When The Telling Of History Becomes A Public-Safety Concern

Liberia’s History, Ethnic Relations, and the Responsibility of National Leaders

Introduction: Why I Am Raising This Concern

My concern about how Liberia’s history is presented to the public comes from my professional background in law enforcement, criminal investigation, criminal justice, and public safety.

---

By Charles E. King, contributing writer 

---

I have spent a considerable part of my professional life examining human behavior, the causes of conflict, the importance of evidence, and the circumstances under which disagreements can escalate into violence.

That experience has taught me an important lesson: Public disorder and violence do not always begin with weapons. Sometimes they begin with grievances, perceptions, accusations, mistrust, and the manner in which influential individuals communicate with the public.

For this reason, I am concerned about statements that present Liberia’s historical injustices in ways that may unintentionally encourage one community to blame another for the suffering of previous generations.

My concern was renewed by remarks attributed to former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf concerning the prolonged political and economic exclusion of Liberia’s indigenous majority

under earlier governments,

According to a report published by FrontPage Africa, Sirleaf connected this exclusion to the resentment that contributed to the military coup of 1980 and the civil wars that followed.

She stated:
“Exclusion breeds resentment. Resentment bred the problems of 1980.”

I do not dispute that exclusion occurred. Neither do I suggest that the injustices experienced by many Liberians under earlier governments should be concealed or minimized.

while delivering the keynote address at a Governance

Commission symposium on good governance in Monrovia.

My concern is different.

When we explain Liberia’s history primarily as the oppression of indigenous Liberians by Americo-Liberians, without also explaining the history of oppression among and within Liberia’s ethnic communities before the republic was established, are we giving the public the complete historical understanding necessary for national reconciliation?

And, from a public-safety standpoint, could such an incomplete account encourage resentment toward Americo-Liberians as a population rather than responsibility being assigned to particular governments, rulers, and individuals?

These questions deserve careful examination.

1. The Difference Between Historical Truth and Historical Completeness

A statement can contain historical truth while still presenting an incomplete picture.

It is historically appropriate to examine the concentration of political and economic power under governments dominated by Americo-Liberian elites.

However, Liberia’s history of inequality, enslavement, domination, and abuse of authority did not begin with the arrival of African-American settlers in the nineteenth century.

Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes makes this point in his book, Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told.

Burrowes challenges the practice of beginning Liberia’s history with the arrival of the repatriates while giving insufficient attention to the earlier history of the people and societies already occupying the territory.

His research documents slave trading, kidnapping, political domination, exploitation, and conflict among and within communities long before the founding of the Liberian republic.

That earlier history is essential to understanding the origins of some of the mistrust that later affected relations among Liberians.

If we omit this earlier history, the public may be left with the impression that the oppression of Liberians began with Americo-Liberians and that Americo-Liberians alone bear responsibility for the country’s historical divisions.

Such a conclusion would be incomplete.

2. Burrowes Identifies Particular Ethnic Communities Involved in the Slave Trade

One reason I consider Burrowes’ work especially valuable is that he does not treat all African communities as though they shared one identical historical experience.

He identifies particular rulers, trading networks, communities, and victims.

On pages 13–18 of his book, Burrowes describes slave-trading activities involving rulers and networks associated with the Vai communities along the Gallinas River.

He identifies Siaka of Gendama, head of the Massaquoi family, as a central figure in a trading network involving traditional rulers and European slave traders.

Burrowes also identifies kidnappers associated with coastal Vai, Bassa, Kru, and Grebo communities, as well as Manding and Fula raiders operating from the north.

He explains that interior communities were vulnerable to raids from different directions.

Among the communities he identifies as suffering substantial losses were the Gola, Dei, Mende, Bandi, Loma, Kpelle, Ma, and Dan.

These historical details are important.

They demonstrate that the experiences of the people living in the territory that became Liberia were not uniform.

Some individuals participated in capturing and selling others. Some were victims. Some communities experienced both situations at different times.

