Liberia Cannot Reconcile With A History Its People Have Never Fully Understood

A Patriotic Citizen’s Position on Historical Truth, Ancestral Migration, Ethnic Identity, Political Manipulation, Public Safety, and Genuine National Reconciliation

By Charles E. King (Coach King)
Former Deputy Director of Police for Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Affairs, Liberia National Police
Graduate, Liberia National Police Academy, Republic of Liberia
Graduate, FBI National Academy, Quantico, Virginia, United States of America
Self-Development and Transformational Coach

A SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF COMMITMENT TO HISTORICAL TRUTH

Before presenting my position on Liberia’s history and the urgent need for genuine national reconciliation, I wish to express my sincere admiration and appreciation for the educational work of Ms. Kau Yeyia Fahnbulleh, particularly her efforts to teach the history of Liberia to our young people.

What has captured my admiration is the care, seriousness, and apparent commitment to historical accuracy that I have observed in her presentations. She demonstrates a willingness to discuss difficult chapters of Liberia’s past without avoiding subjects simply because they may touch upon her own ancestral background.

This quality is especially important to me.

I believe that anyone who undertakes the responsibility of teaching history must be prepared to present the achievements and failures of the past with equal honesty. History should not be selectively presented to protect our ancestors, defend our ethnic communities, or satisfy the political preferences of our generation.

The educator’s responsibility is to the truth and to the young people who depend upon that truth to develop their understanding of the world.

In this respect, I see a meaningful similarity between the approach I admire in Ms. Fahnbulleh and the historical scholarship of Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes, particularly his willingness to examine uncomfortable aspects of Liberia’s history in Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told.

I am not suggesting that their work is identical. Rather, I recognize in both an approach that encourages Liberians to look beyond familiar historical narratives and examine the broader evidence.

Ms. Fahnbulleh’s contribution is particularly meaningful because she is reaching young people whose understanding of their country, their ancestry, and their fellow citizens is still developing.

A young Liberian who learns that history must be examined fairly is less likely to accept inherited accusations against another community without asking for evidence.

A young Liberian who understands that ancestors were human beings capable of both admirable and regrettable actions is better prepared to exercise independent judgment.

And a young Liberian who learns to acknowledge uncomfortable historical facts without feeling personally condemned by them is better equipped to participate in national reconciliation.

I therefore wish to publicly recognize and commend Ms. Kau Yeyia Fahnbulleh for the historical educational work that has earned my admiration.

I hope that her example, together with the scholarship of Dr. Burrowes and the contributions of other serious historians and educators, will encourage more Liberians to approach our national history with courage, fairness, intellectual honesty, and a genuine desire to learn.

For it is only when we are willing to examine the whole of our history—not merely those portions that favor our own families, ethnic communities, or political positions—that we can begin to build the mutual understanding necessary for genuine national reconciliation.

INTRODUCTION: WHY I AM MAKING THIS STATEMENT

Liberia cannot reconcile with a history its people have never fully understood.

I make this statement as a patriotic Liberian who believes deeply in the future of our country and the capacity of our people to overcome the divisions that have repeatedly threatened our national unity.

My perspective has been shaped by years of professional service in law enforcement, criminal investigation, administration, training, and public safety.

I began my law enforcement career as a graduate of the Liberia National Police Academy and eventually attained the rank of Deputy Director of Police. I also had the privilege of graduating from the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

Those experiences taught me the importance of evidence, careful investigation, impartial judgment, and individual accountability.

In criminal investigation, we do not establish responsibility merely because someone belongs to a particular family, community, or organization. We examine the facts, identify the individuals involved, and determine what the evidence supports.

I believe Liberia’s historical discussions require the same discipline.

For too long, our national conversations have frequently been shaped by incomplete historical accounts, inherited grievances, ethnic suspicions, and political interpretations that encourage Liberians to see one another through the mistakes of earlier generations.

We cannot build lasting reconciliation upon incomplete knowledge.

Nor can we expect our young people to develop a shared national identity when they are encouraged to inherit historical accusations they have never been taught to examine.

