The Derisible Beggar

(Rejoinder: “The Arrogant Beggar-A psychotically demented analysis” by Kwame Amankwa, Ghanaweb 15-03-2008)

Hardly will I write in riposte to an article or author who displays the ill-omened signs of a veritable scatterbrain. This time-however- is an exception. The reason being that Mr. Kwame Amankwa, in his rather Machiavellian rejoinder, encapsulated under the title: The “Arrogant Beggar- A psychotically Demented Analysis”, comes across as genuinely indignant with the truths of my quondam article: “The Arrogant Beggar” and appears substantially deficient with regards to contemporaneous global goings-on. As a result, I have had to detour from marking ECOF105 with a view to tutoring Kwame Amankwa about the Ghana's footing within the global showground.

In fact, this rather vacuous rejoinder was not entirely unexpected. As a matter of fact, besides the patent buffoonery that is the fare on the commentary section that trails articles on Ghanaweb, I was on the lookout for at least a couple of bare-faced demagogues to accuse me of being a traitor or a psychopath albeit in an intellectually coherent comportment. In short, I hoped to receive rejoinders that were mostly critical of my views showcased in the “Arrogant Beggar” but whose authors' cerebral horizon- at the very least – transcended that of the proverbial ostrich, who in a vain attempt to hide away from imminent conundrum, buries its head in the sand hoping that out of sight is-
hopefully-out of mind. Alas, my wishes were but a chase after the wind as Kwame Amankwa, by his display of street parlance and unrefined deportment hardly warrants attention from a primary school pupil not to mention a college lecturer in the midst of marking a wad of highly charged intellectual and analytical Economics and Management assignments.

In the Arrogant Beggar, ladies and gentlemen, I confronted the reader with empirical facts that stands up to logical scrutiny. Mawkishness and blind nationalistic sentimentality was and is not my druthers. I was hoping that rejoinders to it could at least be wedded to the facts and not be jaundiced by nationalism and emotionally charged bravado. Obviously that was too much to demand from the likes of Kwame Amankwa and as is wont when intellectually bereft simpletons are confronted with indubitable fact, he has had to, perforce, wish for a fatwa to be issued against me and for my pate to be presented on an earthen platter, never mind a silver one. How basic!

In Amankwa's rejoinder, specifically in paragraph three, he is of the view that “Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and a host of other world leaders have taken this opportunity to raise their profile at home, [by visiting Ghana] because Africa is dear to the hearts of many Westerners”. Well it appears that, Amankwa and I, at least agree on the preceding. The question is; why is Africa and Ghana “dear to the hearts of the so-called Westerner? It is Amankwa's view that a host of western leaders have visited the motherland for a “boost and respite” after a cocktail of scandals that confronted them. In other words, when the typical deadbeat western leader wishes to jog his poll ratings after a bout of bad publicity the thing to do is to go to Africa and visit countries especially those that have at least publicly condemned practises such as clitorectomy and other such savage endeavours and promise them a few handouts such as those undertaken by George Bush and Clinton. This is exactly what my point is -if the ne'er-do-well- Amankwa cares to know and is quintessential of a beggar. Fact is Ghana and for that matter Africa is the confession box or the inner sanctum of global geo-political penance where supposedly repentant western leaders can freely lament their callous ways, redress their wrongs, drop a few pennies in the kitty and bugger off back to their own countries with a broad grin on their faces as if to say to their constituents: I paid my penance to the beggarly Africans, now let me be!

Kwame Amankwa is even fatuous enough to sophomorically admit that “When Bill 'shagged' (a non-existent English word with vulgar connotations predominant within the ghettoes of the so-called west) Monica; he came to Ghana for a boost and respite”. (We may have to be ready for Eliot Spitzer to visit Ghana to do penance for his sexual recently exposed misadventures). Is this what his ignorant majesty prides himself with? God help us! For if, indeed, Ghanaians pride themselves on the preceding risible assertion then we are “of all men most pitiful”. Needless to say but a perusal through the corpus of Amankwa, chronicled within the archives of Ghanaweb, revealed an eggregarious addiction to scatological vulgarity of biblical proportions which- perforce- undergirds his scant scholarship and refinement. The guy's analysis is strewn with logical discrepancies.

His second assertion is that Bush wanted to build a military base in Ghana. Has this bald-faced Casanova any proof that this was, in fact, the case? Dear reader, it is imperative that articles posted on this network be discursive and not just mere schmaltzy if indeed the publishers have any regard for the ardent reader. Fact is the USA has a military presence in Africa already, in Djibouti to be precise, and has been invited by Liberia to set up another base any time it so wishes. Why then does the “omniscient” Amankwa seem so convinced that Bush was so keen to set up a base in Ghana when it can so easily build one in a country with which it shares so many historical ties? Well that's just food for thought. Fact is the august people of Ghana have no way of judging whether George Bush was considering building a base in Ghana and its no use speculating. The man himself roundly dismissed the idea as “bull” or “baloney”.

The third fallacy that Amankwa espouses is the rather mundane and hebetudinous chestnut; the mantra of the average Ghanaian ignoramus, that the west, chief among which are the UK and the US, seek to keep Ghana and Africa in perpetual servitude. The question to be asked is: to what end? Why would the west wish to keep Ghana in poverty ad infinitum? What benefit would it bring to their economies? If this is the case why do they keep dropping bundles of cash in our perennially vacant kitty? These questions are left to the good judgment of the reader. In accusing the so-called west of stifling the growth and development of Ghana before and after independence what then does narcissistic Amankwa say about the spectacular rise of countries such as India, Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius also bonafide erstwhile colonial territories most of whom contemporaneously attained independence with Ghana? What rationalization can his ignorant majesty have in the offing?

