparison to its neighboring colonies, such as Nigeria and Sierra Leone.33
Ordinances and treaties, such as that commonly referred to as the Bond of 1844,
necessitated this indirect form of governance and epitomize the many British efforts to usurp
judicial authority, replacing the native, traditional and customary forms of governance. In
describing the key historic events which transpired in the Gold Coast in his book, The New
31 Janet Berry Hess, Art and Architecture in Postcolonial Africa, p. 7 32 Alexis Akwagyiram, “Ghana Hosts 50th Birthday Party”. 33 Kwaku Sakyi-Addo, “The Architect of Ghana’s Independence”. 16
Ghana: The Birth of a Nation, J.G. Amamoo recognizes the Bond of 1844 as the treaty which bound Britain and the Gold Coast. According to Amamoo “…only a loose but rapidly developing form of friendship existed…” before the clauses of the bond were instituted.34
By the bond, Amamoo suggests: “…authority [formerly wielded and exercised by the
chiefs] was given for the exercise of British jurisdiction. The chiefs were given British
protection, and most of the obnoxious customs and practices of the people were made illegal.”35
Indeed, the constituting clauses of the bond offer further evidence to the institution of this
indirect and cunning means of governing. The third clause upheld that “…murders, robberies,
and other crimes and offences, will be tried and inquired of before the Queen’s judicial officers
and the chiefs of the district, [molding] the customs of the country to the general principles of
British law.” This and other such clauses enabled the desired conditions that earned the Gold
Coast its title of “model colony,” at least in the view of its oppressors—the British.36
The belief in the Gold Coast as the exemplary colony, however, subsided after the events of February 28, 1948. On this day, Ghana emerged as a model and an exemplary nation for a different audience—African nations—just as it ceased to function as the “model colony” as in the official view of the British.
On the above-mentioned date, three unarmed members of the union of ex-servicemen37—
Sergeant Cornelius Fredrick Adjetey, Private Odartey Lamtey, and Corporal Attipoe— were killed by colonial officers while embarking on a peaceful march. Reactions to this catastrophic event erupted into riots and unrest—conditions which were apparently uncharacteristic of a pioneering colony. A study of Ghanaian history suggests rather clearly that the unfortunate
34 Joseph. G. Amamoo, The New Ghana: The Birth of a Nation. p. 5. 35 Ibid. p. 5. 36 A. N. Allott, “Native Tribunals in the Gold Coast 1844-1927. Prolegomena to a Study of Native Courts in Ghana” p. 163-171. 37 The Union of Ex-servicemen constituted of army veterans who fought along the British during the world wars. 17
events of February 28, 1948 greatly catalyzed other upheavals, resulting subsequently in Ghana’s
liberation from colonial rule. In unearthing and discussing the importance of these events in a chapter labeled “The Great ‘Forty Eight,’” J.G. Amamoo reveals that the year 1948 “… [is] a pivot on which the modern history of Ghana has been rotating.”38
Due to this underlying importance (and in view of what the Arch monumentalizes), a
discussion of the events of February 28, 1948 is sufficiently warranted, and thus needs to be brought to bear on the minds of readers. An even more compelling reason for this discussion lies
in the fact that the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch stands upon the very location where
the three unarmed World War II veterans were murdered.
In unfolding the multiple causes of the 1948 upheavals which prompted Ghana’s
revolution, Amamoo establishes, in a passage laced with appropriately stringed imagery, what
can only be described as a chain reaction:
“There were grievances, some of them generations old, nursed to maturity, so that all that was needed to set the whole country ablaze was the application of a tiny spark to the gunpowder of social and economic dissatisfactions. The spark was produced jointly by a chief and a body of ex-servicemen, and the flames were fanned by the oratory of Kwame Nkrumah.”39
The chief identified as one of the culprits for producing that needed “spark” was Nii
Kwabena Bonne III, who was then a merchant, but even more importantly, a Ga40 sub-chief.
“Nii Kwabena Bonne III, called for a boycott of European, Indian, and Lebanese…” says “Ex-
servicemen at the Crossroads”’ author Adrienne M. Israel, whose research explores the often
overlooked role of ex-service men in colonized African countries, with a particular focus on the
38 38 Joseph. G. Amamoo, The New Ghana: The Birth of a Nation. p. 5. 39 Ibid, 12-13. 40 The Gas are a group of Ghanaians indigenous to the Accra plains 18
Ghanaian case. In narrating some of the key conditions which triggered the demonstration,
Israel reveals that the chief’s call was aimed at “…firms which were alleged to be responsible for
unnecessary price inflation, and urged everyone to stop buying from [these] foreign-owned
stores until they brought prices down substantially.”41
Some of the other dissatisfactions, as recognized by authors such as Joseph Amamoo, were also hatched by the political grievances. By historical accounts, most educated Ghanaians interested in pursuing political careers felt that opportunities for shaping the destiny of their country was grim so long as British rule and presence remained. The feeling of alienation was attributed to the fact that all the important appointments and positions in the government were held by British officers—who relied not on these aspiring politicians, but rather on indigenous chiefs, for support. According to some historians, “…the suspicion had grown that the chiefs were in league with the British to stifle the political aspirations of the people.”42 The resulting
tension between indigenous and national leadership—that is, the chiefs on one hand, and aspiring politicians on the other—was but one of the sources of friction which later ignited upheavals like the demonstration on February 28, 1948.
Also, Ghanaian soldiers who had served overseas “…on returning home felt that the promises which were made prior to enlistment were not being fulfilled.”43 However, in addition
to these largely political dissatisfactions, there were other equally propelling factors. For
instance, the educated class—who worked primarily in the civil services—was grossly
dissatisfied for remaining stagnant in the ranks in spite of their adequate experiences, just as the
alleged unfair distribution of goods and unemployment infuriated the general public.
41 Adrienne M. Israel. “Ex-Servicemen at the Crossroads: Protest and Politics in Post-War Ghana”, p. 363. 42 Joseph. G. Amamoo, The New Ghana: The Birth of a Nation. p. 9. 43 Refer to Joseph. G. Amamoo’s discussion: the veterans felt that they had been misled and ill treated as their disablement allowances and other allowances due them were too scanty and not in proportion to the rising coast of living. They felt that they were not being rehabilitated and resettled quickly enough. 19
Another of the very compelling reasons for the grievances and subsequent unrest during
the pivotal year of 1948 was the colonial government’s prescribed measure to eradicate a viral
disease that was devastating the cocoa industry. 44 The emergence of the Swollen Shoot disease
and the implemented remedy, according to Amamoo, “…was a source of constant friction and
anxiety.”45
As Swollen Shoot disease became more of an issue, the government charged scientists to
study its causes, as well as find a remedy to the disease which was now causing undeniable
economic devastation. Unfortunately, the scientists arrived at a conclusion which Joseph
Amamoo describes as a “…naturally uneasy decision for the farmers to swallow.”46 The ultimate cure and endorsed remedy, as suggested and forcibly implemented by the colonial government via laws, was quite simple: “…wholesale cutting-out of the diseased cocoa trees, followed by an intensive campaign of replanting.”47 Although the remedy was not readily
embraced by the farmers, it was considered by the colonial government as the only viable means
of saving the Ghanaian cocoa industry, and thus the nation’s main source of revenue from
“…utter devastation and extinction.”48
The spontaneous tensions hatched by the troubling situation plunged the population into
increasingly dangerous situations. In order to successfully implement the prescribed remedy,
“… [the] government passed a law enforcing compulsory cutting-out.”49 As the government
dispatched special battalions equipped with cutlasses and axes to actually enforce this new law,
44 The cocoa industry was and continues to be one of, if not the principal source of income for Ghana. As such, cocoa farming was the livelihood of a large portion of the populace. Amamoo, as well as other historians who grasp the degree of dependency on this industry, have worded to the situation in as “…an economic foundation…” on which the country depends. 45 Joseph. G. Amamoo, The New Ghana: The Birth of a Nation. p. 11. 46 Ibid, p. 12. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 20
cocoa farmers also armed themselves and prepared to protect their trees. Amamoo’s words in
The New Ghana: The Birth of a Nation, capture a more accurate yet troubling picture: “…so
hostile was the farmers’ attitude …that by January 1948, just a year after the [law’s]
introduction, [the farmers] were resorting to arms to defend their trees from the axes and
cutlasses of the battalions of cutting out-officers.”50
Apart from the Swollen Shoot outbreak historians have often discussed other social
causes, such as the limited “availability” of education, as potential sources behind the 1948
revolution. According to Joseph Amamoo and other Ghanaian historians, although there were
several primary schools in Ghana, facilities for higher education were so limited that very few
ever enjoyed any secondary education. Obviously, this scarcity enabled a troubling vicious cycle—“partly-educated” natives were passed over for jobs, earned much less, or even worse, remaining unemployed. Thus, the disparities between natives and foreigners afforded by the scarcity of educational facilities also fueled the very defining events of 1948.
The initial plan of the day was to hold a peaceful march—licensed by a permit issued by the police commissioner—and to petition the dire but persisting conditions to the governor, Sir
Gerald Creasy, at the seat of the colonial government, the Christiansborg Castle. The march consisted of at least 1,000 ex-servicemen and off-duty soldiers in order to present the petition which underscored six major demands:
“(1) official recognition of the Ex-servicemen’s Union, (2) co-operation between the Union and the Legion, (3) the release of those serving prison terms for ‘trivial offences committed while on an active service overseas,’ (4) pensions and gratuities for ex-servicemen, (5) Africanisation and regular commissions for African officers, and (6) war service credit for pupil sanitary inspectors, nurses, and dispensers.”51
50 Ibid. 51 Adrienne M. Israel. “Ex-Servicemen at the Crossroads: Protest and Politics in Post-War Ghana” p.365. 21
By Adrienne Israel’s account of the events of February 28, 1948, “[what] began as an orderly parade of unarmed ex-servicemen, singing old war songs and marching in well-defined columns on that Saturday afternoon, ended in confusion, violent confrontation, and days of looting and burning, and deaths.”52 The demonstrators now nearing 2,000 (with supporters and
spectators) was reportedly stopped by a small police contingent led by Superintendent C.H.
Imray at the crossroads leading to the Castle. After some policing tactics to disperse the crowd failed, the British Superintendent warned that he would open fire if the crowd advanced. Israel continues:
“This proving of no avail [Superintendent Imray] gave the order to fire. He was then in front of his men and it appears his order was not heard. Accordingly, seizing a riffle form the nearest man, Superintendent Imray himself fired at one of the ringleaders who had been exceedingly active in urging on the advance. He fired in all six shots…The total casualties resulting from the shooting at the crossroads were two killed, including one ex-serviceman and four or five wounded.”53
Though Israel’s narration of the events of that pivotal day rings true and conforms to the gist of other known accounts, including those I heard during history lessons in elementary and middle school, it distinguishes itself from other accounts in the number of veteran casualties recorded. Other accounts of the same event including Eugene P.A. Schleh’s, “The Post-War
Careers of Ex-Servicemen in Ghana and Uganda,” names and records the deaths of not one (as put forth by Israel), but three very brave and honorable ex-servicemen—Sergeant Cornelius
Fredrick Adjetey, Private Odartey Lamtey, and Corporal Attipoe.
In spite of these disparities, the outcome of what started of as a peaceful demonstration is undisputed. The outcome, no matter the varying renditions is indeed undisputed for it is clearly
52 Ibid, p. 364. 53 Ibid, p. 365. 22
eternalized as the Independence Arch bursts forth from these events, and from the very spot
where the murders occurred.
If the function of the Independence Arch is to preserve some version of the past, as I have
previously stated, then from a certain perspective, the monument encroaches on, and perhaps even trivializes and adulterates, the events which truly birthed the nation and its signature monument. That is, even though the Freedom and Justice Arch sprung from the very location where the three ex-servicemen were murdered, the monument itself does nothing to record this all-too-pivotal narrative. There is a sense that an unlabelled or an unmarked object could be
possessed and can mean not to a few but to all; the collective; the citizens of a nation. Perhaps
by this very reasoning, all fifty feet of the Arch and its plaque reveal not even a fraction of the
narrative as revealed above. The narrative is denoted not on the edifice for which it owes its
essence, but rather it remains buried in obscure books. As Adrian Forty has expressed in his
Work and Building (2000), “buildings have been an unreliable means of prolonging memory,”
adding that “all too often the object [monument] has survived, but who or what it commemorated
has been forgotten.”54 By way of illustration, Forty queries, “what did the arch at Orange
commemorate?”55 “A battle, a victory…” he continues, “but more that nothing is remembered.”56 The illustration employed here by Adrian Forty could not be more pertinent, for
the typology of the arch at Orange is one shared by the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch.
54 Adrian Forty. Works and Building. pp. 106. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 23
Chapter II: Monument as Propaganda Device
“The images, metaphors, and rhetorical turns from which national ideologies are built are essentially devices, cultural devices designed to render one or another aspect of the broad process of collective self-redefinition explicit, to cast essentialist pride or epochalist hope into specific symbolic forms, where more than dimly felt, they can be described, developed, celebrated and used”.
--Clifford Geertz
“The nationalist spirit can be expressed in a variety of interrelated ways all of which have architectural correlations: the striving for victory, isolationism and the avoidance of change”.
--Mitra 1962
“Materiality conveys meaning. It provides the means by which social relations are visualized, for it is through materiality that we articulate meaning and thus it is the frame through which people communicate identities”.
Joanna Sofaer Materiality and Identity (2007)
The foremost task of the thesis, and therefore this chapter, is to show that Ghana’s national identity has indeed been predicated by the Freedom and Justice/ Independence Arch.
That is, that beyond symbolizing political freedom, the nation’s identity has been consciously or unconsciously, but certainly, systematically connoted by the edifice inaugurated on the nation’s
Independence Day. In this chapter, I will also explore the means by which the monument’s use has reinforced the assumed role of signifying a consolidated Ghanaian national identity, and the problems inherent in this role.
Both prior to and after Ghana’s declaration of independence on March 6, 1957, the Daily
Graphic published the numerous planned happenings with articles, accompanied by vivid imagery to mark the historic event. As one of the main means of dissemination to the masses,
24
newspapers also contained information aimed at dispensing notions of an established identity for
the newly independent nation. In fact, the media’s role in promoting ideas of independence
during and after the colonial era was recognized as so effective that measures were put in place
to limit its use as a revolutionary tool.