This article is not intended to defend one community against another.

It is not an attempt to excuse injustice, diminish suffering, or rewrite Liberia’s history.

It is an appeal for a more complete understanding of that history and for the independent thinking necessary to transform historical knowledge into national understanding.

PART ONE: LIBERIA’S HISTORY DID NOT BEGIN IN 1822

One of the greatest weaknesses in popular discussions of Liberian history is the tendency to begin the country’s story with the arrival of Black settlers from the United States in the nineteenth century.

The year 1822 is important. It marks a significant development in the establishment of the settlement that eventually became the Republic of Liberia.

But the people, communities, and territories that became Liberia possessed histories long before that date.

Our ancestors migrated, settled, traded, formed political relationships, developed systems of leadership, practiced religious traditions, fought wars, and interacted with neighboring societies.

Some communities experienced displacement and conquest. Others established commercial relationships with distant regions.

The Atlantic slave trade also affected coastal and inland societies long before the establishment of Liberia.

When we begin the national story in 1822, we risk treating the indigenous populations as though they appeared only when the settlers arrived.

That is historically inadequate.

A complete understanding of Liberia requires us to examine the earlier history of the territory and the peoples who inhabited it.

The arrival of the settlers should be understood as an important chapter within a much longer historical story, not the beginning of that story.

PART TWO: OUR ANCESTRAL MIGRATIONS DESERVE SERIOUS STUDY

Liberia’s ethnic communities did not all arrive in the territory at the same time or through identical historical circumstances.

The ancestors of today’s Liberians experienced movements of population over many centuries.

Some migrations were associated with trade, family relationships, agriculture, environmental conditions, political changes, and conflict.

The history of these movements is complex, and not every migration tradition can be assigned a precise date.

Nevertheless, the study of ancestral migration is essential to understanding how our communities came to occupy different parts of the territory that became Liberia.

Such study can also help us recognize that the histories of our ethnic communities extend beyond today’s national borders.

The boundaries of the modern Republic of Liberia do not define the full extent of our ancestral experiences.

Our young people should therefore be introduced to historical evidence drawn from oral traditions, linguistics, archaeology, written records, and other relevant fields.

They should also understand that different sources may provide different accounts.

The purpose of historical education is not to select whichever account makes our own community appear most important.

It is to examine the available evidence and reach the most reasonable conclusions possible.

PART THREE: THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY MUST BE PRESENTED IN ITS ENTIRETY

The history of slavery is among the most painful subjects in the history of West Africa.

It is also among the subjects most vulnerable to selective interpretation.

The Atlantic slave trade involved foreign merchants, commercial networks, political authorities, armed groups, and individuals who profited from the capture and sale of human beings.

African communities experienced the trade in different ways.

Some people participated in slave trading or assisted those who did.

Others resisted the trade, protected vulnerable populations, or became its victims.

Still others lived under circumstances in which political or military power severely restricted their choices.

These distinctions matter.

We cannot accurately describe the history of slavery by presenting all Africans as participants or all Africans as innocent bystanders.

Neither can we ignore the decisive role of European and American demand, maritime commerce, and the international economic systems that sustained the trade.

Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes’ Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told is particularly valuable because it encourages readers to examine aspects of this history that have not always received sufficient attention in popular accounts.

His work addresses the involvement of particular African authorities and trading networks while also documenting African resistance and the efforts of Black repatriates to suppress the trade.

Such history should be studied carefully, with attention to sources, chronology, and the differences between individuals and communities.

We must teach documented historical participation, not inherited ethnic guilt.

PART FOUR: THE ARRIVAL OF THE REPATRIATES MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN CONTEXT

The arrival of Black settlers from the Americas is central to Liberia’s national history.

Many of these migrants had experienced enslavement, racial discrimination, or the consequences of those systems.

Their search for freedom, security, opportunity, and political self-determination deserves recognition.

At the same time, their arrival took place within a territory already inhabited by African communities with established interests, authorities, and traditions.

