Country versus Congo: A Liberian Cultural Metaphor

Below is an article I wrote for a class in graduate school in 2002. I have penned a more current article on the Country and Congo issue which can be read above.

Country versus Congo:
A Liberian Cultural Metaphor

Isaac Vah Tukpah, Jr.
University of Maryland
Robert H. Smith School of Business

Dr. Martin J. Gannon
BMGT 765 Organizational Behavior:
A Multicultural Perspective

Spring 2002


Table of Contents

1. Introduction
i. Pre-coup
ii. Post-coup/Pre-war
iii. Civil War
iv. Post-war

2. Historical Analysis
i. History
ii. Geographical
iii. Political
iv. Economic
v. Religious

3. Cultural Issues
i. Common Indigenous Activities
ii. Integration versus Assimilation
iii. Education

4. Country versus Congo
i. Why

5. Current Situation
i. Economics
ii. Prognosis

Possible Metaphors Rejected
Especially Helpful Annotated References
Bibliography
Attachments
A. Ethnological Map of Liberia
B. Positions held by Relations of President Tolbert from 1972-1980
C. Proportion of Free Negroes as a Percentage of Total Negro Population in the United States
D. Negro Emigrants to Liberia through American Colonization Society
E. List of political parties in Liberia prior to the 1985 elections
F. List of political parties in Liberia prior to the 1997 elections
G. Paramount Chiefs Recruited for Firestone Project
H. Tribes on Firestone’s Labor Force
I. Recommendations of the International Commission of Inquiry Into the Existence of Slavery and Forced Labor in the Republic of Liberia


INTRODUCTION

Usually when two Liberian’s meet for the first time, one of the three most likely statements that one of them will utter is “What tribe are you?”, “Where are you from?”, or “Who are your parents?” The root of this questioning is basically to discern if the individual is “Country” or “Congo.” If your lineage is connected with one of the indigenous tribe, you are automatically “country” and contrarily, if you are not linked to any tribe you are considered “congo.” (See Attachment A) Although the passage of time, intermarriage, and socialization has created gray areas around the strict definition of both of these terms, generally “country” refers to an indigenous Liberian and “congo” refers to a combination of settlers and recaptured slaves. The settlers are free slaves who came to Liberia through the American Colonization Society and other local/state colonization societies and recaptured slaves are slaves who were recaptured from slave traders and returned to Liberia by way of the Caribbean and the Congo. The “congo” are also referenced as Kwi, mekin (Liberian English also colloquial for American), Americo-Liberian, and Americos. The “country” has also been referred to in more polite terms as indigene or native.

In this paper, I will demonstrate that the “country” versus “congo” phenomenon permeates every sector of the Liberian culture and is an appropriate metaphor for the people of this cleft and torn nation. This phenomenon has existed since the settlers touched the shores of Providence Island and has snowballed and gained momentum with the passage of time. As each group piles up numerous accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the other, and no serious attempt has been made to reconcile these differences or to create an opportunity for national healing, the dichotomy will continue to exist and separate the Liberian people.

Pre-Coup
Prior to the coup in April1980, Liberia had been an independent country for 142 years and was affectionately known as the one of only two African countries that had never been colonized. Liberia also enjoyed the reputation of not having had a military coup. However, in the few years before the coup, there were enough early warning signs including gross dissatisfaction by the mass of the people, civil unrest, demonstrations, and the introduction and embracing of socialist ideology by the educated indigene to let the keen observer anticipate such a drastic political reaction.

