Why Ghanaian History Focuses on Big States and Big Men

I've been revising an article that I started working on a year ago that examines the history of surveys of Ghanaian history--or historiography.  Historiography sounds very, very boring, but it can be quite interesting, often reveals as much about the period in which the history was written as it does about the subject of the history.

Not surprisingly, early histories of Ghana written by Brits tended to focus on Ghana's relations with Great Britain.  Independence brought much more emphasis on Ghanaian history, especially the accomplishments of Asante, an Akan-based state that created an empire at least as large as modern Ghana, and the long independence movement.  But these histories still focused on elites, and more recent histories of Ghana--especially those created for students--have continued this trend.

There are several explanations for this.  Some historians argue that African historians internalized the methods and values of traditional colonial history and therefore emphasized the accomplishments of big states and big men--sort of like African American historians who focused on people like George Washington Carver rather than the lives of slaves.  But it's also the case that Ghanaian histories--oral and written--have long focused on the fate of states and rulers.  And some states outlawed any mention of the existence of states they had conquered.  As the saying goes, the winners get to write the histories.  One could argue that this focus on the history of powerful governments and people serves the interests of the current state by diverting attention from subjects that could lead to political or social disunity, such as poverty and inequality.

There are scores of interesting books and articles about the social and cultural life of Ghana, past and present.  But due to the factors noted above, it seems unlikely that authors of historical surveys will make use of them.