In an obvious bout of frustration, Amankwa asks the rather ridiculous question: “why would they [the West] not leave us alone”? What an arrogant question from a bonafide hobo? The question is why would Ghanaians and for that matter Africans not leave the west alone? Why would the Ghanaian illegal immigrant not return to the motherland willingly? Why does he have to be chained to an airplane seat in order to be sent back to his own country? Why would the African presidents not stop trotting the globe begging for alms? Why would Amankwa and his ilk not stop blaming the so-called white man for all the mostly self-imposed ills that plague the African continent? These, dear reader, are the substantive questions worthy of critical contemplation and not the guff that is so congenital to Amankwa. The fact is Mark Thatcher was and is no agent of nor was he a mercenary acting at the behest of the so-called West? It is true that he may have been on a subversive mission in Guinea but to assume that he was an agent of the west is to crassly overestimate the import of that country to the west. As Amankwa accepts, Africa's problems can be attributed to the likes of Mobutu, Abacha etc. In order words the perennial African problem is indeed quintessentially African not Western; an idea I alluded to in the Arrogant Beggar.

It is true that Ghana attained international fame half a centuries ago
(for being the first black African country south of the Sahara to attain independence) but more so did countries like India. The difference is these countries have been able to perpetuate or at least revamp their fame whilst Ghana until, recently has not. How about Hong Kong a territory that was until the late 1990s colonized by the UK? If the west was indeed the bogey man as Amankwa will have one believe how come they are so much more prosperous than Ghana? Another food for thought! Amankwa is of the view that even a primary school lass in Ghana would be able point to the UK and the US on a map. Can “potentate” Amankwa say the same of her American or British coordinate? This was exactly my point and the reason why Ghanaians should think less ostentatiously and a wee bit modestly but this dumbo obviously does not quite get it.

The intellectually bankrupt Amankwa has the hutzpah to refer to Marshall's plan after World War II and bemoans the fact that Africa had not had anything analogous to it. What abject nonsense and wanton travesty of the truth! Fact is the aid that has poured into Africa since 1950 far dwarfs the comparatively scanty 13 billion dollars earmarked for Marshall's plan even in today's terms. Clearly Amankwa has not brought his scanty cerebral encyclopedia a la mode with world economic affairs or may lack the vital infantile ability to count, even with the aid of an abacus. Fact is even the UK's singular aid to Africa was worth whopping 1billion sterling in 2005 and 2006. What then is Amankwa talking about but pure unadulterated poppycock to say the very least?

Amankwa is again of the view that Ghana's partnership with the world has never been on an equal footing. Well the reality is so has the partnership between the west and a host of other countries. These other countries, however, devised ways of playing the proverbial cat and mouse game to their advantage. Ghana must, perforce, do the same and Ghanaians must desist from laying the blame on the doorstep of the Whiteman.

Off course most of Ghana's culture is worthy of praise. Granted! But Ghanaians must also face the fact that a sizeable aspect of the much- vaunted culture borders on downright foolery never mind lunacy. My reference (in the Arrogant Beggar) to the rather misguided zest with which some Ghanaians pursue ostentation was by no means ecumenical to the motherland and neither is this writer against Ghanaians living on the hog if they can afford to. However, for the average Ghanaian subsisting on 200 dollars a month to reach out for a BMW or a Mercedes or Lexus (cars whose yearly maintenance would in most cases dwarf the annual income of this self-same individual) in pursuit of a non-existent self-esteem rather than a scooter (which he can comfortably afford) is, to this day, still enigmatic to this writer. The puzzle here is that this rather foolish venture is often undertaken in a bid to maintain the individual's “status” within society; an altogether ludicrous feat. The fact that Amankwa sees nothing wrong with the above attests to his thinking being the epitome of inherent Ghanaian solipsistic tendencies as outlined in the Arrogant Beggar.

The stark fact is Ghana is a highly indebted poor country (HIPC for short) and the reasons for this can no longer be attributed to the Whiteman and as is good practice for a beggar, Ghana must manage its scanty resources in a more prudent fashion and show some respect and appreciation to his benefactor without whose munificence the motherland cannot survive for even a week.

Lastly and indeed the most laughable of the many fatuous intimations by his ignorant majesty, is his claim to be “knowledgeable and well informed”. Surely Amankwa you are having a laugh? Dear reader, the fact that this benighted ideologue, doubtless the phenomenological coordinate of the proverbial ostrich, has the gall to claim to be anything more than ignorant is altogether ridiculous and not entirely unexpected for which ignoramus accepts that he is, indeed, ignorant? This man's callow attempts at impugning the many truths enshrined in the Arrogant Beggar have clearly not succeeded. Fact is the chauvinism of Amankwa, albeit, touching, clearly beggars the intellectual imagination. His ideas are demonstrably lame and his otiose rhetoric totally irksome to read.

Before I sign off a word of caution! It is the singular aim of chauvinists like Amankwa to finesse their way into one's unsuspecting mind with mercurial concoctions of sentimentality and nationalism as outlined in his article but these unstinted efforts at being mythopoetic can not be ingested hook, line and sinker and must- perforce- be exposed for what they are: pure and unencumbered demagoguery. Circumspection is, hence, the watchword!
Godspeed!

Bernard Asher is a lecturer of Economics and Business Management @ the Guildford College of Higher and Further Education, Guildford, Surrey, England, UK. E-mail: basher@guildford.ac.uk.

   Comments0