Discussions in the Facebook Group “BULUK KANIAK”

Franz Kröger

Discussions in the Facebook Group “BULUK KANIAK”

Of all the present Bulsa Facebook groups, Buluk Kaniak, with its 5,000 members, probably enjoys the greatest popularity. The posts and contents of Bulsa Facebook groups differ, as demonstrated in my essay on the Bulubisa Meina group, from European groups in some aspects. Members of the latter like to describe journeys, parties, hobbies and, in a strong measure and with photos, the succulent meals they are going to consume.
The main concerns in the Bulsa groups tend to focus on discussions about political and historical problems, successful or failing development projects and delightful or scandalous events in Bulsa villages and towns. Religious posts, which are almost completely absent in European websites, appear regularly in the Bulsa groups and include prayers, thanks to God for a new year of life and death announcements.
From time to time, questions arise about translations of modern terms such as “anaemia” or “germs” into Buli. Although it is usually already clear at the beginning that no translation which is satisfactory to all can be found, the discussions often lead to interesting linguistic-semantic insights, e.g. by explaining other Buli terms for diseases. As in other fields of the language, abstract English nouns are often circumscribed by verbal constructions. Anaemia, for example, is circumscribed by “Wa ka ziim” (he has no blood) or “Wa ziim ni nueri” (his blood has finished).
For translating the English term “germs”, the Buli word tu-bisa (sing. tu-biik, children of disease) met with the greatest approval, after other translations such as tuem nganbuuma, dangta (dirt), ngan-chelinta (moving things), tuemluik (passage of disease?), germsima (adapted English term), tuem-bumbuma (small pieces of disease?), nganviesa (nasty or dreadful things) and nganbaata (bad things) had been proposed.
In 2019, party-political topics naturally play a great role since parliamentary and presidential elections will take place again in 2020. Nevertheless, discussions about important politicians and party events did not reach the same levels of vitriol as the discussions about Bulsa history (as described below) did

Among the major events, the Bulsa Festival in Accra received special attention as it had in 2018. Although the name “Builsa Feok – Accra Chapter” had been changed into “Builsa Cultural Festival”, the sides for or against holding a second Bulsa festival were still at odds with each other. One of several “conversation starters” on this subject received 196 comments. Those against the Accra Festival argued that Sandema and the Bulsa area would lose importance in the minds of the diaspora and that it is regarded as a rival to the Sandema Feok Festival. Those in favour of the Accra Festival argued that people who cannot afford to go to the Sandema Feok can nonetheless receive a stronger awareness of their own culture while in a foreign environment.
In the contributions to Buluk Kaniak, the extraordinarily great interest of the participants in Bulsa history can be seen again and again. When disputes arose, each contributor represented the opinion most favourable to his own village, town or family.
Starting with the cover photo used for Buluk Kaniak featuring the Sandemnaab Azagsuk, a panellist asked: “Aren’t there any other Bulsa chiefs?” This lead to the question concerning which title (e.g. paramount chief, overlord, leader of Bulsa chiefs, or even king) the chief of Sandema should hold and what powers he should exert.
The issue of titles and the competence of chiefs has become more complicated since new paramountcies were established in several Bulsa towns and villages (e.g. Wiaga, Fumbisi, Siniensi et al.; cf. “Events”, December 2018 of BULUK 12).
One panellist was of the opinion that “a hitherto sub-chief, when elevated to a paramountcy, is independent and equal to any other paramount chief within that area”. This would deprive the Sandemnaab of its privileged position even as primus inter pares (first among equals).
In order to emphasize his right of crowning other chiefs elected in Sandema with the red cap (i.e. of installing them), the Sandemnaab needs a title that sets him apart from other Bulsa paramount chiefs. Therefore, the title Overlord, which, according to a panellist is an invention of Abilyeri, has been used more frequently in recent times. In the discussion, Sandema’s supremacy (as paramountcy) was also doubted because it was a British “invention”. Questioning any institution or arrangement introduced by the British is, however, dangerous because even more important Ghanaian conventions of social and political life were introduced by the British. These include schools with their English language of instruction, the borderlines of Ghana which divide several ethnic territories into two parts (e.g. those of the Kasena, Dagara, Ewe, etc.), and other important parts of the Ghanaian administrative system.
An interesting though erroneous theory about the European slave trade and Babatu was represented by a (small?) group of Facebook members: “Records show that Europeans actually got to the hinterland in Ghana to capture slaves”. This statement is hardly tenable because it was local middlemen (e.g. the Ashanti) who organized the raids and the transport of the slaves to the coast and then sold their freight to the Europeans.
The panellist continued:
“In order to conceal this criminal past [of the Europeans], they made Babatu a scapegoat. And to associate our religious festival [Feok] to that is insultary [insulting].”
Also contemporary European anthropologists and historians were deemed guilty of falsifying Bulsa historiography:
“Some Europeans came pandering to false views of chiefs. Some did a dirty job to protect some integrity [of the colonial slave traders?]. They got that funding to falsify our history…”
“No one can come from Europe or America telling a Bulsa that he knows your [his] history better than you [he?]. Such people are the new invaders. The mission is to conceal facts.”
Later a participant of the discussion even stated that the history of a certain Bulsa village could not be written by somebody from another village:
“[The] Kanjarga chief can’t give a history of Fumbisi and [the] Fumbisi chief can’t give a history of Kanjarga.”
Some views that culminate in the statement that Babatu was a hero and resistance fighter against European colonialism were strongly opposed by other participants, especially those from Sandema. If this were the case, the Feok Festival, which celebrates the victory of the Bulsa under Sandema’s leadership over the slave-raider Babatu, would completely lose its meaning.
In some instances, Europeans were defended by panellists:
“Mind you, the whites that came to Ghana in this case to record history as they were told, were not doing so to satisfy any traditional leader… Give them some credit regardless [of] your personal dislike for them.”
What makes many Facebook comments interesting for an outsider (such as the author of this text) is the fact that some participants demonstrated all their historical knowledge about the Bulsa inherited from their fathers. Many previously known facts were given an appearance that differed from those described in British documents because they reflect the locals’ point of view. When studying historical documents in the archives, I (F.K.) came across strongly derogatory remarks made by British officials about Ayieparo (Aieparo), Afoko’s opponent in the Sandemnaab election of 1912. As he was an old man who suffered from elephantiasis of the right leg, the sympathies of the British lay entirely with the exceptionally tall and young Afoko (cf. Buluk 6, p. 29).
British sources even claimed that Ayieparo “was no relative of the late chief” (BULUK 6, p. 49, Nash 27/6/1912). This was vehemently denied by a member of the chief’s family. According to Robert Asekabta’s and my own studies on the genealogy of Ayieta’s family, Ayieparo was Ayieta’s brother, i.e. he belonged to a more senior generation than Afoko.
Ayieparo’s argument in support of his entitlement to chieftaincy that “he had been given the fetish…by the Fetish Man [Amuusa]” was not only disregarded by the British, but the Fetish Man [teng-nyono?] was warned “he would get trouble from the Government”. The shrine called “Fetish” here by the British was probably the Bagnab of the chief’s family-head mentioned in the Facebook discussion (p. 12).
Other problems discussed in Facebook, e.g. whether Wiaga had any influence on the enskinment of Azantilow after his election, need further research and cannot be solved here.