Even though Liberia had been a sovereignty for a long time, it had not integrated its people socially or economically and neither had it advanced progressively as a developing nation. Education of the masses has been a very slow process and the few educated indigenous folks were beginning to tire of the inequities in every aspect of society. Gradually from the early seventies, a socialist ideology with rhetoric geared towards highlighting the disenfranchisement of the masses and revealing the economic dis-equilibrium that existed began to take hold amongst the educated indigenes. Additionally, the progressive elements were actively exposing all the ails of the government including the gross nepotism that existed in appointed positions. (See Attachment B) By the late seventies, the universities were rife with proponents of these philosophies and the government began to take note as demonstrations and strikes were becoming a form of expression for discontent. As the “progressive” elements began to gain support and build momentum for their various movements, (including establishing farming cooperatives in the hinterland) their propaganda was swayed by the credo of doing whatever was necessary to achieve their objectives. With this approach, rice being the staple food of the Liberian people, and the government having announced in late 1978 a proposed increase in the price of rice from $22, the progressive elements under the leadership of PAL (Progressive Alliance of Liberia) decided to take the government head-on over this issue. While in the process of formal negotiations with the government, the progressives were arguing that the price of rice remains at $22 (per 100-pound bag). The were also threatening the government that they would stage a mass demonstration and simultaneously, their propaganda machinery was spreading word that the government would increase the price of rice to $30. They further fueled this incendiary situation by leaking word that they could supply rice for $5 a bag but the government was denying them the opportunity because the President (William R. Tolbert) and his family members were monopolizing the rice import industry. All this eventually culminated in government forces attempting to break up the demonstration on April 14, 1979, leading to altercations with demonstrators throughout the streets of Monrovia, resulting in the death of “an estimated two hundred persons...” (Boley, 1983, p. 104).

The fallout from this civil disturbance, was the arrest and imprisonment of the leaders of PAL. Eventually, on June 26, prior to the 16th Ordinary Session of the Organization of African Unity hosted by the Liberian government in July 1979, the progressive elements were given presidential pardon and freed from prison. Due to government’s resistance to their many reform demands, the progressive elements formed a political party, Progressive People’s Party, and in a Declaration of Intent requested the immediate resignation of the president on March 7th. This time, the government responded proactively, accusing the activists of sedition and treason. Government security officers mobilized to arrest and imprison the party leadership, members and alleged members, prior to any further civil disturbance in early March of 1980. This imprisonment was actually the harbinger of the military coup on April 12, 1980 led by Samuel K. Doe, a member of the Krahn tribe. As rumors spread that the imprisoned activists were going to be executed on April 14, the military preempted the government’s action and assassinated President Tolbert and overthrew his government. Officially, April 12 is recognized as the end of the Liberia’s first republic.

Post-coup/Pre-war
The coup was met with popular support among the majority of Liberian’s even though they abhorred the brutality with which the existing leadership was vanquished. Riding on a wave of popular endorsement by the people, Samuel Kanyon Doe and his People Redemption Council (PRC) suspended the Liberian constitution and governed by decree. However, as the novelty wore off, and some sense of normalcy began to return to people’s daily lives, the realization dawned that much had not changed and potentially, this new government was more brutal and ruthless.
Due to Doe’s insecurity and distrust of his colleagues as well as their desire to be the “man”, there were numerous reports of coup attempts that the populace was unsure what to believe. These accusations of attempted coups led to the arrest, imprisonment, and more often than not, execution of the direct accused. Family members and associates of the accused also suffered greatly as they were generally persecuted through dismissals, harassment, false imprisonment, seizure of property, employment rejection, and travel restrictions.

Even though the PRC had promised return to civilian rule during the infancy of their government, the intoxication of the power and position of head of state influenced Doe otherwise. His reign inspired the extreme ethnocentrism that has become commonplace in Liberia today. The initial victims were the “congo people” associated with the previous government, however, the primary cause of this polarization emerged from his fallout with General Thomas Quiwonkpa. Quiwonkpa was Doe’s right hand man during the coup, became the Commanding General of the armed forces, and was recognized as the strongman of the 17 men who constituted the council. Quiwonkpa and Doe disagreed about the return to civilian rule. Where Quiwonkpa wanted the military to return to the barracks, Doe wanted to become the president and as a result, in October 1983, Quiwonkpa, a member of the Mano tribe (primarily from Nimba County) was accused of plotting against the government, relieved of his position, and run out of the country. (newafrica.com, p.2) He returned in November 1985, mounted a semi-successful coup but never captured Doe and when Doe and troops loyal to him regained control of the capital city, Quiwonkpa and most of his supporters were killed. The failed coup led to an ethnic cleansing of the Mano and Gio (the sister tribe of the Mano) who also constituted a major portion of the armed forces of Liberia.

Through all this turmoil, Doe formed his National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL) in 1984 and was “elected” president in October of 1985. Doe appealed for national unity in the early stages of his presidency but ultimately, his actions did not demonstrate a genuine attempt for reconciliation as there was still widespread accusation of potential opponents and uninvestigated killings.