In Culture and Customs of Ghana (2002), Steven J. Salm and Toyin Falola suggest that
“since 1957, Ghanaian governments have feared the use of the press as a revolutionary tool, and
have sought to control it through censorship and intimidation.”57 This suggestion reveals that the
news media, while developed during the colonial era and used to promote colonial political and
cultural policies, was indeed controlled and strategically used to advance the government’s goals
well after independence was achieved. For instance, in its March 17, 1958 edition, the Daily
Graphic published all three verses of the national anthem in its popular pages. The newly approved anthem was framed by thick dashed lines. Encased at the bottom of the dashed frame was the bold instructive caption, “Cut this out and keep it”.58
Together with books written by commissioned authors and articles such as “…She
Unveils Our Monument,”59 the news and print media were the first to acknowledge an
established national identity, and successfully espoused pride for the new nation via the
propaganda device of the Independence Arch. The most illustrative and pertinent of these strategically tailored articles/images was that published on page sixty-six of Willis E. Bell’s
Ghana on the Move (1965), a book commissioned by the Publicity Secretariat (an office of the
President).
57 Steven J. Salm and Toyin Falola. Culture and Customs of Ghana. p. 73. 58 Jubilee Ghana: A 50-year news journey thro’ Graphic. p.29. 59 Ghanaian Daily Graphic March 6, 1957. The title of this article referred to the Duchess of Kent unveiling the Independence Arch. 25
The image in question captures a jubilant crowd of Ghanaian women clad in traditional
attire (Fig. 3). In the background of the full-page image is an angled view of the Independence
Arch. On its own, the collage of disparate ideological components - the appropriated
iconography of the white monument on one hand, and the traditionally clothed indigenes on the other - remains defiantly contradictory (this claim will be thoroughly explored in the subsequent chapter). However, the telling image is juxtaposed and reinforced by a caption which reads, “…
We in Ghana are working hard to build a society in which the condition for happiness for each will be the condition for all…” 60
Fig. 3. A jubilant crowd (traditionally clad Ghanaian women) celebrating the nation’s achievement around the monument. The image is juxtaposed with a very revealing caption. This image is taken from Ghana on the Move.
60 Willis E. Bell. Ghana on the Move. p. 66. 26
The print and news media of the 1950s were not the only ones who understood the
inextricability of the ties between Ghana’s independence and the Independence Arch. On July 1,
2007, the National Bank of Ghana issued new currency notes in an effort to tackle inflation and
to restore the value of the cedi (Ghanaian unit of currency) through remonetization.61 The peculiarity of the new, crisp, and colorful currency notes was rooted in the absence of the string of zeros for which the cedi’s steady decline had been accurately characterized. However, the new notes’ uniqueness was also heightened by the fact that an image of the Independence Arch was present on the front (obverse) of all of the five newly introduced currency notes (Fig. 4).
The new red one cedi note, the blue five cedi, yellow-green ten, purple twenty, and the brownish- hued fifty cedis notes all bear the image of the Independence Freedom and Justice Arch completed some six decades ago.
Until this time, all of the previously-issued banknotes depicted unique images; images telling of Ghanaian identity. There were depictions and symbols of national heritage and emblems of tradition—adinkra symbols62, wooden statuettes, kente63 weavers, fauna carvings—
all unique to Ghana. In essence, each banknote was readily characterized and recognizable by its
unique illustrative depictions.
61 This is a process whereby a currency suffering from inflation which adds excessive zeros to even the smallest banknote has several of those zeros lopped off or shed, restoring the currency to a more normal range of values. 62 Adinkra symbols are a complex (socio-cultural) traditional system of signs encoded with philosophical, satirical, or allegorical meanings, unique to Ghana. 63 A type of fabric made of interwoven yarns and cloth strips on a loom. 27
Fig. 4. Front (obverse) side of one of the five newly released banknotes. The ten cedis currency note shows the portrait of the Big Six juxtaposed with the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch. Image courtesy of Bank of Ghana website, http://www.ghanacedi.gov.gh/index1.php?linkid=227&archiveid=161&page=1&adate=04/12/2006 (accessed June, 2007).
Speaking to the significance of the repeated illustration of the monument, Dr. Paul A.
Acquah, Governor of the Bank of Ghana, remarked that the Independence Arch is “the symbol of
political independence of Ghana.”64 Incidentally, the issuance of the new notes coincided with
the jubilee celebration of Ghana’s independence; an elaborate year-long celebration which also
paid homage to “the six gallant men65 who spearheaded the struggle for Ghana’s
independence.”66
The image of the six gallant men, affectionately named the “Big Six,” also appears on the
banknotes, “re-composed into a single oval portrait,”67 but juxtaposed with the image of the
Independence Arch as if to equate their valor, importance, and reverence with that of the edifice
(Fig. 4). This was not, however, the first time the image of Ghana’s triumphal arch appeared on a Ghanaian currency note. In fact, apart from the image of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, no other image
64 “The New Cedi and Pesewa”, http://ghana-net.com/money_of_ghana.aspx (accessed April 4, 2008). 65 The six gallant men comprised of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Mr. Ebenezer Ako Adjei, Mr. Edward Akufo-Addo, Dr. Joesph Boakye Danqua, Mr. Emmanuel Odarkwei Obetsebi-Lamptey, and Mr. William Ofori Atta. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 28
has reappeared on the nation’s currency notes as much as the mnemonic sited in the nation’s
capital city.68 Both the ten cedis (Fig. 5), and the ten thousand cedis notes (Fig. 6), released in
1965 and 2002 respectively, bore the iconic image of the Independence Arch.
Fig. 5. Back (reverse) side of the old ten cedis currency note (issued in 1965) showing the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch. Image courtesy of http://www.banknotes.com/gh.htm (accessed May, 2006).
Surely evidence of the Arch’s significance as illustrated through the multiple uses and the
duplicity of its image on currency notes, as well as other printed media, cannot be dismissed or
even disputed. Like newspaper articles or even radio and television programming, currency
notes provide a truly effective and lasting means of disseminating information to the masses. In
Architecture and Power in Africa (2002), Nnamdi Elleh resorts to a similar recourse of
examining banknotes in an effort to study two monumental and religious works—Our Lady of
Peace Basilica and the Hassan II Mosque—separately commissioned by two African leaders.
From Elleh we know that “countries use images from their heritage or their contemporary achievement as their national symbols” on their banknotes.69 But in his comparison of the
68 Here I have excluded images such as the national crest or coat-of-arms, a motif which persists as a branding for all Ghanaian currency notes. 69 Nnamdi Elleh. Architecture and Power in Africa. p. 62. 29
leaders’ motives in their use of monumental architecture, Elleh also observes that representations on national currency notes are generally chronologically logical.70 That is, the images are
mostly displayed sequentially, in order of completion rather than significance, or for any other
reason. Perhaps here we can then safely deduce that the monument’s presence on various
banknotes are not entirely unique but are nonetheless profoundly telling of its purpose. The
obvious lack of “chronological logic,” that is, the monument’s depiction on banknotes in 1965,
2002, and again in 2007 (in spite of its completion in 1957), suggests its unrivaled significance in
Ghanaian heritage and identity. The image has been recalled not entirely randomly, but
definitely not chronologically, in an effort to remind Ghanaians of a national “identity” and
heritage.
In his discussion of the dimensions of national identity in Architecture, Power, and
National Identity (1992), Lawrence Vale establishes that national identity often takes the form of
symbolic expressions. Irrespective of their form—flags, icons of state leaders, political party
emblems, logos, slogans, and depictions of indigenous sceneries on legal tender and stamps—
they all, according to Vale, contribute to the “…production and consolidation of the ‘we.’”71
Vale discloses that, in spite of the ample modes for diffusing these symbolic expressions, architecture, seems to “… [assume] a peculiar place in this assemblage of nation symbols.”72
70 Ibid. 71 Lawrence Vale, Architecture, Power, and National Identity. p. 47. 72 Ibid. 30
Fig. 6. Back (reverse) side of old ten thousand cedis currency note (released in 2002) showing the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch. Image courtesy of http://www..com/gh.htm (accessed May, 2006).
In an attempt to solidify this claim, Vale reveals that the words “ONE CENT” on the
American penny were replaced by the image of the then-newly-completed Lincoln Memorial.
Analogously, the image of Thomas Jefferson’s head on the nickel was replaced by an image of
his home.73 In essence, he asserts that governmental buildings or monuments, such as the above-
mentioned, persist as symbols of the government. Here Vale also proposes quite specifically that
illustrations on national currency notes are a deliberate means of actively exhibiting a nation’s
established identity.
This argument is certainly complicated by the equally potent supposition that the appearances of the Freedom and Justice Arch on cedi notes are nothing more than displays of contemporary achievements; proud “achievements which proclaim national promise of progress in agriculture, industry, education and health care.”74 There is, after all, ample merit to such an
argument especially because numerous illustrations exist in support of such a counter-claim.
These illustrations include, but are not limited to, the ten cedis note released in 1978, the twenty
73 Ibid. 74 Merrick Posnansky. Propaganda for the Millions: Images from Africa. p. 2. 31 thousand cedis note released as recently as 2002, and lastly, the two thousand cedis note released four years prior in 1998.
When the above-mentioned banknotes were issued, each of them bore an image of a recently completed project proclaiming, even if subtly, national promise. Ghana’s famous
Akosombo Hydroelectric Dam, a £ 42.7 million project often referred to as the largest single investment in the country’s economic development plans was the main illustration on the now- defunct ten cedis note. Similarly, the National Theatre, a building constructed at great cost as part of an effort to increase patronage of the performing arts in Ghana, was depicted on the old twenty thousand cedis note (Fig. 7). And again, Ghana’s Adomi bridge, a steel suspension bridge which spans across the Volta (the world’s largest man-made lake), adorned the discontinued two thousand cedis note (Fig. 8).
Fig. 7. Back (reverse) side of twenty thousand cedis currency note (issued in 2002) showing the National Theatre in Accra. Image courtesy of http://www..com/gh.htm (accessed May, 2006).
32
Fig. 8. Front (obverse) side of the old two thousand cedis note (issued in 1998) showing the Adomi suspension bridge. Image courtesy of http://www..com/gh.htm (accessed May, 2006).
However, conceding to such a counter argument—one which insists that the appearances
of the Independence Arch on currency notes is nothing more than a display of contemporary
achievement—is made even more difficult, first of all, because the image of the monument has
been disseminated through several other means. But secondly, the dissemination of the iconic
image has been carried out in a deliberate and calculated manner; a manner which surpasses the
intent of showcasing a newly completed civic feature which provides development, comfort,
convenience, or pleasure.
For instance, during the Jubilee celebrations (the same celebrations marked by the release
of the five new banknotes), several postcards bearing the image of the Arch were published and
sold for circulation. In an effort to solidify the contention that Ghana’s national identity is
predicated by the Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch, this dissertation will discuss the use
of the image of the monument on postage stamps in subsequent pages; however it will suffice
here to suggest that these Jubilee postcards are not unlike postage stamps. Postage stamps have
already been widely declared as fruitful devices used in “conveying knowledge about that
33 country’s cultural heritage to the outside world”75 by philately scholars such as Merrick
Posnansky, Aghenyega Adedze, and Jonathan R. Walz.
The postcards produced in celebration of Ghana’s independence were composed of images which have over time been associated with Ghana’s national heritage and identity. They consist of images of the ceremonial presidential seat, an image of Kwame Nkrumah delivering his famous midnight speech on Independence Day, and of course, the Independence Arch. For good measure, to avoid any ambiguity, the above-mentioned elements are meshed and reinforced by two Ghanaian flags.
The images of the postcard (Fig. 9), especially the national flags, help to dispel arguments which oppose the claim that Ghana’s national identity rests heavily on the Freedom and Justice Monument. But even more importantly, the incorporation of the flags as demonstrated on this particular postcard strongly supports the argument that the Independence
Arch is very much an embraced emblem of Ghanaian national identity.
75 Merrick Posnansky. “Propaganda for the Millions: Images from Africa”. p. 1. 34
Fig. 9. Front side of one of the Golden Jubilee postcards, published in celebration of Ghana’s 50th anniversary.
Considering the composition of the meticulously thought-out postcard, it can be
contended that the monument in Accra is just as much an emblem of national identity as the
Ghanaian national flag.
Additionally, the use or appearance of the Independence/ Independence Arch on Ghana’s
national postages stamps reiterates, but also effectively reinforces, my contention that the
monument functions as an emblem of Ghanaian identity. In “Archaeopolitics and Postage
Stamps in Africa,” philately scholar, Jonathan R. Walz suggests that “a critical archaeology of
stamps reveals the archaeopolitics inherent in postal images of African cultural heritage.”76 The statement clearly exposes the potential for gaining historical insights, but more specifically, the prospect of tracing recordings of cultural heritage and national identities through the examination
76 Jonathan R. Walz. “Propaganda of the Millions: Images from Africa”. pg. 1. 35
of postal material. Walz’s statement also provides ample reason and a convincing justification for the use of the image of the Independence Arch on Ghana’s postal stamps.
Like currency notes, several themes ranging from national heroes to musical instruments, from ceremonial dresses to wild life, and from regional costumes to traditional architecture, are also depicted on various stamps. However, one of the more pertinent motives behind this thesis is one recorded by philately scholar Merrick Posnansky in his article, “Propaganda for the
Millions: Images from Africa.” In his article, Posnansky notes that “the earliest stamps of Africa depicted European symbols of authority: the ruler’s head…or the allegorical symbols of freedoms and values that imperial powers failed to provide for their African subjects.”77 Here, one realizes at once that through their extensive usage at various stages of the colonial enterprise, postal stamps were propaganda devices exploited by the colonizer for disseminating tailored information to subdue the colonized.