Identifying these historical activities does not make every Vai, Bassa, Kru, Grebo, Manding, or Fula person responsible for slave trading.

Neither does identifying communities that suffered losses mean that every member of those communities was exclusively a victim.

The same standard must apply when discussing Americo-Liberians.

We must identify the historical actors responsible for wrongdoing without assigning inherited guilt to everyone who shares their ethnic or social identity.

That is a principle of fairness and historical accuracy.
It is also consistent with the principles of criminal justice.
3. Oppression Also Occurred Within the Same Ethnic Communities
There is another important aspect of Liberia’s early history that deserves greater public attention.

Oppression did not occur only between different ethnic communities.

Burrowes documents situations in which powerful rulers exploited members of their own communities.

On pages 16–17, he explains that some rulers sold members of their own societies into slavery. In certain situations, accusations of witchcraft or adultery were used to justify enslavement.

The poor, vulnerable, and politically powerless could become victims of people who exercised authority over them.

Burrowes describes how Gola customary law could permit men accused of adultery under particular circumstances to be sold into slavery.

He also recounts an incident from Gola traditional history involving Chief Zolu Duma.

According to that tradition, Chief Zolu Duma enticed a group of girls associated with the Sande school aboard a slave ship under the pretense that they would dance for the crew. The account states that he had already arranged their sale.

Because this is presented as traditional history, its details should be described with that qualification.

Nevertheless, its significance within Burrowes’ historical argument is clear.

Some people who possessed political or traditional authority could use that authority to exploit the very people they were expected to protect.

This is important because it demonstrates that the abuse of power existed within certain African societies before the establishment of the Liberian republic.

It would be historically misleading to describe these societies as though all their members enjoyed equal power or protection.

At the same time, we must recognize that African political systems varied considerably. Not every ruler possessed unrestricted authority, and not every community followed the same practices.

The point is not to condemn traditional institutions generally.
It is to acknowledge the historical evidence of inequality and abuse wherever it occurred. 4. Burrowes’ Warning About Mistrust and Ethnic Division

One of Burrowes’ most important observations appears in his discussion of the continuing legacy of the slave trade.

On page 84, he writes:
“The slave trade did not create ‘tribalism,’ but it helped to enflame it.”

He explains that the capture and sale of human beings encouraged betrayal, suspicion, and mistrust.

Communities feared neighboring communities.
People could be kidnapped while traveling or working away from their homes.

In some cases, communities protected their own members while failing to condemn wrongdoing against outsiders.

Burrowes also describes how divisions developed within language groups, as neighboring settlements turned against one another.

This history is significant because it suggests that certain forms of mistrust and intercommunity hostility existed before the establishment of the republic.

These historical divisions cannot simply be attributed to Americo-Liberian political dominance.

Nor should we assume that every modern ethnic grievance is a direct inheritance from the slave trade.

Later political decisions, unequal treatment, personal experiences, and armed conflicts also contributed to Liberia’s divisions.

Nevertheless, Burrowes provides a compelling reason to examine the country’s earlier history before drawing conclusions about the origins of its ethnic mistrust.

5. The Lott Carey Example: What Happens When Crucial Facts Are Omitted

Burrowes provides an example that is particularly relevant to my concern about public communication.

On page 2 of his book, he discusses an account of Lott Carey, one of Liberia’s early African- American settlers.

Burrowes refers to a portrayal attributed to Dew Tuan Wleh Mayson in which Carey’s death in a gunpowder explosion was described as deserved because the gunpowder supposedly would have been used against native Africans.

But Burrowes identifies a crucial missing fact.

Carey was preparing to defend the settlement against slave catchers.

That information substantially changes the meaning of the event.

Without it, listeners might conclude that Carey was preparing to attack African people because they were African.

With it, the incident must be understood in the context of defending against slave-catching activity.