Relationships between settlers and indigenous populations included cooperation, commerce, negotiation, competition, conflict, and unequal political arrangements.

It would be historically irresponsible to present the settlers as uniformly benevolent.

It would be equally irresponsible to portray every settler as an oppressor or to disregard the contributions of those who opposed slave trading and helped establish institutions that later became part of the Liberian state.

The historical record requires us to consider both constructive achievements and harmful actions.

Our task is not to create heroes and villains according to ancestral identity.

Our task is to understand the circumstances, choices, and consequences that shaped the country.

PART FIVE: THE ROLE OF INDIGENOUS LIBERIANS MUST NOT BE SIMPLIFIED

The term indigenous Liberians refers to communities with different histories, languages, political structures, and relationships with neighboring societies.

These communities did not always act together.

They did not necessarily share the same interests.

Their relationships with the emerging Liberian state varied by location, period, and political circumstances.

Some rulers and communities negotiated agreements with settlers.

Others resisted the expansion of state authority.

Some participated in regional commerce, including forms of commerce connected with slavery.

Others opposed slave raiding or suffered from it.

To treat all indigenous Liberians as though they possessed a single political history is to overlook these differences.

The same principle applies to the descendants of repatriates.

We must resist the temptation to turn broad historical categories into permanent accusations against living people.

A fair national history must acknowledge the diversity of experience within every community.

PART SIX: THE DANGER OF INHERITED COLLECTIVE GUILT

One of the most troubling consequences of selective historical teaching is the belief that individuals living today should be held personally responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

Historical responsibility and inherited personal guilt are not the same.

We may inherit the consequences of past events.

We may benefit from institutions established through unequal arrangements.

We may also inherit disadvantages created by historical injustice.

These realities deserve serious examination.

But a person should not be condemned merely because an ancestor belonged to a particular social group or participated in a particular historical system.

Individual responsibility requires evidence.

This principle has guided my understanding of justice throughout my professional career.

It should also guide our approach to historical reconciliation.

Acknowledging injustice does not require accusing every descendant of the people associated with that injustice.

Similarly, recognizing the suffering of one community does not require denying the suffering of another.

Liberia needs a historical conversation that is both truthful and fair.

PART SEVEN: ETHNIC IDENTITY MUST NOT BECOME A POLITICAL WEAPON

Liberia’s ethnic diversity should be recognized as an important part of the country’s cultural inheritance.

Our languages, customs, historical experiences, and traditions contribute to the richness of our national identity.

Yet ethnic identity can also be manipulated.

When political leaders encourage citizens to judge one another primarily by ancestry, they weaken the principle of equal citizenship.

A person’s ethnic background should not determine whether that individual is considered patriotic, trustworthy, qualified, or entitled to participate in national life.

Neither should historical grievances become a justification for discrimination against people who played no personal role in the events being discussed.

The challenge is not to eliminate ethnic identity.

It is to ensure that ethnic identity does not override our shared responsibilities as Liberians.

We can respect our ancestral communities while remaining committed to one Republic.

PART EIGHT: SOME POLITICIANS AND SOME PROGRESSIVES HAVE EXPLOITED HISTORICAL DIVISIONS

I believe it is necessary to address a sensitive but important subject.

Some politicians, and some individuals who describe themselves as progressives, have used selective interpretations of Liberia’s history to advance political objectives.

This does not mean that all politicians or all progressives have acted in this manner.

Liberia has benefited from individuals across different political traditions who challenged injustice, advocated reform, and made genuine sacrifices for the country.

Nevertheless, historical grievances can be politically useful.

They can mobilize supporters, identify enemies, strengthen group loyalty, and distract attention from present-day failures of leadership.

When historical accounts are presented without adequate context, citizens may be encouraged to blame entire communities rather than examine the conduct of particular officials, institutions, or political movements.

The result can be an atmosphere in which resentment becomes easier to cultivate than understanding.

My concern is not with political disagreement.

Political disagreement is a normal part of democratic life.

