We should all thank Dr. A. B. Assensoh for his "gentlemanly" attempts to fill the apparent gaps and questions in his earlier submission with references from his own scholarly works and extraneous experiences! Of course, several people queried aspects of his posting. My posting appears as No. 931, and I wish Dr. Assensoh had mentioned my name instead of tagging me with a number. I am assuming after reading Dr. Assensoh's most recent posting (No 935), especially paragraph 5, that some of the conclusions I drew in No. 931 may have bruised some political scars. If that is the case, in the spirit of brotherly debate and sharing of ideas, I apologize. In that same paragraph, Dr. Assensoh suggests that I may have trivialized his posting and ideas. In fact, I emphatically stated in No. 931 that Dr. Assensoh is a practicing historian/journalist with a solid reputation. Dr. Assensoh, I invite you to nyeduase for nsafu [under the communal tree to share palm wine] or nsu pa [good drinking water].
G. G. Adjei
Instead of arguing further against his critics, I think A. B. Assensoh - No. 935 - has done two things. Congratulating Kwabena Gyasi for sharing similar viewpoints, but ignoring his critics. The second is the worse: he has created a convenient straw man, blaming his critics for bringing up his suffering in the hands of Kutu Acheampong. This, to me, is bad history. After all, Assensoh himself brought up the issue of Acheampong when it had nothing to with the original discussions of Rawlings' legacy. Arguably, there was a clear link between his criticism of Acheampong's rule and his suffering during that period. What we should learn from this is that every
history is not one story, but several, therefore if anyone does not want his or her ideas to be
questioned, they might as well come here, read, wring their hands, and depart in peace.