Burrowes’ passage does not itself establish that Carey fired a cannon at indigenous Africans. The distinction between preparing gunpowder and actually firing a cannon must be preserved.

From my criminal investigation background, this example is especially instructive.

Imagine an investigator receiving information that an armed individual was preparing to use weapons against another group.

Before reaching a conclusion, the investigator would need to establish the circumstances. Was the person preparing an unprovoked attack?
Was the person defending others?
Was there an immediate threat?

Who were the intended targets?

What evidence supports the allegations?

These questions can completely change the interpretation of the conduct.

Historical accounts deserve the same care.

When essential facts are omitted, the public may form conclusions that are inconsistent with the fuller evidence.

And when those conclusions concern ethnic identity, the consequences may extend beyond misunderstanding into resentment and collective blame.

I am not claiming, without further documentation, that the Lott Carey account caused a particular episode of ethnic violence.

I am identifying the danger illustrated by the omission.

6. The Americo-Liberian Period Must Be Examined Without Collective Condemnation

The fact that oppression existed before the founding of Liberia does not excuse the political inequalities that developed under later governments.

The historical exclusion of many indigenous Liberians from full political participation deserves serious examination.

Governments must be accountable for the institutions they create and the rights they deny.

But there is a fundamental difference between examining an unequal political system and condemning an entire population.

Not every Americo-Liberian held political office.

Not every Americo-Liberian benefited equally from the governing system.

Some Americo-Liberians opposed abuses and worked for reform.

Burrowes also describes cooperation between repatriates and African communities in resisting slavery.

These facts should form part of the historical record.

If we teach only domination and omit cooperation, we deny future generations an opportunity to understand how Liberians from different backgrounds also worked together.

The purpose of history should be to identify wrongdoing accurately, not to create permanent categories of oppressors and victims based on ancestry.

7. The Samuel Doe Government Demonstrates That Ethnic Oppression Did Not End in 1980

The events following the military coup of April 12, 1980, provide another important historical lesson.

Samuel Kanyon Doe, a member of the Krahn ethnic community, became Liberia’s leader after the overthrow of President William R. Tolbert Jr.

The coup ended the political dominance of the True Whig Party.

However, the replacement of the former political establishment did not eliminate inequality, repression, or ethnic favoritism.

During Doe’s government, members of his Krahn community gained disproportionate influence in important political and security institutions.

Following the unsuccessful coup attempt led by Thomas Quiwonkpa in November 1985, government forces carried out violent reprisals against members of the Gio (Dan) and Mano (Ma) communities, particularly in Nimba County.

These abuses were documented by human rights organizations.

During the civil war that followed, members of Krahn and Mandingo communities were also targeted by armed factions.

This history demonstrates that the abuse of political power cannot be understood exclusively as a conflict between Americo-Liberians and indigenous Liberians.

An indigenous-led government also practiced ethnic favoritism and persecuted members of other indigenous ethnic communities.

However, we must apply the same standard of responsibility consistently.
The crimes of Doe’s government should not be attributed to every Krahn person.

The crimes committed against Krahn and Mandingo civilians by armed factions should not be attributed to every Gio or Mano person.

Responsibility belongs to those who ordered, organized, assisted, or committed particular abuses. This is precisely why collective blame is dangerous.

When one community is treated as responsible for the crimes of its leaders, innocent people become vulnerable to retaliation.

8. The 1979 Rice Riots: A Historical Warning About Public Perception

Liberia’s Rice Riots of April 14, 1979, provide a particularly important example of the relationship between public perception, existing grievances, political communication, and public disorder.

During President Tolbert’s administration, the government considered increasing the price of rice.

The proposal generated widespread dissatisfaction.

There were also public allegations and perceptions that members of the Tolbert family or politically connected individuals would benefit financially.

Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission later discussed how those perceptions intensified public discontent.

The Commission also criticized the government’s failure to explain its proposed policy adequately and to address the growing dissatisfaction.