Posnansky’s observations seem to be readily embraced by other scholars of philately, as demonstrated by Jonathan Walz’s article. Walz similarly contends that by “using the instruments of hegemony; European powers in Africa promoted or silenced pasts in order to justify and secure their political ambitions.”78 Yet another scholar, Abenyega Adedze, reemphasizes this
point. In commenting on the intent of postal images in Africa, specifically those at the
Exposition Coloniale Internationale of Paris in 1931, Adedze suggests that the repertoire of
stamp images “were invented and manufactured by the French government to give themselves an
illusion of control over the colonies.”79 He adds that “it is apparent that the metaphors of liberty,
77 Merrick Posnansky. “Propaganda for the Millions: Images from Africa”. p. 1. 78 Ibid. 79 Agbenyega Adedze. “Re-presenting Africa: Commemorative postage stamps of the Colonial Exhibition of Paris”. pg. 1 36
equality, and brotherhood were subtly subverted and distorted to justify the subjugation,
colonization, and exploitation of Africa.”80
A vivid illustration of this widespread trend was a stamp issued by Italy’s Benito
Mussolini in his colonization of the northern Sahara.81 Issued in 1932, the stamp in question
depicts a Roman road being excavated in Libya. Commenting on the symbolism of the image
presented on the colonial Libyan stamp, Walz suggests that the stamp conveys “a clear message
of the antiquity of Italy’s presence in that area,” adding that the embedded message is
“undoubtedly a claim to ownership.”82
These and other such assertions demonstrate that postal imagery was indeed a medium
through which the enterprise of colonization was enacted, justified, and protected. The
assertions give the examination of postal material legitimacy as a viable source of information
concerning issues of the historicity of colonization, and thereby establishes philately as a worthy
approach for this thesis. However from a certain perspective, the implications of philately
scholars’ assertions cited here also legitimize the use of postal imagery as a medium for anti-
colonization. This is because as two forces opposed to each other, colonization and
decolonization were often enacted through identical media.
In conceptualizing stamp imagery as a tool in efforts to undo colonization and formulating unity via nationhood, Ghana has employed and continues to employ the
Independence Arch as a symbol of national identity. Here too, that is in the context of postal material, the image of the Freedom and Justice Arch has been used in conjunction with the most recognizable and accepted symbol of Ghanaian national identity—the national flag. However, evidence of the monument’s role in representing national identity is ultimately demonstrated by
80 Ibid. 81 Jonathan R. Walz. “Propaganda of the Millions: Images from Africa”. pg. 1. 82 Ibid. 37
the timely and selective use of the image on commemorative stamps. This is most typified by
the stamp labeled the “National Monument” in 1963’s edition of the Stanley Gibbons’ Postage
Stamp Catalogue.
The “National Monument,” a light blue colored stamp, bears the image of an
uncompleted, slightly angled but centered Independence Arch. It was issued for circulation in
1958 to commemorate the nation’s first anniversary of independence (Fig. 10). Like the postcard
previously discussed, this stamp incorporates the use of the Ghanaian flag in its composition.
Situated to the left of the stamp, the tricolor flag depicted fluttering on a black mast is
comparable in size to the Freedom and Justice Monument. The branding “GHANA” is boldly
situated to the upper right corner of the stamp as if to remind its users—buyers, collectors and
philatelists alike—what constitutes Ghanaian identity. The components of the image portrayed
on this stamp float slightly above the tiny inscription, “FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF
INDEPENDENCE.” However, in spite of this labeling one gets a definite sense that the stamp’s
constituting elements—the national flag, the Independence Arch, and the branding “Ghana”—are
used complementarily to proclaim and then project an identity.
Fig. 10. “The National Monument”, a commemorative postage stamp issued on the occasion of Ghana’s First anniversary of independence.
38
As shown, the use of the Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch in the news and print media is too well-aimed and far too consistent to be accidental or insignificant. The monument has indeed been employed consistently and deliberately to portray Ghana’s identity.
Surely, by way of its history and placement as previously discussed, the monument emblematizes a history which was underscored by a successful resistance to an imperial process.
Thus, the white edifice symbolizes the struggles between indigenous and colonizing forces, and thereby also marks the nation’s political independence. Moreover, due to the events and circumstances surrounding its inception and inauguration, the mnemonic also etches the birth of a young nation-state. From that perspective, there is conceivably a degree of legitimacy to the role of “birthmark,” for which the triumphal arch in Accra also plays. Perhaps the monument’s continuous and extensive use demonstrates the fact that it is recognizable as the embodiment of a disparity of ideologies; contradictions which make for a challenging emblem of national identity especially if one is not continuously reminded or acclimatized.
39
Chapter III: Disparity in the Ideologies Proclaimed and Represented
“For much of this century, modern architects [and their patrons have perceived monumentality] not only as antithetical to the basic functional and social premises of the new architecture, but also as perpetuating the very social hierarchies that they sought to overthrow”.
--Mary McLeod “The Battle for the Monument” from The Experimental Tradition, 1989.
“The success of colonial appropriation depends on a proliferation of inappropriate objects that ensure its strategic failure, so that mimicry is at once resemblance and menace”.
--Homi K. Bhabha
“Nationalism is the sort of ideology that…can have a political impact only if presented in simplified forms and embodied in symbols and ceremonials”
--Alan Cassels.
Karl Mannheim (1985) suggests that the term “ideology” can be read in two ways:
“particular ideology” or “total ideology.” Unlike Nnamdi Elleh in Architecture and Power in
Africa (2002), I am also concerned here with the usage of the former which denotes that we are skeptical of the ideas and representations advanced by the subjects (in this case Ghanaian government) as justifications for their action in building the Arch.83
I have previously suggested that the proven emblem of Ghana’s identity, the Freedom
and Justice/ Independence Arch, seems inappropriate in its function largely on the basis of what I
would call a disparity; an inconsistency in the ideologies displayed by the enormous white
edifice sited in the nation’s capital city, Accra. Characterizing the monument as curious and
ironic has also generally been supported by this lack of correspondence in the ideologies which
inspired the monument, and the rhetoric employed to project them.
83 Nnamdi Elleh. Architecture and Power in Africa. p. 100. 40
In this chapter, I shall explore the propelling argument of this thesis, and provide
justification for just that claim. That is, the ultimate aim of the chapter is to make apparent that
two of the ideologies which inspired the nation’s independence—Pan-Africanism84 and
Garveyism85—were, firstly, adopted as national ideologies, and secondly, that they do not
conform to those inherent in the Freedom and Justice Arch.
Ghana: Haven and Intersection of Pan-African and other Anti-colonial Movements.
On the day of Ghana’s independence, its citizens celebrated the occasion with songs like
“Freedom Highlife” composed by E. T. Mensah, one of Ghana’s famous musicians of the day.
The song which remains popular, praised “Ghana, land of freedom”. Elsewhere like in Britain,
other musicians, such as the Trinidad-born calypso singer, Lord Kitchener, composed musical
tributes to mark and celebrate Ghana’s achievement.
Kitchener’s lyrics in one of such tributes included lines like “This day will not be
forgotten / the 6th of March 1957 / When the Gold Coast successfully / get her independence
officially.” The song, which aptly fuses “rhythms of Caribbean calypso, West African
Highlife,86 and African-American jazz, provides yet another opportunity to underscore the global
significance of Ghana’s independence. However, apart from re-demonstrating this significance,
84 Though the term is difficult to discern or define as a single political ideology, Pan-Africanism posits a sense of a shared historical fate for Africans in the Americas, West Indices, and, on the continent itself, has centered on Atlantic trade of slaves, African slavery, and European Imperialism. 85 In a more general sense, Garveyism is a universally recognized term used to describe the ideology of Marcus Garvey. That is, the body of thought and organizational activities associated with Marcus Garvey. 86 The music genre itself is reflective of the struggles and aspirations of the ideologies of freedom. K. Gaines as noted that “as a form of expressive culture highlife is synonymous with the anti-colonial movement. In fact, the name, highlife, connotes popular African aspirations for freedom and modernity. 41
“Kitchener proudly [and rightly situates] Ghana and Nkrumah within a history of Pan-
Africanism, referencing the mass movement led by Marcus Garvey…”87
Kevin K. Gaines, author of American Africans in Ghana (2006), contends with ample
certainty that Nkrumah would have “approved of the song’s evocation especially because in
addition to making references to the struggle to rid the entire African continent of colonialism, it
also encourages the view that Ghana’s triumph is to be shared throughout Africa and among
peoples of African descent.”88 Here, one can appreciate the role and effectiveness of music as
an index to socio-political and cultural scenes in Ghana and throughout the African continent.
But even more importantly, Gaines’ contention shows that Ghana fully embraced and practiced
those ideologies defined by Black Nationalism: self-determinism and freedom. That is, Pan-
Africanism and Garveyism.
In addition to grounding Ghana within the history of the above-mentioned movements,
other facts also provide insight into the prevalence of the movements often credited for fuelling
Ghana’s independence. For instance, in spite of the long, impressive, and diverse list of dignitaries present at Ghana’s Independence Day celebrations, Kevin K. Gaines also notes that there was a noteworthy absence in the person of William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (or W.E.B
Du Bois, as he is commonly known).
“Widely considered the doyen of Pan-Africanism, the eighty-nine-year-old Du Bois was
noticeably absent from the ceremonies because he had been denied a visa by U.S. authorities on
the presumption that his leftist views posed a national security risk.”89 Eventually Du Bois, one
of the spearheads of Pan-Africanism and the founding father of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), would denounce his American citizenship and
87 Kevin K. Gaines. American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates and the Civil Rights Era. p. 3. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid., p. 5. 42
become a citizen of Ghana, where his remains are interred. By characterizing Du Bois’ absence
at the Independence Day celebrations as “noteworthy,” we can infer his esteemed importance,
and thus the impact his ideologies had on Ghana.
Also, the very fact that Ghana functioned as a safe haven for individuals considered as
radicals for embracing so-called “leftist” ideologies goes to show that the country and its
leadership were not merely sympathetic of the plight of its expatriates, but were even acutely
aligned with views considered as radical elsewhere. Again, according to Kevin K. Gaines,
“Ghana was unrivaled among African nations in its willingness to provide sanctuary to black
(and [non-black]) radicals from the United States, the Carribean, Africa, and Europe unable to
function politically in their countries of origin.”90
He adds that “[for] many of these expatriates, the willingness to provide not only political asylum but also material and political support to movements still fighting to oust white minority regimes made Ghana a destination of radical hope.”91 These expatriates included prominent
African-American and West Indian advisers and heads of state, including West Indian economist
Richard Wright, W. Arthur Lewis, Jamaican novelist Neville Dawes, Trinidad’s prime minister,
Eric Williams, African-American civil rights leader James Farmer, Martinique-born intellectual and activist Franz Fanon, and W.E.B. Du Bois, as well as those mentioned in the introduction.92
In short, Ghana was a refuge for a host of iconic figures; figures who founded, upheld and practiced the ideologies of Pan-Africanism and Garveyism, all of which were patronized by the
Ghanaian government.
But perhaps one of the more revealing indicators of Ghana’s full endorsement of Pan-
African, as well as Marcus Garvey’s ideologies, can be found on the nation’s flag (Fig. 9). As we
90 Ibid., p. 10. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid. 43
have already seen (in the previous chapter), the Ghanaian national flag consists of the colors red, yellow, and green—a collection of colors generally referred to as the “Pan-African colors” by
vexillologists and historians.93 On the Ghanaian flag, the Pan-African colors are displayed in succession as horizontal bands. However, a five pointed black star is situated at the heart of the
flag; the center of the yellow band.
In its symbolism, the various elements of the tri-colored flag represent specific notions
and/or ideas. For instance, according to Abyna-Ansaa Adjei, author of Ghana at 50, (a
commemorative publication celebrating the nation’s 50th anniversary of independence), the red
band of the flag represents the blood of the heroes who fought for Ghana’s independence; the
yellow symbolizes Ghana’s wealth in gold and other mineral resources; and the green strip
signifies the nation’s luscious forests and landscapes.94
In spite of the obvious use of the so-called Pan-African colors, it is the centered five-
pointed black star which most indicates that Ghana adopted the political ideologies of Pan-
Africanism and Garveyism. Also referred to as the “Garvey Star” by historians such as David E.
Apter, author of Ghana in Transition (1972), the black star (as the moniker “Garvey Star” might
already suggest) is a symbol unmistakably associated with Garveyism, and hence the Pan-
African and nationalist leader, Marcus Garvey.
The symbol of the “Garvey Star” was derived from The Black Star Line, a steamship
company operated by Garvey and the Universal Negro Improvement Association (U.N.I.A) from
1919 to 1922. In her book, Garvey and Garveyism (1970) Amy Jacques Garvey, widow of the
nationalist leader, describes the steamship company as the “U.N.I.A.'s vehicle for promoting
93 WorldAtlas.com, http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/flags/countrys/africa/ghana.htm, (accessed May 9, 2008). 94 Abyna-Ansaa Adjei. Ghana at 50. p. 12. 44
worldwide commerce among black communities.”95 In revealing her husband’s intentions,
Amy Jacque Garvey also reveals that her husband “envisioned [the Black Star Line] to serve as a
symbol of black grandeur and enterprise.”96 This assertion is validated by other Garvey
scholars. In fact, the companion to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) series “American
Experience” describes Marcus Garvey’s Black Star Line as “a powerful symbol to a dispossessed
people.”97
In Ghana at 50, Abyna-Ansaa Adjei reveals that “the [black star on the Ghanaian flag]
represents Ghana, the state that blazed the trail of independence in Black Africa, the lone star of
African freedom.”98 However, elsewhere the same motif is also described by Adjei as
“depicting the nation’s place as the beacon of Africa in the fight against colonialism.”99
Together with the etymology of “Garvey Star” and a fair understanding of the Ghanaian flag, we can safely deduce that Marcus Garvey’s philosophies and ideologies are indeed upheld as that of
Ghana’s.
Additionally, in subscribing to the notion that a nation’s flag is ordinarily perceived as symbolizing her identity (as in the previous chapter), we can also infer with equal certainty that
Garvey’s ideologies are conceived of as an integral part of Ghana’s identity, due to the presence of the “Garvey Star” on the nation’s flag. Consequently, the motif of the black star (the symbol of Garveyism) is seen not only on the Ghanaian national flag, but is used extensively as a form of branding to project the nation’s identity. For instance, the “Garvey Star” is one of the more dominant and most repeated elements of Ghana’s coat-of-arms/crest (Fig. 10); it also occupies a
95 Amy Jacques Garvey. Garvey and Garveyism. p. 34. 96 Ibid. 97 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). “Marcus Garvery: Look for Me in the Whirlwind” 98 Ibid., p. 11. 99 Ibid. 45
prominent place on the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum. But even more importantly, the black star
is the crowning piece of the Freedom and Justice/ Independence Arch.