Civil War
In late December 1989, an armed insurrection led by Charles Taylor (who called his movement the National Patriotic Front of Liberia, NPFL) was initiated from Nimba County (the political sub-division of the Mano & Gio tribes who were consistently persecuted by Doe’s Krahn tribe). By mid 1990, there were several factions including a splinter group of the NPLF called the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL) that were fighting for control of Monrovia (capital of Liberia). Because the internal fighting in Liberia was also affecting the West African region’s stability, ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) made several attempts to negotiate cease-fire or broker peace but to no avail. ECOWAS finally decided to send in troops (called ECOMOG, ECOWAS monitoring group) to enforce peace in August 1990. In September, Doe was killed after being captured during discussions with the INPFL that were being supervised by ECOMOG.

Earlier in August, a national conference of various Liberian parties to the dispute (excluding the NPFL) convened by ECOWAS in Banjul, Gambia elected an Interim Government of National Unity (IGNU) with Dr. Amos Sawyer, leader of the Liberian People’s Party, as president. ECOMOG installed Sawyer in Monrovia but the remainder of the country was under the control of Charles Taylor and other factions. In the next few years, several factions appeared on the civil war scene, including ULIMO (United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy), LPC (Liberian Peace Council), and LDF (Lofa Defense Force). There were numerous peace conferences held that were brokered by ECOWAS, however due to unholy alliances of various factions at different points in time, none of these peace agreements stood the test of time. After numerous iterations of peace accords, councils of states, and interim governments, ECOWAS confirmed in mid-February 1997 that elections for the president and a bicameral parliament would take place in May. After some delay, elections were held in July 1997 with Charles Taylor winning 75.3% of the votes amid accusations of electoral improprieties from other contestants. In August 1997, Taylor was inaugurated as president and the war was considered officially ended.

Post-War
After seven years of civil strife, and presidential and legislative elections that were considered free and open the Liberian people were ready to reconcile their differences and begin national reconstruction. Even though approximately more than 250,000 people were killed, numerous others injured, and more than a million displaced, the general population was ready to move on. However, a “still unsettled domestic security situation has slowed the process of rebuilding the social and economic structure…” (CIA -- The World Factbook – Liberia, p. 1) There are also continuous efforts by NGOs to rehabilitate the child soldiers and others who were psychologically impacted by the war.

There are constant threats of invasion, fighting, and demands for the resignation of Charles Taylor from various parties involved in the civil war. On the other hand, there have been numerous instances of human rights abuses, unjustified arrests, accusations of attempts to overthrow the Taylor government, restrictions on freedom of press, and uninvestigated deaths perpetrated by Taylor or forces representing him. The combination of all these undemocratic activities represents the current atmosphere in this troubled land.

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
History
Not too much is known of the pre-colonial history of the indigenous Liberians. It is generally believed that the ethnic Liberians migrated from Northern and Eastern Africa between the 12th and 17th centuries. As a region, the land that is now Liberia was never a part of the various sub-Saharan empires that existed through time, however, the break-up of these empires and the dispersion of its people led to the migration of four primary linguistic groups, “the Mende-tan, Mende-fu, Mel and Kru.” (Moore, 1979 p.1) On a tribal basis, the Kissi and Gola constitute the Mel; the Mano, Gio, Kpelle, Loma, Gbandi, Mende, Belle, Vai, and Mandingo constitute the Mende (fu & tan) and the Kru are made up of the Dei, Kuwaa, Bassa, Krahn, Kru and Grebo. Historians have not pinpointed the exact time or sequence of migration and it stands to reason that only thorough anthropological and archeological studies will enable Liberians to obtain full knowledge of their ancestral migration patterns. Amongst the indigenous Liberians, only two ethnic groups, namely the Bassa and the Vai were able to develop a written language by the middle of the 19th century. However, a few other groups including the Loma and Kpelle have since implemented their own writing system. (Moore, 1979 p. 1)

