In the discourse surrounding Africa’s complex and painful legacy of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, it is imperative that historical narratives are handled with intellectual rigor, balanced scrutiny, and cultural sensitivity. A recent controversy involving popular YouTuber and Pan-African advocate Wodemaya has reignited longstanding concerns about the skewed representation of Ghana’s ethnic groups particularly the Asante Kingdom in the broader conversation on slavery and historical accountability.
The Unbalanced Spotlight on Asante
It is a well-documented historical fact that the Asante Empire like nearly all precolonial polities of economic and military influence in West Africa participated in the slave trade. However, it is historically inaccurate and ethically problematic to disproportionately single out the Asante for condemnation while overlooking the active participation of other tribes and city-states that played equal or even more prominent intermediary roles in the Atlantic slave trade.
The Fante, Ahanta, Akyem, Akwamu, Denkyira, Ewe, Ga, Gonja, and Dagomba, among others, were all complicit in the slave economy. These groups functioned at various stages of the trade: as captors, middlemen, brokers, and coastal facilitators. Ignoring this wider involvement while casting the Asante as a symbol of Africa’s complicity perpetuates a historically unjust and analytically flawed narrative.
Case Study: The Fante Confederacy and Ahanta Trade Networks
Historical documentation, including records from the British, Dutch, and Portuguese archives, reveals that the Fante states especially Anomabo and Cape Coast served as central nodes in the slave economy. Chief Kwamena Ansah of Anomabo and King Aggrey of Cape Coast oversaw some of the most active slave markets along the Gold Coast. These leaders, among others, collaborated directly with European traders and benefited substantially from the trafficking of human lives.
The Ahanta, similarly, were not passive bystanders. Fort Batenstein (Butre) and Fort Gross Friedrichsburg (Princess Town) were used to export enslaved Africans with the direct support of Ahanta chiefs. The case of Badu Bonsu II, who was both a partner in trade and later a victim of European betrayal, underscores the complex duality of agency and exploitation.
These examples and there are many more demand recognition within any sincere attempt to reflect on the legacy of slavery. Silence on these points is not historical omission; it is intellectual dishonesty.
The Mischaracterization of Asantes and the Problem with Wodemaya’s Commentary
Wodemaya’s commentary, which implied a uniquely egregious Asante role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, fails to contextualize the Asante participation within the geopolitical realities of the 17th to 19th centuries. The Asante Kingdom was a centralized, gold-rich, diplomatically sophisticated empire with well-documented legal, spiritual, and military structures. To reduce this complexity to a narrative of exploitation devoid of context is not history it is sensationalism.
Moreover, in erroneously presenting the Asantes as unilateral aggressors against Northern ethnic groups, the narrative not only undermines Asante agency but also insults the historical sovereignty and resistance of powerful northern states such as the Dagombas, Gonja, and Mamprusi. These were not helpless entities; they were sophisticated polities with their own histories of war, trade, and diplomatic engagement.
The suggestion that Asantes somehow “walked in” and enslaved entire populations without resistance not only defies the logistical realities of precolonial warfare and migration but also undermines the resilience and strength of northern societies.
Why the Pushback Matters
Critics who label the Asante pushback as emotional or tribalistic miss a critical point: the current Asante response is not about denying historical truths. It is about demanding equity in the narration of those truths. Asante resistance to misrepresentation is rooted in the collective memory of pride, cultural sovereignty, and a long history of scholarly mischaracterization.
As the most studied African kingdom after Egypt, the Asante’s historical record is robust and multilayered. From the administrative genius of the Asanteman Council to the heroic defiance of Yaa Asantewaa against British imperialism, there exists a plethora of narratives that deserve equal attention. Yet time and again, it is the slave trade that dominates mainstream conversation—often to the exclusion of everything else.
On Wodemaya, Ben Dotsei Malor, and Intellectual Responsibility
Wodemaya has undoubtedly done admirable work in promoting African excellence. However, influence comes with responsibility. To present an imbalanced narrative that targets the Asante people, while omitting the equally complex and painful histories of one’s own Fante and Ahanta lineage, is disingenuous.
Ben Dotsei Malor, a respected public figure, appeared complicit in the propagation of this unbalanced narrative, whether intentionally or not. His visible silence in moments when clarification was most needed raises questions about bias and intellectual integrity.
If the goal is to foster Pan-African unity and historical healing, then scholars, influencers, and public figures must rise above ethnocentric editorializing. The pain of history cannot be healed with partial truths.
A Call for Scholarly Balance and Cultural Respect
Historical revisionism, when done responsibly, can help societies heal. But selective storytelling is not revisionism it is propaganda. The Asante people are not demanding immunity from critique; they are demanding truth with context, critique with equity, and representation with dignity.
Let the story of Africa’s slave trade be told completely not selectively. Let Fantes, Ahantas, Ewes, Akyems, and all other groups own their truths just as they demand others do.
And most importantly, let us protect and respect the historical legacies of kingdoms that despite their flaws stood tall against colonialism, built complex societies, and left behind enduring legacies that still define the identity of millions today.
History is not a weapon. It is a mirror. And we must all be willing to see our own reflections.
Credit: Historical contributions sourced from “The Asante Nation”
English 
Suomi 