Fig. 11. Ghanaian Coat-of-arms showing the dominate motif of the “Garvey Star” or the Black Star. The motif of Gaveyism is also represented on the attic of the Freedom and Justice/ Independence Arch. According to Abyna- Ansaa Adjei, author of Ghana at 50, the national crest showcases the Ghanaian identity as a proud one.
Apart from its prominent appearance on the above-mentioned emblems of national
identity (the national flag, coat-of-arms, and the Independence Arch), the “Garvey Star” has also
been utilized non-graphically. That is, Marcus Garvey’s black star inspired the name of Ghana’s defunct shipping fleet (Black Star Line), her alternative name (The Black Star), the names of the national soccer teams (The Black Stars and The Black Starlets), and so on. Here, one must not fail to notice that the symbolism of the “Garvey Star” is utilized beyond pictorial or graphical representations as seen on the flag or even the newly released cedi notes (Fig. 11). In inspiring the names of the nation’s soccer team, shipping fleet, and so on, there is indeed little doubt that
Garveyism was more than merely admired by Ghana’s leaders. These facts show that Marcus
46
Garvey’s philosophies were endorsed as a Ghanaian ideology, but also adopted as a vital part of the nation’s national identity.
Fig. 12. Front (obverse) side of the newly released fifty cedis note showing to the left of the note, the symbol of the “Garvey Star” the symbol of Garveyism. image courtesy of http://www..com/gh.htm (accessed May, 2006).
Fortunately this contention is adequately supported by Garvey scholars such as Horace
Campbell, a contributor to Rupert Lewis and Patric Bryan’s Garvey: His Work and Impact
(1988), a collection of essays from authors presented at a conference to mark the centenary of
Marcus Garvey's birth. In her essay, “Garveyism, Pan-Africanism and African Liberation in the
Twentieth Century,” Horace Campbell describes Kwame Nkrumah as “a disciple of Garvey and one of the leading exponents of Pan-African liberation…”100
The above-mentioned cases provide evidence revealing the prevalence of Marcus
Garvey’s ideologies in Ghana. But ultimately, neither imagery nor songs, the names which adorn the nation’s priced possessions, nor Campbell’s accurate characterization of the president, illustrate the endorsement of Garveyism in Ghana. Rather, it is the famous speech of the new nation’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, which best situates Garvey’s ideologies in Ghana.
100 Horace Campbell. “Garveyism, Pan-Africanism and African Liberation in the Twentieth Century” in Garvey: His Work and Impact. p. 179. 47
After thanking the delegates present at the Independence Day celebration during his
famous midnight message, Kwame Nkrumah paid homage to Marcus Garvey. In his concluding
words he remarked that “Marcus Garvey once looked throughout the world to see if he could
find a government of black people.”101
According to the emotionally-charged leader, the prominent anti-colonialist set out to
create a government of black people after failing to find such a state. “Marcus Garvey did not
succeed,” according to Nkrumah, “but here today, his work has come to a reality at this
moment.”102 Here, one can only interpret the president’s remark as a declaration of a state
ideology. Certainly the president’s poignant words, delivered on the pivotal and apt occasion of
the nation’s independence, validates my contention that Garveyism—the ideology which sought to undo European Imperialism and rectify its adverse effects—was the prevailing political ideology embraced in Ghana.
Triumphal Arch: An Emblem of Imperialism and Colonialism
In Signs, Symbols, and Architecture (1980), editors Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt and Charles Jencks, introduce readers to the idea that architecture, “like language, is embedded not only with codes, but also subcodes which are decipherable for a variety of possible readings in the course of history…”103 In their essence, these codes are the tools used to make meaning of
the signs which denote specific ideas. The brunt of the statement, I would argue, suggests that
architecture is, in large part, a medium of communication. However, what remains most
relevant, at least for the purposes of this argument, is the inventory of explanations which
101 Johnny Botchway. The Great African: Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah (CD of live recorded speeches). 102 Ibid. 103 Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, Charles Jencks. Signs, Symbols, and Architecture, p. 35. 48 follows the types of architectural codes put forth by the editors: technical, syntactic, and semantic codes.
It appears, even in a nation which stopped short of formally declaring Garveyism as a state ideology, that the Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch is an appropriate way of monumentalizing Ghana’s independence from colonial rule. After all, even the name of the architectural type of the monument—“triumphal arch”—inherently suggests that the “gate-like structure”104 is ordinarily used to celebrate triumphs.
From a certain perspective, it can also be argued that the use of the Independence Arch is perhaps understandably justified because it is also consistent with the rhetoric routinely used in describing Ghana’s pioneering achievement. It is worth noting that throughout his political career, Kwame Nkrumah used the imagery of battle to describe Ghana’s liberation from imperial/colonial rule. This fact is clearly illustrated in his dramatic midnight speech, where
Nkrumah declared that “[at] long last the battle has ended.”105 In this very speech, he also thanked the “chiefs and people of the country, the youth, the farmers, the women,” but also the
“freedom fighters” who he thought [had] so notably fought and won [the] battle”106 (emphasis added).
Contentious perhaps, but through this revelation, one might readily find some reason as to why a triumphal arch symbolizes Ghana’s identity as well as its independence. Thus, it is neither a stretch nor an overstatement to perceive of the Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch as a crystallization of the imagery woven into Nkrumah’s speeches. However, the illusion of the edifice’s appropriateness subsides after a proper understanding of the triumphal arch’s typology is reached and its embedded meanings are unearthed.
104 Arthur Segal. From Function to Monument. p. 129. 105 Jubilee Ghana: A 50-year news journey thro’ Graphic. p.8. 106 Kwame Nkrumah. Revolutionary Path. p. 121. 49
According to Broadbent, Bunt and Jencks, unlike the other kinds of architectural codes,
(technical, syntactic) semantic codes are constituted by “the significant unit of architecture, or the relations established between individual architectural sign-vehicles and their denotative and connotative meanings.”107 They add that “[semantic codes] might be subdivided as to whether, through them, the units:
(a) denote primary functions as in the case of roofs, stairways, or windows, (b) have connotative secondary functions, like with tympanum, triumphal arch, neo-Gothic arch, (emphasis added) (c) connote ideologies of inhabitation , as with common room, dining room, [parlor]), or (d) at a larger scale have typological meaning under certain functional and sociological types, as is the case for hospitals, villas, schools, palaces, and railway stations.”108
The message put forth here is clear: classified as a classic example of semantic code, the triumphal arch is already embedded with, and accompanied by decipherable meanings. Such knowledge is vital in gaining a proper understanding of the triumphal arch as Arthur Segal, author of From Function to Monument (1997), shows in his discussion of the evolution and the functions of the architectural form.
In his book, Segal reports that the triumphal arch has served several functions through its evolution. He records that since its inception by the Etruscans in Italy, the architectural form was initially used to “commemorate a military victory, a particular historic event, or a personality connected with that event.”109 The triumphal arch was later employed to mark city boundaries, territories, or even jurisdictions beyond the city’s walls. However, none of these diverse functions surpass the function of the Roman architectural form in the latter years of its evolution.
107 Ibid., p. 39. 108 Ibid., p. 3 109 Arthur Segal. From Function to Monument. p. 129. 50
According to Arthur Segal, after so many years the triumphal arch was used almost
exclusively by emperors. “Many of the arches,” Segal reports, “were erected upon the orders of
emperors who wanted to have their names and their deeds [honored].”110 In fact, Segal argues that triumphal arches were erected simply to perpetuate the name of a specific individual— usually the emperor—and thus, a better term for such an arch would be honorific arch. As such, the arches were also used as a means by which municipalities and conquered territories expressed their gratitude to the emperor. Segal posits that such meaning shows that the architectural form of the triumphal arch functioned most notably as a vehicle; as an instrument to convey an emperor’s might as the ruler of several municipalities, provinces, territories, and so on.
Other history scholars seem to agree with this assessment. Robin Fowler, author of
“Commemorative Monuments and Sacred Places in the Roman Forum” reveals in a discussion of triumphal arches that “in Rome’s Imperial era, only emperors were able to celebrate a triumph with an arch.”111 Through Segal and Fowler’s discussions, we can gather with sufficient
certainty that the triumphal arch was a typology recognized as a stamp of imperialism not only
by the oppressor (empire or colonizer), but also by the oppressed (subjects or colony).
Apart from the above-mentioned authors, a slew of other scholars also provide evidence
to substantiate the contention that the triumphal arch was largely used as a device to enable
imperialism. According to Richard Brilliant, author of The Arch of Septimus Severus in the
Roman Forum (1967), in its true tradition, the architectural type of the triumphal arch was “a
vehicle for the satisfaction of the Imperial commission.”112 The recorded assertion emphases the
claim that triumphal arches were reserved for the use of emperors. But Brilliant’s remark also
110 Arthur Segal. From Function to Monument. p. 129. 111 112 Richard Brilliant. The Arch of Septimus Severus in the Roman Forum. p. 35. 51
validates the contention that the architectural form was employed not only as a symbol, but also an enabler of imperialism.
In The Arch of Septimus Severus in the Roman Forum (1967) Richard Brilliant also reveals that “[by] the end of the second century A.D., there existed a strong tradition in Roman architecture that a triumphal arch was an excellent device to celebrate the achievements of an emperor and to make those deeds clearly and forcefully accessible to the Roman public”113
(emphasis added). If we are to understand imperialism or colonialism to be “the policy [or ideology] which aims at [forcefully] creating, organizing and maintaining an empire,”114 as
Kwame Nkrumah suggests in his Revolutionary Path (1973), then the envisioned purpose of the triumphal arch as highlighted through the adjective “forcefully”(as used by Brilliant) is indeed consistent with the ideologies of imperialism.
To this effect, triumphal arches bear the names of the emperors who commissioned them, or to whom they were dedicated. For instance, the Arch of Septimus Severus was dedicated to
Lucius Septimus Severus, the twenty-second Roman emperor, just as the Arch of Titus was erected to commemorate the spoils of Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus, the second emperor of the Flavian dynasty, who ruled from 69 to 96 A.D.
But perhaps what remains most telling of the architectural form described by Richard
Brilliant as a “propagandistic intrusive public monument,”115 is the fact that triumphal arches
were also erected to record some version of a history. That is, to perform the role of a literary
device, but also function as an advertisement.
In Brilliant’s words, triumphal arches were erected “as great billboards, high, wide and
eye-catching, which advertised the record of military success so that men could read of the
113 Ibid. 114 Kwame Nkrumah. Revolutionary Path. p. 18. 115 Richard Brilliant. The Arch of Septimus Severus in the Roman Forum. p. 35. 52 exploits of the Emperors…”116 For this very reason, the scheme of the triumphal arch was designed to accommodate the function of announcing the exploits of the emperor, as revealed by
Arthur Segal. Here too, the rules and traditions to the scheme evidence, but also uncover the embedded ideologies which propelled the extensive use of the triumphal arch.
In his discussion of the use of the attic—a component of the triumphal arch—Segal reveals that “[customarily], the emperor’s four-horse chariot (the quadriga) [is] placed on top the attic.”117 Indeed, the attic of the Arc de Triomphe, the French national monument after which
Ghana’s Independence Arch was modeled, housed a life-size sculpture of French Emperor,
Napoléon Bonaparte, on board his four-chariot horse in the monument’s original design. The attic’s customary use as a pedestal for what is easily the most profound symbol of an emperor— the sculpture of the emperor in his quadriga—further solidifies the typology’s use as stamp of imperialism.
116 Ibid. 117 Arthur Segal. From Function to Monument. p. 129. 53
Fig. 13. Arch of Septimus Severus showing the emperor’s quadriga (four-horse chariot), relief sculptures and inscriptions narrating the spoils of Emperor Severus of the Roman Empire.
According to Robin Fowler, as a literary device, “triumphal arches were ornately [and
routinely] decorated with relief sculpture and inscriptions which told the story of the triumph.”118
This is evidenced by the Arch of Septimus Severus (Fig. 11) whose gilded inscriptions are characterized by Brilliant as “providing a brief but official version of the principal events in the first years of Septimius’ reign when the uncertainties of the civil wars were blotted out by the victory won over the foreign enemy…”119
In addition to projecting official versions of the emperor’s titles and exploits, the inscriptions on the attic of triumphal arches also included dates which record the year in which the arches were dedicated. For instance, on the Arch of Septimus Severus (Fig. 11), the
118 Robin Fowler. “Commemorative Monuments and Sacred Places in the Roman Forum”. 119 Richard Brilliant. The Arch of Septimus Severus in the Roman Forum. p. 91. 54
inscription of 203 A.D. indicates that the Arch was dedicated in that year. Interestingly, the
Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch in Accra is in accordance with these colonial or
imperial customs. The inscription A.D. 1957 on the Independence Arch maintains the long-
standing traditions established by the Roman Empire with the sole aim of enforcing imperialist
customs, inspired by colonial ideology.
The above discussion proves my contention that the triumphal arch is an emblem of
imperialism and a device to enforce the conditions which preserve imperialist conditions. That is a state vast in size, composed of various distinct national units and subject to a single, centralized
power or authority by force. In its stance, the Independence Arch, a monument envisioned to
monumentalize a former colony’s liberation from imperialism, transmits meanings by explicitly
referencing the classic symbol (triumphal arch) of what it attempts to defy—
colonialism/imperialism.
Furthermore, the Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch contradicts some of the very
philosophies, ideas, and concepts, inspired in the effort to rid Ghana of colonialist ideologies.
In his quest for freedom and justice for Ghana and Africa, Kwame Nkrumah proclaimed the
concept of “African personality.” This concept, according to Robert Yaw Owusu, author of
Kwame Nkrumah’s Liberation Thought (2006), “places emphasis on the dignity of the African
person, culture, and traditional values…”120 Thus, in theory, this concept sought to “liberate
Africa from the harm done by colonialism and apartheid, to remove the final vestiges of
imperialism, and to guard the African people against what he termed ‘neocolonialism.’”121
Here, it is clear that the Independence Arch, especially because of what it stands for, runs counter to the objectives of the so-called concept of “African personality.” Rather than
120 Robert Yaw Owusu. Kwame Nkrumah’s Liberation Thought. p. 6. 121 Ibid. 55 placing the emphasis on the African by endorsing his/her cultural and traditional values, the national monument, charged to mark the identity and the birth of a liberated nation, places that emphasis not merely on an iconography and form alien to Ghanaian culture and tradition, but even more damning, patronizes an iconography and form now proven to be the most symbolic of imperialism.