The Progressive Alliance of Liberia, led by Gabriel Baccus Matthews, organized opposition to the proposal.

A demonstration developed into serious disorder. Property was destroyed and looted.
Security forces fired on civilians.
People were killed and injured.

The lesson is not that a rumor alone caused the Rice Riots. The price proposal was real, economic grievances existed, political mobilization occurred, and the government’s response contributed substantially to the tragedy.

The lesson is broader.

Public perception, when combined with unresolved grievances, distrust, political mobilization, and failures of leadership, can become a significant factor in public disorder.

This is a lesson that law enforcement and public-safety professionals should not ignore.

9. Applying the Rice Riots Lesson to Historical Statements

The connection I draw between the Rice Riots and historical statements about Americo-Liberians concerns the influence of public perception.

In 1979, perceptions concerning who would benefit from a government policy contributed to growing public dissatisfaction.

When influential political figures discuss Liberia’s historical inequalities, audiences may similarly develop perceptions about which communities were responsible for their ancestors’ suffering.

If the discussion focuses exclusively on Americo-Liberian domination, while omitting earlier oppression among Vai, Bassa, Kru, Grebo, Gola, and other communities, as well as later abuses under Doe’s government, listeners may receive an incomplete understanding.

The risk is that historical responsibility may be transferred from particular leaders and institutions to an entire community.

That does not mean that Sirleaf’s remarks caused violence or that her intentions were hostile.

It means that public-safety professionals have reason to examine how such messages are interpreted, especially in societies where ethnic grievances remain unresolved.

The Rice Riots teach us that leaders should not dismiss the possible consequences of public perceptions merely because their own statements or policies have a legitimate basis.

10. Liberia’s Interrupted Education Makes Historical Communication Especially Important

Liberia’s civil conflicts, from 1989 to 2003, caused enormous disruption to education, families, public institutions, and community life.

Many Liberians experienced interrupted schooling, displacement, poverty, and the loss of educational opportunities.

I would not claim without reliable statistics that 90 percent of the population has received no formal education.

Nevertheless, the prolonged disruption of education is an important part of Liberia’s postwar experience.

When people have had limited access to formal historical education, they may have fewer opportunities to compare different historical accounts, examine documentary evidence, or identify omissions in public statements.

This does not mean they are unintelligent or incapable of independent judgment.

It means that leaders, educators, and public commentators should take particular care to provide adequate historical context.

In a society where oral communication, radio discussions, political speeches, and community conversations are important sources of information, the manner in which history is communicated deserves careful attention.

The responsibility of an influential speaker is not simply to repeat a historically accurate statement.

It is also to consider whether the statement, without adequate explanation, could create a misleading impression.

11. The Difference Between Criticizing a Government and Blaming a Community

This distinction lies at the center of my concern.

There is a difference between saying:

Certain Americo-Liberian-dominated governments maintained political systems that excluded many indigenous Liberians.

And saying:

Americo-Liberians oppressed indigenous Liberians.

The first identifies governments and political institutions.

The second may be interpreted as assigning responsibility to an entire population.

Likewise, there is a difference between saying:

Certain Vai rulers and trading networks participated in slave trading.

And saying:

The Vai were slave traders.

There is a difference between saying:

Doe’s government and particular security forces persecuted Gio and Mano civilians.

And saying:

The Krahn oppressed the Gio and Mano.

These distinctions are not merely academic.

They help prevent innocent people from being held responsible for the conduct of others who share their identity.

In criminal justice, we do not establish responsibility through ethnicity.

We examine conduct, evidence, circumstances, and the actions of identifiable individuals.

Our treatment of history should follow a similar principle.

12. Historical Communication as a Public-Safety Responsibility

My professional concern is that repeated messages of collective blame can contribute to conditions in which ethnic hostility becomes more acceptable.

The possible progression deserves attention.

First, a historical narrative repeatedly identifies one community with oppression.