Even though Portuguese and other traders had contact with Liberians in the 1400s, a lot of that interaction has not been documented as has been documented since the free American slaves returned to Africa. As a precursor to their landing in Liberia, the American Colonization Society (ACS) sent Rev. Joseph R. Andrus and Ephraim Bacon in 1818 to negotiate for land for the free slaves. (See Attachment C) Initially, their negotiations with the Bassa King Jack Ben were unsuccessful. After several abortive attempts, Captain Stockton and Dr. Eli Ayres were sent on another mission to secure land for the settlers in 1821. This time, they negotiated with King George and the natives of Cape Mesurado. Allegedly, it is rumored that Captain Stockton, frustrated by the resistance of the natives forced King George to sign an agreement by pointing a gun at his head. With an agreement of “36 mile long and 3 mile wide strip” of coastal land for trade goods, supplies, weapons, and rum worth approximately $300” reached, a treaty was signed and the settlers were allowed to disembark at Cape Mesurado. (Library of Congress, p. 1) Settlers in Monrovia were “assigned a lot in town plus five acres on the outskirts for farming.” (Boley, 1983 p. 23) As time elapsed and new settlers were moving further out of the city, they were “given 50 acres of land with the stipulation that he builds a permanent house and put at least two acres of it into cultivation.” (Boley, 1983 p. 24)
Over time, folks in the United States lost interest in the ACS (American Colonization Society) as the representative body for the repatriation of free slaves to Africa. (See Attachment D) State and local colonization societies were formed, sent their personal representatives to negotiate for land in Liberia, and established their individual settlements. Some of these settlers included slaves and free men from Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, and Georgia. Simultaneously with the arrival of the settlers, recaptured slaves were also being resettled in Liberia. The US Congress had passed an act in 1819 that “authorized the president to send a naval squadron to African waters to apprehend illegal slave traders” and they had also allocated $100,000 to aid in the resettlement of these recaptured slaves to Liberia. These recaptured slaves who were initially known as the “congo” were treated separately from the colonists. Most of the recaptured slaves either were placed in servitude to the settlers or formed their own communities outside of Monrovia, which was inhabited predominantly by the colonists. Given this dynamic, there was effectively three classes of people in Liberia: the colonists (settlers), the recaptured slaves (congo) and the indigenes (natives). Over the last thirty years, the first two classes have integrated into one class called either congo or Americo-Liberians. However, there still remains a great divide between the integrated class and the indigenous Liberians.

Geographical
Liberia is located in West Africa in the area formerly know as the Grain Coast. It is bordered on the north by the republic of Guinea, to the south by the Atlantic Ocean, on the east by Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) and on the west by Sierra Leone. Liberia has a coastline of nearly 350 miles characterized by lagoons, swamps and sandbars. The interior has a varied landscape, from low plateau, to plains, to steep hills, to mountain ranges and tropical rain forests. The Liberian climate is primarily tropical and it has two seasons: rainy and dry. The rainy season produces significant rainfall with heavy showers. During the dry season, it is very hot and humid, but cooling off considerably at nighttime.

Political
In their attempts to secure land on the shores of Liberia, the initial attempts by representative of the American Colonization Society, Rev. Joseph R. Andrews and Ephraim Bacon, were unsuccessful. According to legend, the natives resisted any selling of land to the settlers but through force – Captain Stockton pointed his gun at King George’s head – an agreement was reached and a treaty signed. Liberia became a political entity in 1847 on July 26 when it declared its independence. This declaration was driven primarily by land issues with the British who were threatening encroachment and on a lower scale by the French, Portuguese, and Spanish colonists. The Liberian constitution was modeled after the US and was written by Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard University. The constitution was basically a replica of the United States’ and did not evolve naturally as a by-product of the free slaves interaction with the indigenous. Additionally, the settler leadership at the time was not versed in the structure or nuances of the constitution, the citizens had no knowledge of or understanding of the constitution and “for the natives, the term constitution or its content was incompatible with their traditional political philosophies.” (Boley, p 28) There were two main traditional political structures, “the incipient state or chieftaincy structure and the ‘stateless’ or acephalous structure.” (Dunn & Tarr, 1988 p. 11) The chieftaincy structure was predicated on a well-defined chain of command and there was no doubt who the central figure of authority was. On the other hand, in the acephalous structure, government was more nebulous but various organizations, specifically the secret societies and clans of like characteristics shared the centralized authority responsibilities.