56
Chapter IV: Dr. Kwame Nkrumah; Patriarch and Patron
“Our laws must be divorced from society. While they must aim at safeguarding the freedom, the happiness and the prosperity of the individual citizen, they must not lose sight of the interests of society as a whole”.
--Kwame Nkrumah
“Who are the components of ‘the whole’? If you destroy all the individuals by taking away their rights, for whom do you keep the ‘interests of society as a whole’? The idea that society is an end in itself must have caused the French King to ask: ‘The State? Who is the State? I am the State!’”
--J.B. Danquah
“The pursuit of national identity by the leadership involves not some neutral revival of the past but its careful recasting to serve political ends…”
--Lawrence Vale (1992)
In Jean Lacouture’s The Demigods: Charismatic Leadership in the Third World (1970), the French author suggests that though the task of new nations which “provoked the ebb tide of colonialism is to dispossess of the possessors, they remain possessed and re-entrenched into colonialism by subsequent leaders.”122 According to Lacouture, the identified phenomenon has
occurred time and time again “because they [the citizens of new nations] still ask to be ‘founded’
and cry out for a founding father…” 123 In the case of Ghana, the symbolic, pivotal figure and
founding father, came in the person of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, and ironically the nation’s hope
and belief in him was that he was to lead Ghana out of the disorientation caused by colonization.
Without doubt, this thesis would be inadequate and restricted without a discussion of Dr.
Kwame Nkrumah, patron of the Independence Arch, the national monument which supposedly
122 Jean Lacouture. The Demigods: Charismatic Leadership in the Third World. p. 14. 123 Ibid. 57
symbolizes Ghana’s national identity. As such, in this chapter I will discuss the makings,
intentions, and motivations of Kwame Nkrumah; Black Africa’s pioneering Prime Minister and
President.
The main intent of the ensuing discussion is to show that very much like the colonialists who subdued their Ghanaian subjects by imposing their will, so to did Ghana’s founding father impos his personal will, hopes, opinions, and aspirations on his people. This imposition, I will argue, is typified by the commissioning and realization of the Independence Arch. As such, the
national monument, charged to symbolize Ghanaian identity, can be seen as a product of elitist
preferences catalyzed by the dreams and ambitions of one man. The imposition of Nkrumah’s
personal goals, as will be argued, was made possible because the Ghanaian leader assembled
(and also had absolute control of) the entire apparatus of the Ghanaian state, while abusing it to
further his personal aspirations.
He adopted and broadened the definition of colonization used here, is one which suggests
that the “leader aids only to camouflage the reality of neocolonialism…” instead of squarely
confronting it as Nkrumah was unable to do at least through mediums such as the
Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch.124 That is, as Mark Crinson describes when
commenting on such works as the Arch in Modern Architecture and the End of Empire (2003),
architecture in Ghana retreated to its function as a means of selective public memory and the
embodiment of bureaucratic symbol systems.125
In his commentary, Crinson further assesses the situation in post-independent Ghana as
such: “the Faustian pact had been sealed and architecture became the condition of
124 Ibid. 125 Ibid. 58
neocolonialism writ large.”126 The implication embedded in Crinson’s assertion is clear: works
such as the Parliament House and the Independence Arch were personal instruments of
empowered politicians, used only to further their personal ambitions and to institute a new form
of colonialism.
In fact, there was the monumental bronze statue of Nkrumah located in an open plaza in
front of the Ghanaian Parliament, in 1956. According to Janet Berry Hess in “Imagining
Architecture”, the statue was commissioned by Italian artist Nicola Cataudella, and the architect,
Sergio Barbeski, “depicts Nkrumah stepping forward with one arm raised in salute and
greeting.”127 The motivation for siting such an imposing and incredibly suggestive statue on an otherwise neutral political location is perhaps still debatable. However, the inscriptions on the self-loathing monument provide clear evidence to Crinson’s argument that architectural works like the Parliament House and the Independence Arch were instruments to further Nkrumah’s personal ambitions.
On the base of the statue were inscribed three phrases attributed to Nkrumah: “We prefer self-government with danger to servitude in tranquility,” “Seek ye first the political kingdom and all other things shall be added unto it,” and “To me the liberation of Ghana will be meaningless
unless it is linked up with the total liberation of Africa.” Not surprisingly, the Cataudella
monument was declared as a monument which represented the dreams of Ghana and the African
continent at large. That is, in a national broadcast, the monument was described as “[serving] as
a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of Africa and…symbolized their faith in the ultimate
achievement of their dreams.”128 Clearly, in this circumstance a sub-national identity and the
ambition of Nkrumah were being passed off and imposed as those of a nation. Perhaps it comes
126 Mark Crinson. Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. p.156. 127 Janet Berry Hess. “Imagining Architecture: The Structure of Nationalism in Accra, Ghana. p. 35 128 Ibid. 59 as no surprise then that the commissioned statue was defaced when Nkrumah was overthrown from power.
The imposition of a personal or sub-national identity, rather than a national identity, is discussed in great detail by Lawrence Vale in his book, Architecture, Power, and National
Identity (1992). Here, although Vale focuses primarily on parliament buildings as a medium through which national identities are communicated, one can nevertheless extrapolate his ideas as they pertain to issues surrounding national identity.
In his book, Vale alerts readers to the fact that architectural works constructed to espouse national pride and identity are often marred and complicated by the personal preferences of the ruling government’s leadership. In the author’s words, “the global architecture of [the] buildings still turns along a single major axis that runs between two poles: the economic pull of multinationalism and the magnetic attraction of personalism.”129
An incident recorded by Mark Crinson (2003) epitomizes Lawrence Vale’s assertion, but also implicates Kwame Nkrumah’s tendency to choose a personal identity or preference over a national identity. In recounting the telling incident, Crinson reveals that when the design and construction of the new Parliament House was discussed, Nkrumah presented the cabinet with an image of the Hungarian Parliament House which appeared on the top of a cigarette box, and recommended that a near copy of it be made for Accra.130 That is, for no apparent reason, and lacking in-depth discussion, Nkrumah single-handedly decided within moments on the character of the building which was to represent the pride and ideals of an entire nation.
Surely, one cannot dispute the fact that making clear decisions on behalf of the varying voices of citizens is one of the paramount responsibilities placed squarely on the shoulders of
129 Lawrence Vale. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. p. 52. 130 Mark Crinson. Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. p.155. 60
elected officials. However, the identity of a nation, and a newly liberated nation at that, is one
which should elicit the careful deliberation of not one, but several minds. Unfortunately, the
recorded incident demonstrates that even from the onset, highly visible public works such as the
Parliament House and the Independence Arch, all of which were envisioned to promote a collective pride and identity, were in fact nothing more than personalized symbols of divine authority for the country’s first president. They were indeed churned along a single major axis that runs along not two but a single pole—the magnetic attraction of Kwame Nkrumah’s personalism.131
Perhaps the very manner in which the Independence Arch is currently used, especially in
the print media, accurately betrays how its supposed users have come to understand the white
edifice. Its use in the print media (discussed in chapter II) and elsewhere reveals that the
monument might have been intended as a tool of personal political power and a device/emblem
for Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the man who commissioned it. That is, instead of representing the
collective—the nation—as a symbol of national identity should, the monument as seen on
recently released banknotes has the cunning potential to function only as a personal stamp of its
patron(s). On the five cedis note (Fig. 14) seen below, the image of Nkrumah (upper left; closest to the Arch) along with five of his colleagues is juxtaposed with that of the
Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch.
131 Lawrence Vale. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. p. 52. 61
Fig. 14. Front (obverse) of the five newly released five cedis banknotes. The currency note shows the portrait of the Dr. Kwame Nkrumah (with his colleagues) juxtaposed with the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch. Image courtesy of Bank of Ghana website, http://www.ghanacedi.gov.gh/index1.php?linkid=227&archiveid=161&page=1&adate=04/12/2006 (accessed June, 2007).
The composition of patron and national monument as seen above is one that has been employed time and time again. Like the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch itself, the composition of the images displayed on the five cedis currency note was perhaps likewise adopted from the French, whose 100 Franc note (Fig. 15) relays the same reverence through imagery to Napoleon Bonaparte, patron of the Arc de Triomphe.
Fig. 15. Front (obverse) of the 100 French francs banknote released in 1960. The currency note shows the portrait of Napoleon Bonaparte, patriarch of France, but also commissioner of the Arc de Triomphe. Image courtesy http://www.banknotes.com/FR144.JPG (accessed June, 2007).
62
That is, just like on the newly released cedis notes, the 100 Franc note displays with
striking semblance, a slightly tilted Arc du Triomphe on the left, flanked on the right by an image
of its commissioner, Napoleon Bonaparte, with a visionary stare into the distance.
But the semblance exposed in the composition of the currency notes from France and
Ghana, is hardly an isolated event. In places like in Morocco, King Hassan II employed the
same strategy on the front side of the twenty dirhams currency note (Fig. 16). Here too the
image of a very elaborate monument—The Great Mosque of Casablanca—is graphically equated with the image of the monument’s commissioner, King Hassan II.
Fig. 16. Front (obverse) of the 20 Moroccan dirhams banknote released in 1996. The currency note shows the portrait of King Hassan II juxtaposed with his mosque, the Great Mosque of Casablanca. Image courtesy of http://www.banknotes.com/ma67.htm (accessed July, 2008).
In Nnamdi Elleh’s (2002) assessment of the Moroccan banknote, the use of the portrait of
the King Hassan II “has a deliberate effect on many essential aspects of Moroccan people’s daily
experiences.”132 According to Elleh, “since [banknotes are] something that people handle on a
daily basis, it [becomes] an ideal tool to impress the desired images of the king on the Moroccan
132 Nnamdi Elleh. Architecture and Power in Africa. p. 60. 63
people through the visual abstractions that are familiar to them.”133 In effect, the strategy of juxtaposing a leader with his/her commissioned monument becomes a powerful means by which the commissioner’s personality is deployed in the public sphere.134
Unfortunately, the widespread use of this archetypical composition of monument and
commissioner as seen in currency notes from elsewhere has done little to lessen the manipulative
and suggestive power of the illustrations on the Ghanaian banknotes. The images on the newly
released currency notes have retained that potency because they persist in prompting their users
down two roads. The first suggests rather craftily that Ghana’s identity is eternally linked to Dr.
Kwame Nkrumah, while the second seems to declare that the Arch represents its commissioner
and his grandeur, rather than the nation.
My contention that the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch was the personal symbol
of Kwame Nkrumah is perhaps best supported by Barbara S. Monfils’ “A Multifaceted Image:
Kwame Nkrumah’s Extrinsic Rhetorical Strategies,” an article published in 1977’s issue of the
Journal of Black Studies. In this article, Monfils reveals not only the craftiness of Nkrumah, but his intentions as the first president of Ghana. Here, Monfils shows that Nkrumah concerned himself with ridding the country of the psychological and political bonds of colonialism through
an initiative he labeled “Operation Psychology.”
“Operation Psychology,” as revealed by the newspaper of Nkrumah’s political party, the
Convention People’s Party (CCP), consisted of the use of “visual aids in interpreting the soul and spirit of independence when we fought so dearly to achieve.”135 By Monfils assessment, the
Independence Arch played an integral part in this scheme, because “Nkrumah’s extrinsic rhetorical strategies in the period immediately following independence were always directed
133 Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Barbara S. Monfils. “Multifaceted Image: Kwame Nkrumah’s Extrinsic Rhetorical Strategies” p. 313. 64
toward the fulfillment of this ‘Operation Psychology.’”136 However, a clear appreciation of what
constituted this so-called psychology shows that it was a meticulous scheme which sought to
“break the psychological and political bonds of colonialism” as proclaimed.137 In fact, in most
instances the strategies of “Operation Psychology” only served to elevate Nkrumah “as leader,
chief, and warrior, and ultimately as a Christ-like figure.”138
According to Monfils, Nkrumah was a master at manipulating settings to his own
advantage. Before he uttered a word, Monfils reveals, “certain psychological associations had
been suggested to his audiences through his use of setting. These cunning tactics included his
use of dress, his performance of traditional rituals, and his use of physical location to set a
certain psychological tone.”139 For instance, his political party, the CCP, had adopted the
batakali, or smock, a traditional garment indigenous to the peoples from the Northern part of
Ghana, as its official attire during the independence campaign. In fact, when he declared
Ghana’s independence, Nkrumah was clothed in a batakali.
136 Ibid. 137 Ibid. 138 Ibid., 314. 139 Ibid. 65
Fig. 17. Nkumah (third from the right, and closest to the microphone) and his compatriots; Archie Casely-Hayford, Komla Gbedemah, Kojo Botsio and Krobo Edusei, dressed in batakali during the declaration of Ghana’s Independence, Accra, March 6, 1957. Image courtesy of Time Life Pictures/Getty Images.
However, when he delivered policy statements to the National Assembly, Nkrumah often wore a Western business suit. By Barbara Monfils’ assessment, the use of the Western attire during a carefully selected number of occasions “added a certain businesslike quality to
[Nkrumah’s] presentation.”140 At other ceremonial events, for example, including the signing of the Ghana-Guinea Pact and the state opening of Parliament, Nkrumah was draped in rich kente cloth—the royal garb reserved for Akan chiefs (traditional royalty of the largest ethnic group in
Ghana).141 In her article, Monfils characterizes Nkrumah’s motives in donning this royal garb as a deliberate effort to “enhance his own position as “chief” of the Ashanti nation, which was one of the last to fall under colonial domination.”142
140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 66
Interestingly enough, the intended effect of these antics were reinforced in the news
media, which was naturally controlled by government. On several occasions pictures of the
president in kente were printed in the Evening News followed by captions like “Kwame Nkrumah
Star of Unity” (March 25, 1957) and “Kwame, the Symbol of Unity” (April 3, 1957).
In her general assessment of Nkrumah’s use of attire, Monfils states that Nkrumah was
likely to deliver a straightforward, factual presentation when in a business suit, a “rousing pro-
CPP statement, expressing pride in its accomplishments while condemning antiparty elements” while in a batakali, and would instantly espouse royal reverence when draped in kente.143 With the revelation of Kwame Nkrumah’s tactics within the context of the so-called “Operation
Psychology,” my contention that the Independence Arch was an instrument employed to secure and further his personal dreams and ambitions becomes a credible argument.
