Member of Parliament Alexander Afenyo-Markin claims that Dr. Joseph Boakye Danquah coined the name “Ghana” based on his research connecting the Gold Coast to the ancient Ghana Empire. This statement has been contested by historians who argue that the name predated independence and that Danquah suggested a different name, “Akanman.”
In a recent statement, Member of Parliament for Effutu, Alexander Kwamina Afenyo-Markin, asserted that the late Dr. Joseph Boakye Danquah, a prominent figure among the ‘Big Six’ of Ghana’s independence, was responsible for coining the name “Ghana”. Afenyo-Markin elaborated that Danquah undertook extensive research on the ethnic backgrounds of the Gold Coast’s inhabitants, eventually identifying a historical link to the ancient Ghana Empire.
During an event commemorating the 60th anniversary of Danquah’s death, Afenyo-Markin stated that Danquah’s extensive advocacy and scholarly endeavors aimed to establish a name that encapsulated the heritage of the Gold Coast people. His findings indicated that adopting the name “Ghana” would evoke a sense of strength and continuity linked to the region’s ancestral history, fostering national pride.
The MP, also the Minority Leader in Parliament, highlighted that leaders of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), which included Danquah, had agreed on the name “Ghana” as a replacement for “Gold Coast” prior to independence in 1957. This decision was reached collectively by UGCC members engaged in the quest for independence.
However, some historians, such as Yaw Anokye Frimpong, contest Afenyo-Markin’s claims. Anokye Frimpong noted that the name “Ghana” predated independence, remarking that Dr. Kwame Nkrumah had established a school named Ghana National College almost a decade earlier. He contended that Danquah had proposed the name “Akanman” for an independent Gold Coast, which contradicts the assertion that he originated the name “Ghana.”
Frimpong further reflected on Danquah’s political setbacks, highlighting his defeat in the Abuakwa constituency and his recognition as Twafohene of Akyem Abuakwa in 1955. This accolade, though significant, occurred in a context of declining political influence for Danquah, who struggled to maintain prominence in the independence movement.
Additionally, Frimpong argued against the narrative that Danquah could transform from advocating for “Akanman” to being the progenitor of “Ghana.” He emphasized that the historical record must accurately reflect the contributions of all figures involved in the country’s naming and independence.
In conclusion, Afenyo-Markin’s remarks on JB Danquah’s role in naming Ghana are met with significant historical scrutiny. While acknowledging Danquah’s contributions, some historians assert that the name “Ghana” carries a legacy that existed prior to independence and that Danquah’s choice of name was different from what is often claimed. The discourse surrounding Ghana’s naming reflects deeper insights into the historical context of its independence and the figures who played a role in shaping its narrative.
The debate regarding the origins of the name “Ghana” remains contentious, with Afenyo-Markin attributing its creation to JB Danquah’s research and advocacy. In contrast, historians like Yaw Anokye Frimpong emphasize that the name preexisted Ghana’s independence and that Danquah had initially proposed a different name. This discussion highlights the complexities of national identity and the role of influential figures in Ghana’s historical narrative.
Original Source: www.ghanaweb.com