Given these three co-existing political structures in the new republic, quite naturally, opposition resulted and there was a lot of disharmony between the natives and the colonists. The indigenous Liberians over centuries had developed their form of governance and this new “leadership” that had no respect for their recognized leaders, laws, elders, traditions, or customs did not inspire national unity. Numerous wars were fought against the natives, particularly against the Golas, Grebos and Krus. With the assistance of the United States and its own soldiers, the Americo-Liberians managed to subdue or negotiate with all warring factions. Even though the settlers had come over to Africa with the mentality of a two-multi party electoral system, throughout the history of Liberia, attempts at multi-party co-existence has always been refuted by the dominant political structure. In Liberia’s commonwealth stage, prior to declaring its independence, the political structure was primarily divided on a commercial versus agricultural basis, pitting the Monrovians against the inland settlers. With the emergence of its nationhood, the political framework changed to one of color, basically the mulatto settlers against the black settlers. The mulattos formed the Republican Party which predominantly held power from the emergence of the nation in 1847 to 1877 except when the True Whip Party, formed by black settlers in 1869 emerged victorious with its first president in the person of Edward J. Roye (1870-1871). Since 1877, when the True Whig party regained power with the election of Anthony W. Gardner (1878-1883), the True Whig party dominated the political landscape and crushed all opposition until the 1980 coup. According to Boley and my personal experience, “nearly every Liberian, especially those in the employ of Government, was assumed to belong to the True Whig Party and behaved as such.”
In the mean time the natives who were basically excluded from the political process continued to wage internecine wars throughout the various presidencies until 1944 when President William V. S. Tubman ascended to power. All these resistance efforts and encounters did nothing to get the natives incorporated into the political system because their “tendency to emphasize local or ethnic loyalties” exceeded their ability to unite as a single force. (Dunn & Tarr, p.47) This strong ethnicity or focus on primarily tribal issues limited the ability of the natives to unite as one group and have their voices heard. That trend continues today as numerous political parties formed in Liberia are typically based on ethnic origin and have not proven that they can form a coalition to unseat the incumbent or unpopular candidate with power. (See Attachment E for list of political parties prior to the 1985 elections that Samuel Doe won and Attachment F for a list of political parties prior to the 1997 elections that Charles Taylor won.)

At the onset of his presidency, Tubman went to great lengths to incorporate the various ethnic indigenous populations into government as well as the opposition to his candidacy. To the dismay of the congo who preferred the status quo, “Tubman inducted into the National Legislature members of the tribal ‘element’ to represent the aboriginal segment of the Liberian population.” (Boley, 1983 p. 64) In the previous presidency, Edwin Barclay (1930-1944) had implemented a dual-state structure in which the chieftaincy and the state structure coexisted under the centralized government of Liberia. This new government featured “an administrative hierarchy involving the president, his interior secretary, district commissioners, and paramount chiefs.” (Dunn & Tarr, 1988 p. 56) The Kru and Grebo who did not want to convert their political structure to conform with the chieftaincy structure of the other indigenous tribes rejected this process to no avail. Similarly, disgruntlement by warring tribes who would be effectively neutralized did not inhibit this political structure from being implemented. The major result of this new structure was that judicial authority of the hinterland had been effectively transferred to an “administrative position within the Interior Department” leaving the district commissioners, the secretary of the interior and the president as the hierarchical judicial officials of the hinterland. (Dunn & Tarr, p. 57)
Even though some indigenous citizens were involved in the political process, the majority of them were considered non-entities and the “congo” (as the combined settlers and recaptured slaves were called) continued the political domination throughout the life of the republic. In the late 60s and early 70s when more indigenes began to be educated and desired to have a voice in the decision making process a sort of cultural awakening was being experienced in Liberia. With the creation of two primary opposition political groups in the early 70s, comprising indigenous Liberians and disenfranchised Americo-Liberians, more Liberians began to get involve in the political process and realize that they had a channel to voice their concerns and a force to champion their cause.