But perhaps the conclusions arrived upon after analyzing the Ghanaian banknotes seem rash and even baseless without a further discussion of the character of the man who “formed a one-party state, with himself as president for life, instituted “Operation Psychology,” and was accused of actively promoting a cult of his own personality.”144 Fortunately, apart from Monfils,
there are several other authors and historians who uphold that very contention.
In Kwame Nkrumah: the Anatomy of an African Dictatorship (1970), T. Peter Omari characterizes Nkrumah as an overly ambitious, calculating and oppressive leader. According to him, Kwame Nkrumah “was only concerned to impress the world with his greatness and the
legality of all his measures.”145 Indeed, even though largely unpopular, when one examines
Omari’s claims, they become compelling arguments.
143 Ibid, 135. 144 BBC World Service. “Kwame Nkrumah’s Vision of Africa” 145 T. Peter Omari. “Kwame Nkrumah: the Anatomy of an African Dictatorship”, p. xvii. 67
Interestingly enough, in this very book, T. Peter Omari indicates that because the rights
and liberties which would have merited the national motto (Freedom and Justice) were denied, the nation did not live up to that very motto which is legibly inscribed on the Independence
Arch.146 For Omari, the motto “Freedom and Justice” was a fraud, at least during the reign of
Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, because naming himself “president for life,” banning opposing political
parties, and controlling the press as Nkrumah did, made the nation anything but free and just.
In addition to the eternal label of “president for life,” Nkrumah also “acquired or
arrogated to himself other self-inflating titles.” 147 While these do not explicitly suggest that he
intended for the Independence Arch to symbolize his ambitions and greatness, the titles
nevertheless permit us to, even if from a distance, grasp his character and aspirations as a leader.
He declared himself: “Osagyefo (victorious in war), Kantamanto (one never guilty, one
who never goes back on his word), Teacher and Author of the Revolution, Oyeadeeyie (one who
puts things right), Man of Destiny, Star of Africa, Deliverer of Ghana, Iron Boy, the Messiah,
His Dedication”. 148 Surely, all of the above-mentioned titles reveal Nkrumah’s ambition to
secure a lifetime of dictatorship. Several of the titles, no matter how blasphemous, are still used
in his reference.
But perhaps unlike all the other self-loathing titles, none of the above-mentioned is quite as revealing, for the purposes of this study, as the title “Star of Africa.” It is one which was used extensively, and in several instances Kwame Nkrumah’s name was even substituted with a slight rendition of it. In 1973 for instance, Basil Davidson entitled a book which chronicled
Nkrumah’s life as Black Star; a View of the Life and Times of Kwame Nkrumah. And of course
146 Ibid, xii. 147 Ibid, 2. 148 Ibid. 68
on several occasions pictures of the president were printed in the Evening News, with captions
such as the following: “Kwame Nkrumah Star of Unity” (March 25, 1957).149
In recognizing the titles “Black Star”, and “Star of Unity” in place of the name of
Ghana’s premiere president, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, one must be duly reminded that the Freedom
and Justice/ Independence Arch is distinguished from the thousands of other triumphal arches
around the world by the large black star which sits atop its attic. Coincidental perhaps, but with a leader who has been shown to be as meticulously calculating, and as manipulative as Nkrumah, the distinguishing element of the Arch, and therefore the monument as a whole, is indeed revealed as a conscious ploy to evoke and impose his personal interests, hopes, and aspirations rather than uphold that of the nation’s. That is, in assuming pseudonyms which contained a variation of the phrase ‘Black Star,’ Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s motives in commissioning the
Independence Arch upholds Lawrence Vales assertion. Thus, the rhetoric exhibited in
Nkrumah’s speeches, so-called “operations,” as well as chosen nick-names, are cunningly mirrored in enormous works of the Independence Arch thereby solidifying Vale’s claim that national architecture is often determined by a leader’s magnetic attraction of personalism.150
149 Barbara S. Monfils. “Multifaceted Image: Kwame Nkrumah’s Extrinsic Rhetorical Strategies” p. 313. 150 Lawrence Vale. Architecture, Power, and National Identity p. 52. 69
Fig. 18. Front view of the Independence Arch looking west. Image courtesy of Adrian Kobby Adams (January, 2008).
70
Chapter V: Independence Arch; Semiology, Encoding, Decoding, and the Production of Meaning.
“The link between a pattern of built form and its meanings depends, in turn, on an association between the form and some referent. The associations are learnt either through formal education or informally through a person’s day-to-day experiences.”
--Amos Rapoport
“The creation of symbols requires the recognition of the meanings of specific patterns of built form and the attitudes people might have to them. All architectural styles/patterns can be the basis for communicating meaning—they have potential associations with ideas and events for people. They also have values associated with them.”
“One of the basic questions in architectural design is whose meaning a building should convey and to whom.”
--Jon Lang
“The built environment functions also as the carrier of symbolic messages about who one is and who one aspires to be, on an individual, group and national level.”
--Charles Goodsell
In understanding Dr. Kwame Nkrumah through initiatives such as “Operation
Psychology” and his publicized resolve to rid the former colony of any remnants of dependence, or the “colonial mentality” as he put it, the emblem of that very resolve—the Independence
Arch—emerges as a curious paradox because it functions contrary to Nkrumah’s intentions. The task of this chapter is to firstly unmask and clarify the paradox as recognized, and secondly to explore reasons as to why the Freedom and Justice/Independence Arch propagates those contradictions.
In order to function as a symbol and ultimately transmit meaning(s), the Arch invariably depends on referents (objects and ideas) which do nothing to “cultivate African traditions and
71
intuitions” as intended by its commissioner, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.151 Instead, the Arch
mediates connotation via foreign (Western) traditions, and thus reinstitutes the “colonial
mentality.” In order to sufficiently prove this argument, one will have to attempt to elucidate the
processes by which the Arch negotiates meaning(s). As such, the chapter will also draw on some
of the more basic theories of the construction of meanings and semiology as needed.
It is important to state at the onset of this chapter that generally architecture can rightfully
be conceived of as a backdrop to life. In this particular function, the observer or user of any architectural work can become a self-conscious inspector of the environment, examining and
interpreting it to understand a work’s possible meaning(s). It is equally as important to disclose,
as Jon Lang does in his book, Architecture and Independence: the Search for Identity (1997), that meanings are seldom static.152 In fact, and here Lang rightly points out, meanings change as
people’s (society’s) needs, perceptions, and aspirations also change.153 He adds that people
carry out these changes unselfconsciously as part of everyday life or self-consciously in the
purposeful pursuit of specific design objectives. While this observation points to the fact that
each user or observer can potentially decide on a unique meaning, it also implies that the
meanings of architectural works can also be deliberately engineered and achieved.
From a certain perspective, therefore, one can safely say that users expect architectural
works, in whatever form they might take, to transmit, or acquire, if not accrue meaning. But
what does it mean for these works—monuments, buildings, statues—to possess or to project
meaning(s)? In an attempt to determine what architectural works mean, how we determine what
they mean, how they work, and why this matters, philosopher Nelson Goodman contends that “a
151 Barbara S. Monfils. “Multifaceted Image: Kwame Nkrumah’s Extrinsic Rhetorical Strategies”. p. 313. 152 Jon T. Lang. Architecture and Independence: the search for identity—India 1880 to 1980. p. 3. 153 Ibid. 72
building is a work of art only insofar as it signifies, means, refers, and symbolizes in some
way.”154
Published in The Philosophy of the Visual Art (1992), the essay opens with a quotation
from Arthur Schopenhauer and proceeds to rank several categories of the arts in a hierarchy,
revealing that their ultimate function is to represent or communicate meaning. According to
Nelson, architectural works can be set apart from the rest of the literary and dramatic arts in
Schopenhauer’s ranking because rather than project meaning by describing, recounting,
depicting, or portraying, they convey meaning in other ways. In this work, Nelson reveals that the classic examples of words used in describing the work of buildings in architecture essays— allude, express, evoke, invoke, comment, quote—all have do with reference, attesting to what a building means or attempts to signify.155
Goodman Nelson’s work in the above-mentioned essay has been especially useful for
authors like Lawrence J. Vale whose book, Architecture, Power, and National Identity (1992)
discusses how architecture and urban design have been manipulated in the service of politics.
The underlying premise of Vale’s work is that “because government buildings serve as symbols
of the state one can learn much about a political regime by observing closely what it builds.”156
Here we can say that government buildings become indexes of, or catalogs to, political activity.
For Vale then, this “close observation”—the quest to understand how meanings are formulated and projected—becomes very important.
In fact, Goodman’s work is so important that Lawrence Vale incorporates the entire title of the essay into his own work. That is, in the pursuit of his premise, Lawrence Vale adopts not only the concepts but Nelson Goodman’s title as well (“How Buildings Mean”) into a subtitle in
154 Nelson Goodman. “How do Buildings Mean?” in The Philosophy of the Visual Arts. p. 368. 155 Ibid. 156 Lawrence Vale. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. p. 9. 73
his own book. In the resulting section of his book (“How Do Government Buildings Mean”)
Vale posits through the work of Goodman that one ought to comprehend “…how a particular
work of architecture conveys meaning before we are able to address the issue of what the
building may mean.”157
As such, Vale latches onto the four categories identified by Goodman—denotation,
exemplification, metaphorical expression, and mediated reference—and successfully elucidates each media of conveyance through the example of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
The use of a single example in describing and distinguishing these media is quite a successful
device because it allows for easy comparisons, and thus makes for a clearer understanding of the
categories initially proposed by Goodman. The Memorial and Vale’s assessment of it becomes
incredibly important to the aims of this thesis because several similarities already exist between
Abraham Lincoln’s Memorial and the Independence Arch. In this way, the meaning(s) projected
by the Arch in Accra are conceivably transmitted along the same lines discussed by Vale.
Nevertheless, comparisons between the two monuments could potentially be dangerous, for
whereas the monument in Washington clearly celebrates America’s first president, the
monument in Accra was passed off (at least at its conception and inauguration) as one which
celebrates Ghana’s achievement and identity as the first sub-Saharan nation to gain its
independence.
157 Ibid., p.5. 74
Fig. 19. Front view of the Abraham Lincoln Memorial shows a giant statue of the president enshrined in a temple- like structure at the famous Washington Mall. The memorial/monument conveys meaning most notably through carved extracts from Lincolns speeches, and of course by the large statue of the premiere president. Image courtesy of Drew Maloney.
According to Lawrence Vale, meaning in Lincoln’s memorial is denoted by the
identifiable extracts of his speeches carved into the memorial, as well as the over-sized statue of
Lincoln situated in the memorial. He states that “…in [these] most direct ways, the memorial
communicates messages; messages which are, of course open to multiple interpretations.”158
With this clear understanding, one realizes that the Independence Arch also transmits meaning by way of denotation. That is, just as in the case of the Lincoln Memorial, the phrase “Freedom and Justice” inscribed on the Independence Arch, equally denotes not only Nkrumah’s speeches but directly projects the nation’s motto in an effort to mediate meaning(s).
In addition to the meanings embedded in the inscribed motto, the words of a bronze plaque secured to the Arch also speak quite directly to its users. By Nelson Goodman and
158 Ibid., p. 4. 75
Lawrence Vale’s assessment, the plaque which reads: “Ghana’s Independence. A.D. 1957. Let this monument hold sacred in your memory, the liberty and freedom of Ghana. The liberation and freedom, which by our struggle and sacrifice, the people of Ghana have this day regained.
May this independence be preserved and held sacred for all time,” also conveys meaning(s) by denotation.
According to Vale, the Lincoln Memorial “conveys meaning in a second way by drawing attention to certain of its properties to the exclusion of others.”159 In this view, Vale suggests that the memorial is not only a “self-contained building, but also a dramatic urban design gesture, a terminus which gathers in the linear force of the Washington Mall.”160 This method of producing meaning “…seems quintessentially architectural” in Vale’s words.161 For him, the successfully planned memorial projects its meanings because the “…solid-void-solid rhythm of the memorial’s east façade draws the eye toward its center and the statue, [of Lincoln] even from a great distance.”162
Certainly in framing one of the longest avenues in Ghana’s capital city, the second means by which the Lincoln Memorial conveys its meanings is also readily applicable to the
Independence Arch in Accra. That is, by virtue of its nature, the triumphal arch in Accra, Ghana is incredibly conspicuous. Additionally, with its unique crowning piece (the Black Star), the
Freedom and Justice Arch is indisputably a “dramatic urban design gesture,” and therefore negotiates its meanings in very much the same manner as Lincoln Memorial.163
159 Ibid. 160 Ibid. 161 Ibid. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid. 76
Fig. 20. View of the Independence Arch looking North-West. The conspicuous monument frames The 28th February Avenue, and conveys its meaning(s) through the legible inscriptions and the “dramatic design gesture” displayed on the attic. Image courtesy of Adrian Kobby Adams (January, 2008).
The third method by which the Lincoln Memorial may produce meaning is through the
use of metaphor. According to Vale, this tool is used quite powerfully in the case of the
memorial, because it is architecturally treated as a kind of analogous temple, with Lincoln taking
the place of the classical deity (Fig. 20). In emphasizing the strength of this method of
conveyance, at least in this example, Vale reveals that “in case the metaphor is missed, the
message is reiterated quite literally, carved into the wall above the statue:”164 In this temple, as in
the hearts of the people for whom he saved the union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is
enshrined forever.
164 Ibid. 77
In order to project meaning through the expression of metaphor, which the Independence
Arch also does, the monument relies on traditions from ancient cultures/civilizations. That is,
the allegory established in the Independence Arch is based on the ancient custom of displaying an emperor’s might through the construction of triumphal arches. This fact is even boldly mirrored in the name of the Ghanaian national monument.
As discussed in chapter III, since its inception by the Etruscans in Italy, this architectural form was initially used to “commemorate a military victory, a particular historic event, or a
personality connected with that event.”165 However, the gate-like structure was later used almost
exclusively by emperors in an effort to memorialize their might and deeds. This is where the
typology of the triumphal arch acquires not only its name, but even more importantly, its meaning. And this history is recognized and any triumphal arch is recognized as such. In that
way too, the tradition of the Etruscans in Italy and leaders in other parts of the world is being
applied in Ghana’s Independence Arch in order to suggest a resemblance in one way or another.