My concern is with the deliberate or careless use of incomplete historical narratives to deepen divisions among Liberians.

A political argument should be evaluated on its evidence and merits, not merely on the ethnic identity of the person presenting it.

A SPECIAL APPEAL TO POLITICAL ASPIRANTS, PROGRESSIVES, AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO ADDRESS OUR YOUNG PEOPLE

I wish to address an additional appeal to some aspiring political leaders, some progressives, and some officials of government who are frequently invited to speak at schools, youth programs, community gatherings, and other public engagements. Such invitations are not merely opportunities to deliver speeches. They are opportunities to influence how young Liberians understand their country, their fellow citizens, and their own responsibilities.

When a speaker stands before students or members of the public, the audience may regard that person as an authority. Young listeners in particular may repeat what they hear without having the historical background or resources to test it. For that reason, a speaker’s words can educate and unite, but they can also reinforce prejudice, deepen suspicion, or spread an incomplete account of our past.

I urge these speakers to prepare carefully, verify historical claims, distinguish documented facts from personal interpretations, and acknowledge where the evidence is disputed or incomplete. No speaker should present an entire ethnic community, ancestral group, or political tradition as uniformly guilty or uniformly innocent because of the actions of particular individuals. The same caution applies when discussing the arrival of repatriates, the history of slavery, the development of the Liberian state, and the events surrounding our civil wars.

Political ambition, public office, and a reputation for progressive thinking do not lessen this responsibility; they increase it. A school platform should not become a convenient place to recruit young people into inherited resentment or partisan hostility. Nor should a public engagement be used to repeat historical accusations merely because they attract applause.

I am not asking public speakers to conceal injustice or avoid difficult subjects. On the contrary, I ask them to address such subjects with the courage to tell the truth, the discipline to examine evidence, and the fairness to recognize complexity—even when the facts are uncomfortable for their own ancestors, supporters, or political associates.

Before speaking, I encourage every invited guest to ask: Is what I am about to say accurate? Can I support it with credible evidence? Have I made clear the difference between individuals and entire communities? Will my words help these young people understand Liberia, or merely teach them whom to resent?

Those who have the privilege of addressing our young people should leave them better informed, more thoughtful, and more capable of judging history independently. That is a service to national reconciliation and, in my judgment, an obligation of responsible leadership.

PART NINE: LIBERIA’S CIVIL WARS REQUIRE A BROADER HISTORICAL EXPLANATION

Liberia’s civil wars inflicted enormous suffering upon our people.

Families were destroyed.

Communities were displaced.

Public institutions collapsed.

Children experienced violence and insecurity that no child should have to endure.

Ethnic divisions and historical grievances were among the factors that influenced the conflicts.

But the wars cannot be adequately explained through ethnic identity alone.

Political repression, abuses of state power, competition for authority, economic conditions, armed mobilization, external influences, and the decisions of particular leaders and organizations must also be examined.

It is dangerous to suggest that entire ethnic communities were responsible for the actions of armed factions or political authorities.

Such interpretations can preserve hostility long after the fighting has ended.

A responsible understanding of the civil wars must identify patterns of abuse while also recognizing the individual and institutional decisions that contributed to violence.

The suffering of victims deserves acknowledgment regardless of their ethnicity, political affiliation, religion, or social background.

Our duty is to learn from the events so that future generations will not repeat them.

PART TEN: HISTORICAL EDUCATION IS A PUBLIC-SAFETY CONCERN

My years in law enforcement taught me that threats to public safety do not arise only from immediate criminal acts.

They may also develop from underlying conditions that are ignored until those conditions produce conflict.

Persistent mistrust, misinformation, perceived injustice, political manipulation, and ethnic hostility can create environments in which violence becomes more likely.

Historical ignorance can contribute to these conditions.

When citizens accept accusations against entire communities without examining the evidence, suspicion may become normalized.

When political leaders exploit that suspicion, social divisions can deepen.

When young people inherit hostility without understanding its origins, they may become vulnerable to manipulation.