Economic
The economic disparity in Liberian began early during the infancy of the settlers’ arrival in Liberia. They were given “a lot in town plus five acres on the outskirts for farming” if they lived in the city and later “50 acres of land with the stipulation that he build a permanent house…and put at least two acres…into cultivation…” (Boley, p.32) This private land ownership concept was alien to the natives where the basic ethos was “the household functioned as a self-contained economic unit which provided for the needs of everyone.” (Saha, p. 48) Additionally, the economic orientation of the natives can be seen as more horizontal collectivism where each member of the tribe had “the right to cultivate any piece of land assigned to him for cultivation.” (Saha, p. 49) The traditional egalitarian system was alien to the Americo-Liberians who were more oriented to a vertical collectivism that revolved around maintaining an unequal balance in opportunity for the core group whose best interests were intrinsically aligned to their leader’s. Unlike the vertical individualism that existed in market-dominated nations where inequality resulting from the free market was acceptable since in general, the field was considered level, loyalty to the leader or president was the order of the day the dynamics of the relationship between the president and his flunkies affected every walk of life, from elected positions, to political appointments, and to private business opportunities. (Gannon, p. 15)

The primary economic activities were agriculture and trade. Initially, it was individual agricultural farming by the natives and then the settlers introduced plantation farming which was not conceptually appealing to the indigenous Liberians. With limited revenues from these activities for the government coffers of the young republic of Liberia, the government sought to find alternative means of revenue. Due to financial constraints facing government, loans were the primary outlets and in a lot of instances, the loans were poorly negotiated and the government seldom received the full amount of funds borrowed. The poster child of the poorly negotiated agreements, unsuccessful foreign concession policy, and loans by the government is the Firestone Plantation Company agreement and the requirement for provision of labor by the government. The Firestone Rubber Company, the first multinational company in Liberia, was granted one million acres of farm land for ninety-nine years at $0.05 an acre in 1923. The government used Chiefs to recruit labor where Firestone “paid the chiefs one cent a day for each boy (laborer) and the same sum to the Government Bureau (Labor Bureau).” (Boley, p.42) The cheap labor in Liberia actually helped to decrease the price of rubber on the world market “from over $1.40 per pound in 1925 to less than $0.16 cents per pound in 1930…” (Boley, p.44) (See Attachment G & H)

During this period, there were allegations of indigenous Liberians being taken forcibly to Fernando Po to work on Spanish cocoa plantations. Strong recruiting was said to be done on the Grand Gedeh, Sinoe, and Maryland counties. The League of Nations appointed a commission, the International Commission of Inquiry into the Existence of Slavery and Forced Labor in the Republic of Liberia, to investigate the allegations. The Commission submitted its findings on September 8, 1930 and had some strong recommendations including: an open door policy, education for all, break barrier between civilized and uncivilized, cease humiliation and degradation of chiefs, cease shipment of laborers to Fernando Po and illegalize pawning and domestic slavery. (See Attachment I for full list of recommendations) Due to political pressure resulting from the scandals and the commission’s findings, President Charles D. B. King who was elected in 1920 was forced to resign in 1930 along with his vice president.

When Tubman ascended to the presidency in 1944, he introduced the Open Door Policy of Liberia (this policy had been recommended by the League of Nations commission). This policy actually opened the door to numerous foreign investment that were not concerned with the development of the environment they were investing in but basically the maximum level of exploitation that could be achieved. Even though this policy was accompanied with a Liberianization policy, there was no significant effort exerted to include Liberians from all walks of life into the process. Token jobs were allocated to select Americo-Liberians within the various foreign concessions but the indigenous Liberians were not given the level of education necessary or the access to opportunity that would afford them integration into this new economic policy. With unrestricted foreign investment in the private sector and the public sector supported by foreign aid, the Liberian leadership has never focused on developing internal revenue generating activities on a secondary level but has been content in depending on primary export commodities for its economic growth. Additionally, this dependency on global capital was “not accompanied by ‘structural changes to induce complementary growth or by institutional changes to diffuse gains in real income among all sectors of the population.’” (Dunn & Tarr, 1988 p. 25)

The functioning of government tended to depend on foreign investment, foreign aid and foreign loans. The involvement of the president in economic decision making, especially the power to change, amend, or adjust concession policy at will was commonplace during the Tubman administration. During most of the late fifties to the period prior to the coup in 1980, “the concession sector formed nearly one third of total Domestic Revenues.” (Kraaij, p. 12) Even during the Tolbert administration foreign investment was perceived as the “indispensable bulwark to Liberia’s socio-economic development. (Kieh, p. 50)
Liberia is essentially an agricultural economy with the vast majority of its populace engaged in traditional or subsistence agriculture. Commercial agriculture is basically the domain of foreign concessions however there are some commercial farms owned by the Americo-Liberian elite. The other major economic activity is mining, an activity again dominated by foreign concession. Most foreign concessions have very low domestic employment above the laborer level. With the stagnation of raw material prices on the world market and specifically a decrease in the demand for iron ore and rubber, the economy of Liberia has been in a decline since late 1970s.