Armed with this mode of meaning (expression through metaphor) and the
histories/traditions embedded in the use of the typology, one could argue that the allegory
established in the Independence Arch equates the star and what or whoever it may represent to an
emperor, because in the Arch in Accra, the Black Star sits on the attic—a position customarily
reserved to house the sculpture of an emperor aboard his four-horse chariot (the quadriga).
Lastly, supported by Goodman Nelson’s categories, Lawrence Vale demonstrates that the
Lincoln Memorial also creates meanings via a fourth method—mediated reference. In shedding
light on this means of conveyance, Vale asserts that “there is a chain of reasoning which leads
from the deification of Lincoln a savior to broader consideration of the values of national unity
165 Arthur Segal. From Function to Monument. p. 129. 78
and racial equality promoted by Lincoln’s presidential acts.”166 He furthers his explanation by
stating that such references “…may lead the construction of meaning far afield from the detailed
physical particularities of the architectural object itself.”167 Here, the author seems to suggest
that significations emitted through mediated referencing, accumulate interpretations well beyond
what is present, tangible, and instantly perceived by the eye.
This fourth way of creating meaning can also be seen in the composition of the
Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch. Goodman puts it best when he states that “even when
a building does mean, that may have nothing to do with its architecture. A building of any design
may come to stand for some of its causes or effects, or for some historical event that occurred in it or its site, of for its designated use.”168 This is especially true in the case of the Independence
Arch because not only is it entangled in the events and histories which prompted it, but the
monument has also accrued new meanings due to how it was (or was not) used.
The Symbolic Paradox and Work of the Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch
The third method by which the Lincoln Memorial mediates meanings demonstrates that
the Independence Arch also hinges on its ability to reference other works in order to create
meaning. In this particular way, as Goodman would say, the Arch in Ghana alludes to its
meaning(s) through metaphoric expression. Rather than for its relatively simplistic ability to
achieve desired meaning(s), the Independence Arch produces meaning(s) in this way, because as a symbol, it absolutely needs a referent.
166 Lawrence Vale. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. p. 9. 167 Ibid., p. 8. 168 Ibid., p. 6. 79
As Jon Lang points out in his book Architecture and Independence: The Search for
Identity (1997), the relationship between the symbol, the thought (or the meaning signified) and
the referent (the idea or another pattern with which the symbol is associated) are all intimately
related, and therefore often presented in the form of a closed triangle. “The semiological
triangle” shows the thought (signified), symbol (signifier), referent (object or idea) on each of the
apexes of a triangle (Fig. 21).
Ordinarily, the basic tenant of the triangle is that it maintains a harmony, balance, and consistency which already exists in the relationships between the three elements represented on the tips of the triangle. To illustrate this, the semiological triangle is a closed and functioning circuit because its elements do not only complement, but also reinforce the three otherwise distinct elements.
Fig. 21. The Basic Semiological Triangle, shows thought, symbol, and referent on each apex of the triangle. Image courtesy of Jon T. Lan.
80
One can understand the innate meanings imparted by the Freedom and Justice Arch with
the framework provided by the semiological triangle. In the case of the Independence Arch, the
general form of the triumphal arch is the “SYMBOL,” or the signifier of the THOUGHT
(signified) of freedom or liberation (located on the uppermost station of the triangle). The
ancient significations of triumphal arches function as the “REFERENT,” located on the lower
right apex of the triangle. There is little doubt the semiological triangle as seen above affords us the clarity with which to understand how the symbolic Arch in Accra functions.
Fig. 22. When used to understand the Independence/ Freedom and Justice Arch, the monument is the signifier, triumphal arches from ancient Roman traditions serve as the referent, the notion of freedom and liberation becomes the signified. Image courtesy of Jon T. Lan.
In providing this transparency, however, the triangle also uncovers and even magnifies a
latent paradox present in the work of the Independence Arch. This is because, as shown above
(Fig. 22), the object or idea used to prompt the notion of freedom is in actual fact a symbol most
often associated with imperialist ideology (as discussed in Chapter III). From this perspective,
the elements of the triangle are not consistent in reinforcing the central idea of freedom/liberation
81
from colonial rule even though that is what the Arch seeks to achieve. Rather, the elements
exhibit a proposition that seems self-contradictory and absurd.
With this revelation, there is perhaps little wonder that Nnamdi Elleh in African
Architecture: Evolution and Transformation (1996) characterized the Independence Arch as a
classic representation of the “irony and identity crisis that surrounds African politics.”169
Perhaps with this very knowledge Elleh was able to stake yet another claim in “Architecture and
Nationalism in Africa,” part of The Short Century: Independence and Liberation Movements in
Africa 1945-1994 (2001). In this book, Elleh suggests that the adaptation of the “Roman-based
iconography is not an oversight but rather a deliberate and subversive act.”170 In order to make
this argument, Elleh must have noticed exactly what the application of the semiological triangle
clarifies. (Fig. 22)
But when one considers the presumed intention of Kwame Nkrumah, commissioner of
the monument, the irony embedded in the Independence Arch becomes even more conspicuous.
As previously discussed, the Arch also negotiates meanings by mediated referencing. By this method the monument takes on meaning(s) that come to stand for some of its causes or effects,
or for some historical event that occurred in it or its site, of for its designated use.”171 Here, one
can safely infer that the Arch takes on meanings by this method because of the significant
historical event eternally associated with it. That is to say that because the
Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch was an integral part of celebrations of Ghana’s
independence from colonial rule, the monument is therefore eternally linked to that declaration.
169 Nnamdi Elleh. African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. p. 295. 170 Nnamdi Elleh. “Architecture and Nationalism in Africa” in The Short Century: Independence and Liberation Movements in Africa 1945-1994. p. 236. 171 Lawrence Vale. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. p. 6. 82
In fact, as stated in the introduction, the national monument was completed just in time for the
formal celebrations, inaugurated just a few hours before the formal declaration of independence.
In a speech following the unveiling of the Arch and the declaration of independence, the
new nation’s premiere Prime Minister remarked that it was essential that the former colony
created its own “African personality and identity.”172 In his assessment, this was “the only way
that [the newly liberated nation could] show the world that [they] are ready for [their] own
battles.”173 While his statement does not explicitly claim that the Freedom and Justice Arch is a
creation which signifies this “African personality and identity,” it means just that through
mediated referencing if we are to infer from Goodman Nelson and Lawrence Vale.
The problem with this conveyed meaning suggests rather plainly that the Independence
Arch claims a completely foreign identity—Roman iconography/identity—to be Ghanaian in spite of the availability of indigenous precedents of entry arches and pylons. Not only is this a complete fallacy, but once again, it runs deeply contrary to “Nkrumah’s own extrinsic rhetorical strategies which sought to cultivate [true] African personality and identity by interpreting the soul and spirit of independence through the use of visual aids.”174
In the edifice’s function as a totem of national identity, and thus heritage, it is especially
demeaning after one realizes, as Elleh does, that the foreign iconography of the triumphal arch
was adopted in spite of the availability of indigenous precedents of entry arches and pylons. In
this way, one cannot help but realize and posit that the Arch turns its back on the true identity
and heritage of Ghana, shamelessly embracing a foreign identity. Surely it is an act which, even
if unconscious, places more credence on the foreign/adopted rhetoric, and demonstrates little
pride in the local precedents. Thus, instead of eradicating a “colonial mentality,” as Nkrumah’s
172 British Broadcasting Company (BBC) news article. “Ghana is Free Forever”. 173 Ibid. 174 Barbara S. Monfils. p. 313. 83 strategies were charged to do, the mouth piece of liberation and true Ghanaian identity (the
Independence Arch) succeeds in reinstituting and perpetuating the “colonialist mentality”—the very mentality it sought to defy.
84
Conclusion: Emblem of National Identity and Freedom Rooted in the Ruins of Colonialism.
“The notion of a modern monument is a contradiction in terms; if it is a monument, it is not modern, and if it is modern, it cannot be a monument”.
--Lewis Mumford, The Culture of Cities, 1938
“For much of this century, modern architects [and their patrons have perceived monumentality] not only as antithetical to the basic functional and social premises of the new architecture, but also as perpetuating the very social hierarchies that they sought to overthrow.”
--Mary McLeod “The Battle for the Monument” from The Experimental Tradition, 1989.
This thesis started on the premise that instead of expressing the identity and freedom of
Ghanaians from (British) imperialism as generally presumed (even by the name of the edifice), the Independence Arch reinstitutes, perpetuates, and epitomizes the very ideologies it seeks to defy. Using an analysis of the news and print media, it becomes apparent that the government, which had absolute control of the media, embarked on a campaign whose broad objective was to project the Independence Arch as the national totem.
There were varied channels of dissemination within this elaborate campaign. These included, but were not limited to, printed texts, photographs, wax print cloth, books, postcards, currency notes, coins, phone cards, postage stamps, and even depictions on public transportation.
Through these diverse and over-reaching channels the Arch becomes ubiquitous but also iconic; a prominent entity in Ghanaian popular culture. What was revealed in their analysis is that different governing authorities, particularly the first, exploited the monument, suggesting that object of the Arch was deliberately deployed beyond its nationalistic and propaganda role.
85
In its bare essence, however, the campaign, which diffused encoded images and messages
of the Independence Arch, was implemented in order to guarantee the unrivaled popularity of
and reverence to the monument in the memories and political consciousness of Ghanaians,
Africans, and around the world. In this way, this media campaign cunningly directed the audience and users of the Arch on exactly how the monument ought be used and perceived.
The media campaign was thus implemented so thoroughly in an effort to educate, indoctrinate, and to acclimatize the Arch’s immediate audience to the very monument which was supposed to symbolize their identity. Surely, an effective emblem espousing national identity, heritage and pride need not be as superfluous and redundant as the media campaign analysis of illustrates. Ultimately, the endless but conscious ploy which saturated the public sphere with encoded images of the enormous white edifice accurately reflects the fact that the totem of
Ghana’s identity was so “unnatural” that it needed to be “force-fed” by way of this elaborate campaign to its users.
Furthermore, the Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch is unsuitable especially in its function (of celebrating a Ghana’s liberation from imperialism/ colonial rule), but unfortunately succeeds only in reinstituting imperialist notions, and thus colonial ideology. Built in the unmistakable rhetoric/form of the triumphal arch—a form which persists to be a truly unique typology—the Independence Arch is invariably associated with, and eventually endorses the
meanings and ideologies already embedded in the form of the triumphal arch.
The preposition, which supports the initial premise of this thesis, relied on a thorough
examination of philosophies entrenched in the use of the form of the triumphal arch from its
inception. It was, however, also contingent on uncovering the underpinnings of the ideologies or
86
philosophies by Ghanaian society, mainly through its leader and founding father, Dr. Kwame
Nkrumah.
Through the analysis of Africa’s premiere Prime Minister, Nkrumah emerges as a pioneer of Pan-Africanism and Garveyism. In their simplest forms, the ideologies and philosophies of
Pan-Africanism and Garveyism, sought to dismantle Atlantic slavery and European imperialism.
As it turns out, Nkrumah was not merely a pioneer of these philosophies, he actually practiced
and boldly showcased his allegiance to them. The prime minister was so engaged in these
philosophies that he attributed Ghana’s liberation from colonial rule to Marcus Garvey, the man
after which Garveyism is named. But even more revealing, Nkrumah incorporated the symbol of
the Garveyism, in the form of the black star, not only on the nation’s flag but also on the
Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch. In view of these incredibly bold gestures, the claim
that Nkrumah endorsed and instructed Garveyism as the national philosophy/ideology of Ghana
cannot be disputed.
In celebrating Ghana’s independence then, one must only expect (especially with this
revelation) that the monument charged with embodying the nation’s identity via this achievement
be reflective of the very ideologies which prompted the pioneering feat of breaking free from
colonialism. But alas, a study of the embedded meanings and ideologies of the triumphal arch
yields something entirely different. As history has so diligently recorded, and just as carefully
reminds us, from its inception in Rome, the triumphal arch was “used as a means of propaganda
to announce the presence of Rome, its laws, and its culture, elsewhere, and thereby strengthening
the power of the emperor.”175 That is to say that the typology of the triumphal arch was not
merely used as in connection to military victories but also in the founding of colonies.
175 Fred S. Kleiner. “The Study of Roman Triumphal and Honorary Arches 50 Years after Kahler” in the Journal of Roman Archaeology (1989), p. 196. 87
By Margaret Zaho, “the monumental decorated triumphal arch became a significant and
immediately recognizable emblem of the power of the empire. “Its role,” she continues,
“particularly outside of the city of Rome and even more so outside of Italy, was to announce and
demarcate the presence of the emperor and the laws of the state.”176 Accordingly, through the
evolution of the architectural form, certain elements of the triumphal arch were revised in an
effort to make the typology a more effective emblem of the emperor’s might. To illustrate this
historical fact, Zaho discloses that the top, or attic, of the triumphal arch usually contained a
bronze sculpture depicting the triumphal chariot and the triumphator.”177
However, the triumphal arch functions via several of its other elements and ultimately
“acts as a huge politically motivated billboard intended to convey messages about honor,
conquest, victory, power, domestic wealth and security, and eternity of an empire.”178 Perhaps here one could argue that some of the intended uses (especially victory) listed in the Zaho’s assertion are more than pertinent to Ghana’s achievement of acquiring independence. Indeed the feat was characterized by Nnami Elleh as “victory over a Western imperial power…”179
However, in imitating the rhetoric of the triumphal arch, the Independence Arch does not get to retain one of its associated meanings or intended uses while stripping the rest. Irrespective of context, the collection of intended conveyances—honor, conquest, victory, power, domestic wealth and security—remain intact. What is revealed is this: there is a lack of correspondence in the ideologies which inspired the monument in Accra, Ghana, and the rhetoric chosen and employed to project them. In this way, the nationally-embraced philosophies are not only turned back on themselves, but are also undermined through the character of the monument which
176 Margaret Zaho. Imago Triumphalis: The Function and Significance of Triumphal Imagery for Italian Renaissance Rulers. p. 19. 177 Ibid., p. 23. 178 Ibid., 25. 179 Nnamdi Elleh. African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. p. 295. 88
claims to embody the nation’s identity. In so doing, the Independence arch reinstates and re-
imposes on the liberated nation the very philosophies from which it needed to break free.