For these reasons, I believe historical education has a legitimate role in preventing conflict and strengthening public safety.

This does not mean that every disagreement about history will produce violence.

It means that a society committed to peace should take seriously the ways historical narratives influence attitudes, relationships, and political behavior.

Public safety is strengthened when citizens learn to distinguish facts from rumors, individuals from groups, and legitimate grievances from inflammatory accusations.

PART ELEVEN: OUR YOUNG PEOPLE MUST LEARN HOW TO EXAMINE HISTORY

Young Liberians should not be expected merely to memorize historical claims.

They should be taught how to examine them.

A proper historical education should encourage students to ask important questions:

Who made this statement?
What evidence supports it?
When was the information recorded?
Was the person who recorded it an eyewitness?
Could the source have been influenced by political, commercial, religious, or personal interests?
Are there other sources that confirm or challenge the account?
What information remains uncertain?

These questions are not intended to encourage disrespect for elders, teachers, or historians.

They are intended to develop intellectual independence.

The ability to examine evidence is essential to responsible citizenship.

It is also central to the self-development principles I encourage: Think Better, Decide Better, and Act Better.

A young person who learns to think carefully is better prepared to make responsible decisions.

A young person who learns to question unsupported accusations is less likely to participate in unjust treatment of others.

A young person who understands the relationship between decisions and consequences is better prepared to contribute to a peaceful society.

Historical education should therefore be treated as an opportunity to develop critical thinking, moral judgment, and civic responsibility.

PART TWELVE: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SERIOUS HISTORIANS AND EDUCATORS DESERVE RECOGNITION

Liberia needs historians, researchers, teachers, and community educators who are prepared to examine difficult historical subjects.

Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes’ work is an important contribution to this effort.

His book Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told encourages readers to reconsider assumptions about slavery, repatriation, resistance, and historical responsibility.

The value of such scholarship lies not in requiring every reader to agree with every conclusion.

It lies in encouraging serious engagement with historical evidence.

This is also why I admire the educational efforts of Ms. Kau Yeyia Fahnbulleh.

Her willingness, as I have observed it, to address difficult aspects of Liberian history—even where they touch upon ancestral identity—offers an example of the approach I believe our young people need.

We should encourage more educators to present Liberia’s history with similar care.

Historical education must not become an exercise in defending one community while condemning another.

Nor should it become an attempt to remove every uncomfortable fact from our national story.

The goal must be understanding.

When historians disagree, students should be encouraged to examine the competing evidence.

When historical sources are incomplete, educators should acknowledge the uncertainty.

When evidence reveals wrongdoing, that wrongdoing should not be concealed because of the identity of those involved.

This is how historical education can become a foundation for reconciliation rather than another source of division.

PART THIRTEEN: RECONCILIATION REQUIRES MORE THAN FORGIVENESS

Liberians have often been encouraged to forgive, forget, and move forward.

Forgiveness can be valuable.

It may help individuals and communities overcome bitterness and rebuild relationships.

But forgiveness alone cannot substitute for historical understanding, accountability, institutional reform, and fair treatment.

A person who has suffered injustice may reasonably wish to understand what happened and why.

A community that has experienced discrimination may seek acknowledgment of its history.

A nation emerging from conflict must consider how institutions can be strengthened to prevent repeated abuses.

Reconciliation should therefore involve more than public declarations of unity.

It should encourage truthful historical education, respect for victims, fair consideration of evidence, and a commitment to equal citizenship.

We should also recognize that different people may understand reconciliation differently.

Some may emphasize justice.

Others may emphasize acknowledgment, restitution, forgiveness, institutional reform, or the preservation of historical memory.

A serious national reconciliation process must be capable of considering these concerns without reducing them to political slogans.

PART FOURTEEN: WHAT LIBERIA SHOULD DO DIFFERENTLY

I believe Liberia should place greater emphasis on historical education as part of its broader national development and reconciliation efforts.

Our schools, universities, libraries, community organizations, and media institutions can all contribute.