Second, listeners begin to treat the wrongdoing of particular historical actors as the wrongdoing of an entire population.

Third, resentment develops or existing resentment becomes stronger. Fourth, stereotypes and hostile generalizations become normalized.

Finally, in the presence of political mobilization, threats, weak institutions, or other aggravating circumstances, hostility may contribute to intimidation or violence.

This is a potential risk pathway, not an automatic sequence.
It would be wrong to assume that every controversial historical statement will produce violence.

It would also be wrong to ignore the role that inflammatory narratives can play in environments already affected by mistrust.

Law enforcement professionals are trained to recognize risk factors before violence occurs. The purpose of prevention is not to wait until people are injured or property is destroyed.

It is to identify conditions that could contribute to disorder and encourage responsible action before those conditions deteriorate.

13. This Is Not an Argument for Suppressing Historical Truth

I want to make one point absolutely clear. I am not advocating censorship.

I am not suggesting that Liberians should stop discussing the exclusion of indigenous communities under Americo-Liberian-dominated governments.

I am not attempting to defend historical wrongdoing.

Nor am I arguing that the earlier participation of some African rulers in slavery somehow cancels or excuses injustices committed by later governments.

My argument is that historical truth must be presented with sufficient completeness to avoid creating new injustices through collective blame.

We should discuss the actions of Americo-Liberian political elites.
We should discuss the actions of particular Vai rulers and slave-trading networks.

We should examine the historical conduct of individuals associated with Bassa, Kru, Grebo, Manding, Fula, and other communities wherever reliable evidence supports doing so.

We should examine abuses within Gola society, including the examples presented by Burrowes.

We should examine the experiences of Gola, Dei, Mende, Bandi, Loma, Kpelle, Ma, and Dan communities that suffered from slave raiding.

We should examine the Doe government’s persecution of Gio and Mano civilians.

And we should examine the atrocities later committed against Krahn, Mandingo, and other civilians.

No community should be placed beyond historical examination.

Equally, no community should be collectively condemned for the actions of particular members.

14. What I Would Ask of Former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

My concern about Sirleaf’s remarks is not whether the political exclusion she described occurred.

The historical record supports serious criticism of inequalities under earlier Liberian governments.

My question concerns the completeness of the explanation when such history is presented to the public.

If we tell Liberians that exclusion produced resentment and contributed to the events of 1980, should we not also explain that the earlier history of the territory included exploitation, enslavement, and unequal political power among and within African communities?

Should we not explain that the overthrow of the Americo-Liberian-dominated political establishment did not eliminate ethnic oppression?

Should we not acknowledge that the Doe government, despite being led by an indigenous Liberian, also persecuted members of other indigenous communities?

And should we not explain that the country’s civil wars demonstrated the dangers of treating entire communities as enemies because of the actions of particular leaders or armed groups?

These questions are not intended to deny the suffering of any population.

They are intended to encourage a more complete understanding of how Liberia’s divisions developed.

It is also important to distinguish Sirleaf’s particular remarks from her entire record. A speech focusing on one historical period is not necessarily intended to provide a complete history of Liberia.

Nevertheless, when such statements are repeated or treated as comprehensive explanations, the omitted context deserves attention.

15. A Responsibility Shared by Historians, Political Leaders, Educators, and the Media

Responsible historical communication should not depend on political affiliation.

The same standard should apply to everyone.

Historians should identify their evidence and acknowledge uncertainty.

Political leaders should avoid language that transfers the wrongdoing of particular officials to entire populations.

Educators should explain the broader historical circumstances surrounding controversial events.

Journalists and radio presenters should distinguish documented facts from allegations, interpretations, and political claims.

Community leaders should discourage the use of history to justify present-day hostility.

And public-safety professionals should pay attention to threats, organized intimidation, dehumanizing language, and other observable warning signs of possible violence.

These responsibilities can be fulfilled without suppressing criticism, political disagreement, or the legitimate discussion of historical injustice.