Elsewhere in this thesis, in yet another effort to propel the original premise, I posit that
the decision to imitate the ancient but recognizable form of the triumphal arch afforded Nkrumah
with the perfect vehicle with which he (the socialist-styled prime minister and president),
selfishly exercised his personal ambitions and goals. In understanding Nkrumah’s character as a dictator, a president who declared himself “president for life,” a leader who is described as one who “imagined himself too big that he had to be shared with the rest of the rest of the world,” and one whose “ambition to become a supreme authority in Africa remained [shamelessly] obvious,” the rhetoric of empire and conquest embedded in the triumphal arch becomes a logical and appropriate one.180
The argument becomes even more compelling when it is realized that Nkrumah did not
merely annoint himself with the titles “Osagyefo (victorious in war), Kantamanto (one never
guilty, one who never goes back on his word), Teacher and Author of the Revolution,
Oyeadeeyie (one who puts things right), Man of Destiny, Star of Africa, Deliverer of Ghana, Iron
Boy, the Messiah, His Dedication;” he consistently represented an entire nation with his personal
and unchallenged ideas, and personally indicated what the governmental building should look
like.
He was a gifted orator, and skillful at “manipulating settings to his own advantage,” as
argued by Barbara S. Monfils.181 With great dexterity “Nkrumah appropriated dress, his
performance of traditional rituals, and his use of physical location to set a certain psychological
180 T. Peter Omari. Kwame Nkrumah: the Anatomy of an African Dictatorship. p. 2-3. 181 Barbara S. Monfils. “Multifaceted Image: Kwame Nkrumah’s Extrinsic Rhetorical Strategies”. p. 314. 89
tone.”182 Armed with this knowledge, the Independence Arch emerges as a suspicious national
monument because its distinguishing feature, the Black Star, had also been used as a pseudonym
for Kwame Nkrumah, patron of the monument. Conceivably, Nkrumah commissioned and
employed the Arch in Accra as a vehicle to bolster his own image. It was indeed simply part of a cunning plan to enshrine his image.
Keeping in mind that art is a form of “self-expression and a projection of the psychological patterning of the individual that is called personality,” as Evelyn Hatcher proposes, one can perhaps expect that a piece of the patron or the artist is always imparted into a work of art.183 However, the deliberate and cunning efforts through which Nkrumah attempted
to achieve his personal goals, legitimize his rule as “president for life,” “consolidate his power,
and secure its survival into the future,” were simply too deliberate and cunning and thus may not
be attributed to the phenomenon that Evelyn Hatcher’s assertion affords.184 As a result, the
white edifice can be seen as a neocolonial instrument, since in reality, the Independence Arch was a device through which the founding father of Ghana imposed his personal will, hopes, opinions, and aspirations on his people.
Finally, one could argue that the way in which meaning(s) of contemporary monuments
accrue is or are not limited by the associations afforded by the ancient models which inspired
them, but more so by the ways in which they are used. This is perhaps best illustrated by the
Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany.
182 Ibid. 183 Evelyn Payne Hatcher. Art as Culture: An Introduction to the Anthropology of Art. New York: University Press of America. p. 97. 184 Nnamdi Elleh. Architecture and Power in Africa. p. 57. 90
Fig. 23. View of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany showing the customary bronze sculpture (quadriga) of the “triumphator” atop the attic. The monuments are drawn from ancient emblems of emperors but its meaning are now afforded by the significant events (speeches) that have been presented in its vicinity.
Several news agencies have recently reported that presidential hopeful, Senator Barak
Obama will soon visit Europe, and Germany in particular. It seemed the highlight of this visit
was the prospect of presenting a speech in Berlin with Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate looming
behind him. As recently as July 10, 2008, Nicholas Kulish and Jeff Zeleny from The New York
Times reported that “an invitation for Senator Barack Obama to speak at Brandenburg Gate has
created uproar and has exposed fissures in the German government.”185 One must not fail to
understand the pertinence of this example. It is crucial not only because it succinctly illustrates
how architectural works/site accumulate meaning, but also because the Brandenburg Gate is in
itself a triumphal arch.
185 Nicholas Kulish and Jeff Zeleny. Prospect of Obama at Brandenburg Gate Divides German Politicians. 91
Apparently, and as Brian Montopoli has also reported for the CBS News, the
Brandenburg Gate is a particularly appealing landmark for any politician looking for a dramatic but politically and poignantly significant setting.186 As it turns out, the prospect of the senator’s stop at this very site has produced uproar because certain events which took place in front of this backdrop make it an extremely significant historic site. This was where “Ronald Reagan in 1987 asked Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to ‘tear down this wall’ and Bill Clinton in 1994 declared that ‘Berlin is free.’”187
If nothing at all, the example of the monument in Berlin shows that architectural works do accumulate interpretations well beyond what is present, tangible, and instantly perceived by the eye as discussed in Chapter V: Independence Arch; Semiology, Encoding, Decoding, and the
Production of Meaning.
In spite of this, noting the phenomenon in Berlin, I have shown through the use of “the semiological triangle” that even if remotely unique, the Independence Arch nevertheless relies almost entirely on established meaning(s) rooted in the customary use of the triumphal arches, in its own effort to transmit meanings. Thus, even in its function as a symbol, the Arch in Accra is contingent on meaning(s) derived exclusively and associated with colonialist/imperialist philosophies. In creating meaning, then, the Freedom and Justice Arch sets up a curious paradox; an irony which ultimately undermines the ideas of freedom/liberty from imperialism.
Thus, through an exploration of its design, socio-political functions, semiotics and interpretations of the Independence Arch, as well as the opposing views of localism and internationalism as present in the monument, I have been able to support my initial premise that
186 Brian Montopoli. “Obama at the Brandenburg Gate? Maybe Not” 187 Ibid. 92 the Independence/Freedom and Justice Arch reinstitutes, perpetuates, and epitomizes—
Imperialism/Colonialism—the very ideologies it seeks to defy.
93
Bibliography
Adedze, Agbenyega. “Re-presenting Africa: Commemorative postage stamps of the Colonial Exhibition of Paris”. African Arts (published summer 2004). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-125406832.html. (accessed January 30, 2008).
Akwagyiram, Alexis. Ghana hosts 50th birthday party. BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6421819.stm. (accessed June 6, 2007).
Allott. A. N. “Native Tribunals in the Gold Coast 1844-1927. Prolegomena to a Study of Native Courts in Ghana” in Journal of African Law, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Autumn, 1957), pp. 163-171. http://www.jstor.org/view/00218553/ap020005/02a00050/0. (accessed June 7, 2007).
Amamoo, Joseph. G. The New Ghana: The Birth of a Nation. London, Pan Books, 1958.
Apter, David. E. Ghana in Transition. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1972.
Author Unknown. The Ghanaian Daily Graphic. “…She Unveils Our Monument” March 6, 1957.
Author Unknown. The Guardian. “Hoisting the Flag of Ghana” March 6, 1957. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/1957/mar/06/fromthearchive (accessed March 5, 2007).
BBC World Service. “Kwame Nkrumah’s Vision of Africa”, http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/000914_nkrumah.shtml, (accessed July 13, 2008).
Bell, Willis. E. Ghana on the Move. Héliographiaa S.A., Lausanne, Switzerland, 1965.
Bhabha, Homi. K. The Location of Culture. London; New York: Routledge, 1994.
94
Botchway, Johnny. The Great African: Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah (CD of live recorded speeches), 1974.
Brilliant, Richard. The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum. Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1967.
British Broadcasting Company (BBC). “Ghana is Free Forever: Kwame Nkrumah’s Speech at Independence”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/focusonafrica/news/story/2007/02/printable/070129_ghana5 0_independence_sp eech.shtml. (accessed July 08, 2008).
Campbell, Horace. “Garveyism, Pan-Africanism and African Liberation in the Twentieth Century” in Garvey: His Work and Impact. ed. Rupert Lewis and Patrick Bryan, Mona, Jamaica : Institute of Social and Economic Research & Dept. of Extra-Mural Studies, University of the West Indies, 1988.
Chideya, Farai. “‘Our Ghana’ at 50”. NPR news article. http://nl.newbank.com/nl- search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docments (accessed February 15, 2008).
Crinson, Mark. Modern Architecture and the End of Empire. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.
Elleh, Nnamdi.. African Architecture: Evolution and Transformation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Elleh, Nnamdi. Architecture and Power in Africa. Westport, Conn. : Praeger, 2002.
Elleh, Nnamdi. “Architecture and Nationalism in Africa,” in The Short Century: Independence and Liberation Movements in Africa 1945-1994 ed. Okwui Enwezor, Munich; New York: Prestel, 2001.
95
Fowler, Robin. “Commemorative Monuments and Sacred Places in the Roman Forum”, http://roman- history.suite101.com/article.cfm/commemoration_in_the_forum_romanum, (accessed, May 13, 2008).
Gaines, Kevin. K. American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates and the Civil Rights Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.
Ghana-Net. “The New Cedi and Pesewa”, http://ghana-net.com/money_of_ghana.aspx (accessed April 4, 2008).
Graphic Communications. Ghanaian Daily Graphic March 6, 1957, Page 3. “…She Unveils Our Monument”.
Graphic Communications. Jubilee Ghana: A 50-year news journey thro’ Graphic. Accra: Graphic Communications Group Ltd, 2006.
Goodman, Nelson. “How Buildings Mean,” In The Philosophy of the Visual Arts, edited by Philip Alperson, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Hatcher, Evelyn Payne. Art as Culture: An Introduction to the Anthropology of Art. New York: University Press of America, 1985.
Hess, Janet Berry. Art and Architecture in Postcolonial Africa. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co., 2006.
Hess, Janet Berry. “Exhibiting Ghana: Display, Documentary, and ‘National’ Art in the Nkrumah Era,” African Studies Review, Vol.44, No.1. (Apr. 2001), pg. 55-77.
Hess, Janet Berry. “Imagining Architecture: The Structure of Nationalism in Accra, Ghana,” Africa Today 47, Number 2, (Spring 2000), 35-58.
96
Hess, Janet Berry. “Imagining Architecture II: ‘Treasure Storehouses’ and Constructions of Asante Regional Hegemony,” Africa Today 50, Number 1, (Spring/Summer 2003), 26-48.
Howe, Russell Warren. “Gold Coast Into Ghana” The Phylon Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2. (2nd Qtr., 1957), 155-161. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885- 6826%28195732%2918%3A2%3C155%3AGCIG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P .
Israel, Adrienne M. “Ex-Servicemen at the Crossroads: Protest and Politics in Post-War Ghana” in The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2. (Jun., 1992), p.365.
Jacques Garvey, Amy. J. Garvey and Garveyism. New York, Collier Books ,1970.
Kevin K. Gaines. American Africans in Ghana: Black Expatriates and the Civil Rights Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.
Kleiner, Fred. S. “The Study of Roman Triumphal and Honorary Arches 50 Years after Kahler” in Tthe Journal of Roman Archaeology (1989), p. 195-602.
Kulish, Nicholas and Zeleny, Jeff. “Prospect of Obama at Brandenburg Gate Divides German Politicians”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10germany.html &OQ=_rQ3D1Q26partnerQ3DrssnytQ26emcQ3Drss&OP=40ac4f9bQ2FQ2AQ3F!xQ2ArAGz2 AAp)Q2A)llyQ2AlXQ2AQ2FlQ2ABzQ2AQ2FlE!2Q7BD5jF_pQ7Be , (accessed July 21, 2008).
Lacouture, Jean. The Demigods: Charismatic Leadership in the Third World. New York, Knopf, 1970.
Lang, Jon. T. Architecture and Independence: the search for identity--India 1880 to 1980. Delhi; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
97
Monfils, Barbara. S. “A Multifaceted Image: Kwame Nkrumah’s Extrinsic Rhetorical Strategies”, in The Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3 (March, 1977), pp. 313-330, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2783710 (accessed April 04, 2008).
Montopoli, Brian. (CBS News) “Obama at the Brandenburg Gate? Maybe Not”, http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/07/09/politics/horserace/entry4244550.shtml, (accessed July 21, 2008).
Nkrumah, Kwame. Revolutionary Path. New York, International Publishers, 1973.
Omari, Peter. T. Kwame Nkrumah: the Anatomy of an African Dictatorship. New York, Africana Pub. Corp., 1972.
Owusu, Robert Yaw. Kwame Nkrumah’s Liberation Thought: A Paradigm for Religious Advocacy in Contemporary Ghana. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 2006.
Posnansky, Merrick. “Propaganda for the Millions: Images from Africa”. African Arts (published summer 2004). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0438/is_2_37/ai_n7580165. (accessed January 30, 2008).
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). “Marcus Garvery: Look for me in the Whirlwind”, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/garvey/index.html (accessed, May 14, 2008).
Sakyi-Addo, Kwaku. “Ghana: Winds of Change”, BBC’s Documentary Archive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6418759.stm (accessed March 5, 2007).
Sakyi-Addo, Kwaku. The Architect of Ghana’s Independence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6382237.stm. (accessed June 6, 2007).
98
Salm, Steven.J. and Falola, Toyin. Culture and Customs of Ghana. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2002.
Segal, Arthur. From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia. Oxford: Oxbow, 1997.
Signs, Symbols, and Architecture. Edited by Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, Charles Jencks Chichester, [Eng.]; New York: Wiley, 1980.
Simmons, Andrew. “Ghana’s Grown-up Politics” a BBC news article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4087327.stm (accessed March 12, 2008).
Sofaer, Joanna, ed. Material Identities. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007.
Smith, Stephen A. ICPP Project: Bibliography on Party Politics in Ghana, 1950-62, http://janda.org/ICPP/ICPP1980/Book/PART3/81-GhanaBib.htm, (accessed June 6, 2007).
Stock, Frank. Africa South of the Sahara: A Geographical Interpretation. New York: Guilford Press, 1995.
Vale, Lawrence. J. Architecture, Power, and National Identity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Volmahsen, Andreas. Imperial Delhi: the British Capital of an English Empire. Munich; London: Prestel, 2002.
Walz, Jonathan. R. “Propaganda of the Millions: Images from Africa”. African Arts (published summer 2004). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0438/is_2_37/ai_n7580165. (accessed January 30, 2008).
99
Zaho, Margaret Ann. Imago Triumphalis: The Function and Significance of Triumphal Imagery for Italian Renaissance Rulers. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2004.
100