Students should learn about the history of the territory before 1822 as well as the establishment and development of the Republic.

They should examine ancestral migrations, regional trade, slavery, resistance, repatriation, state expansion, political reform, and the events that contributed to the civil wars.

The contributions and experiences of different communities should be presented without treating any one group as the exclusive author of Liberia’s achievements or failures.

Educational programs should also explain the difference between historical facts, interpretations, opinions, and unresolved questions.

Radio discussions, youth forums, community lectures, and public conversations can make this learning available beyond formal classrooms.

Liberians living in the diaspora also have an important role.

They can support educational initiatives, share historical resources, participate in informed discussions, and encourage younger generations to understand their ancestral homeland.

However, any educational effort must remain open to scrutiny.

The purpose should not be to replace one selective historical narrative with another.

It should be to establish a culture in which evidence is respected and different perspectives can be examined without hostility.

PART FIFTEEN: MY APPEAL TO ALL LIBERIANS

I appeal to Liberians at home and throughout the diaspora to approach our national history with renewed seriousness.

Let us stop treating history as a competition between ethnic communities.

Let us stop assuming that acknowledging the wrongdoing of an ancestor means condemning every descendant.

Let us also stop believing that patriotism requires us to defend every action associated with our own historical background.

Patriotism should encourage us to seek the truth because we care about the future of our country.

We must be prepared to acknowledge the suffering of indigenous communities.

We must also recognize the struggles, contributions, and aspirations of Black repatriates.

We must examine the history of slavery and the people who participated in it, opposed it, or suffered under it.

We must study the decisions of political leaders, the failures of institutions, and the conditions that contributed to national conflict.

Above all, we must teach our young people that they are not required to inherit the hostility of earlier generations.

They are entitled to know the past.

They are entitled to examine it independently.

And they are entitled to build relationships with fellow Liberians based upon character, conduct, and shared citizenship rather than inherited suspicion.

CONCLUSION: LIBERIA’S FUTURE DEPENDS UPON HOW WE UNDERSTAND ITS PAST

I remain convinced that Liberia possesses the human capacity to overcome the divisions that have affected our national development.

But this will require more than repeated appeals for unity.

It will require intellectual honesty.

It will require the courage to acknowledge uncomfortable historical facts.

It will require the fairness to distinguish the actions of individuals from the identities of entire communities.

And it will require a commitment to teaching our young people a more complete understanding of the country they have inherited.

My admiration for educators such as Ms. Kau Yeyia Fahnbulleh, and my appreciation for the historical scholarship of Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes, arise from this conviction.

I believe that Liberians should be encouraged to examine historical evidence even when the findings challenge the stories they have accepted throughout their lives.

We should not fear historical truth.

We should fear the consequences of allowing historical ignorance to shape our relationships, political decisions, and national identity.

As a former law enforcement officer, I understand the importance of establishing facts before reaching conclusions.

As a Self-Development and Transformational Coach, I understand the importance of changing the way we think before expecting lasting changes in the way we act.

And as a patriotic Liberian, I believe these principles are essential to our national future.

Liberia cannot reconcile with a history its people have never fully understood.

But a Liberia whose people are willing to learn, question, acknowledge, and understand that history can begin building a different future.

A future in which ancestral identity is respected without becoming a source of hostility.

A future in which historical injustice is acknowledged without assigning inherited guilt.

A future in which our children are taught to think independently rather than inherit political resentment.

And a future in which national reconciliation becomes more than a familiar expression.

It becomes a commitment reflected in how we educate our children, treat our neighbors, govern our institutions, and understand our responsibilities to one another.

That is the Liberia I believe we should work to build.

Charles E. King (Coach King)
Former Deputy Director of Police for Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Affairs
Liberia National Police
Graduate, Liberia National Police Academy, Republic of Liberia
Graduate, FBI National Academy, Quantico, Virginia, USA
Self-Development and Transformational Coach

Written as a patriotic citizen’s appeal for historical understanding, independent thinking, equal citizenship, and genuine national reconciliation.