16. The Lessons I Believe Liberia Must Teach Its Young People

The history of Liberia should help young people understand that:

1. Slavery, kidnapping, and exploitation existed in the region before the establishment of the Liberian republic.
2. Particular rulers and networks associated with identifiable ethnic communities participated in these activities, while other members of those communities suffered from them.
3. Some rulers exploited members of their own communities, demonstrating that domination was not confined to relationships between different ethnic groups.
4. Americo-Liberian-dominated governments maintained political inequalities that deserve honest historical examination.
5. The 1980 coup did not end the abuse of power, and the Doe government subsequently engaged in ethnic favoritism and persecution.
6. Liberia’s civil wars demonstrated the devastating consequences of ethnic targeting and retaliatory violence.
7. Historical responsibility must be based on evidence and identifiable conduct, not ancestry or ethnic identity.
8. The purpose of studying history should be to understand the past and prevent the repetition of injustice—not to teach new generations to hate one another.

Conclusion: Liberia Must Not Turn Historical Grievances Into Inherited Enmity

I return to the central concern that prompted this commentary.

Liberia has already paid an enormous price for political violence, ethnic mistrust, and the abuse of power.

We cannot afford to treat the public presentation of our history as a matter of little consequence.

Words do not automatically cause violence. Historical grievances must be discussed openly, and no government or community should be shielded from legitimate criticism.

But words can influence perceptions. Perceptions can affect attitudes.

And, under certain conditions, collective blame and hostile political mobilization can contribute to violence.

The events of April 14, 1979, demonstrate the importance of public perception, political communication, existing grievances, and responsible government action.

The history of Samuel Doe’s administration demonstrates that oppression can continue even after one ruling establishment has been replaced by another.

And the research of Dr. C. Patrick Burrowes reminds us that the roots of Liberia’s mistrust and inequality extend much further into the past than the establishment of the republic.

My concern, therefore, is not to determine which ethnic community deserves blame.
It is to insist that no community should inherit collective guilt for the wrongdoing of

particular rulers, governments, or individuals.

As a former law enforcement and criminal justice professional, I believe that accurate and responsible historical communication is not only an educational obligation.

It is also an important contribution to public safety, conflict prevention, and national reconciliation.

Liberia must teach its history truthfully, completely, and responsibly—not so that one community may stand in judgment of another, but so that future generations may recognize injustice, reject collective blame, and refuse to repeat the violence of the past.

That is the responsibility we owe to our history.
And, more importantly, it is the responsibility we owe to Liberia’s future generations.

Finally, the internet was buzzing with surprise and indignation about Former President statement. What I found most interesting and shows when those who knows better – those who are among the very family her statement refers –her own family members – not one of them dare say anything to her but remain silent, This is what we will pass on to the next generation – keep silent and smile and everything will be OK. No it will not, because the snake has not been buried, it will raise its ugly head again in the future, because we continue to deny the “Half That Was Never Told”.

Because if the masses knew, they would ask question. So, the technique is, anytime someone brings out the “Half that was never told, someone says – Keep it from the masses so their eyes do not open so wide!’

Kind Regards

Charles E. King, contributing, Former Deputy Director of Police for Criminal Investigation Affairs, Liberia National Police

Principal Historical References

• C. Patrick Burrowes, Liberia and the Quest for Freedom: The Half That Has Never Been Told (2019), particularly pp. 1–2, 13–18, 70–71, and 83–85.
• Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, Consolidated Final Report, discussion of the April 14, 1979 Rice Riots and Liberia’s political conflicts.
• Human Rights Watch / Africa Watch, reports on abuses under Samuel Doe and the Liberian civil war, 1990–1993.
• U.S. Department of State, historical country reports concerning the Doe administration and ethnic conflict.
• U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, memorandum dated April 27, 1979, concerning the Rice Riots.
• FrontPage Africa, report of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s remarks on exclusion, governance, and Liberia’s political history.