Economic policy in Liberia really began in 1864 when “foreign trade activities were limited by the ‘Ports of Entry’ Law,” restricting European merchants to trade in only six specific areas. (Kraaij, p. xiv) This restriction contributed to the rebellion of the natives who already resented the forced domination by the settlers. Additionally conflict amongst the settlers from various settlements (due to settlement location and color) limited the viability of any economic policy. These issues of political survival affected the implementation of a viable economic policy that was further aggravated by “the negative impact of foreign loans, incorrect collection of taxes, improper management of government funds and embezzlement of public funds.” (Kraaij, p.12) Given this background, the government was using its meager resources to simply maintain its infrastructure, not develop opportunities for all Liberians or increase the per capita income.
In such an environment of limited production possibilities and tight resources, the tendency is highly likely for one group to dominate power & wealth. The elite Americo-Liberian constituted less than 2% of the population but controlled 95% of the wealth. The other 98% consisted of the indigenous masses and the ethnically mixed population that lived in urban areas but were poor. The repatriates were followed by the Doe government which constituted a small group of socio-political elite made up primarily of Doe’s ethnic group, members of the progressive left, and sycophant repatriates of the deposed Tolbert government. This trend of vertical collectivism still exists today in the Charles Taylor government.

Religious
There are three primary forms of religion in Liberia: the indigenous religious beliefs which varies among the various tribes, Christianity, and Islam. Generally, tribes had sacred areas that were dedicated exclusively for religious worship or as burial grounds for the elders, chiefs, zoes (medicine men and women) and royalty. Various tribes had various deities they worshipped but all tribes had zoes or some elder who interacted with the spirits and the deity on behalf of the tribes. In a lot of instances, these elders were high standing members of the Poro and Sande societies, (the generic name given respectively to the male and female tribal initiation societies) who administered the rites of passage for young men and women in their various communities. Most religious observances consisted of singing, dancing and offering some form of sacrifice to the deities. The Mandingoes and the Vais were the primary practitioners of Islam and true to their religion were continuously attempting to convert others to Islam.
The Americo-Liberians were primarily christians. They recognized christianity as the only true religion and thought the indigenous Liberians paganistic and hedonistic in their form of worship. Along with Caucasian missionaries, the Americo-Liberians sought to convert the natives to christianity and to a large extent were successful as the percentage of Christians and indigenous believers are currently the same at forty percent. Given the 40% Christianity, a significant number of indigenous and some Americo-Liberians practice dual religions. Consistent with the conversion to Christianity, there was major effort on the part of the colonists to change the names of the indigenous Liberians to western ones at baptism. It was also common practice for indigenes to take a given first name and the surname of the family who they worked for or lived with. However, with the gradual increase of educated indigenous Liberians, there was a mass reversion to the indigenous names. (My father was one of those who reverted from his assumed surname of Jackson back to his father’s surname of Tukpah. He did not change his given first name Isaac as quite a few others did.) It was also common practice for the settlers to condemn some of the core practices of the indigenes like polygamy as heathen and uncivilized, however the informal practice of “polygamy” became widely accepted as the settler men liberally helped themselves to the available indigenous women, and more often than not had several children by several different indigenous women.
The indigenous religious consciousness consisted of belief in a powerful, invisible force that controlled all things including the elements (weather, lightning, thunder, good & evil phenomena, man and his day-to-day behavior). (Moore, 1979 p. 9) In many tribes, the Poro society was the intermediary between these higher beings or ancestral spirits and the layman, thereby giving them supernatural powers that enabled them to wield control over their tribal brethren.

CULTURAL ANALYSIS
Repatriate slaves from the US who brought western traditions and values to bear founded the Liberian nation. With this mentality of a national “western oriented” culture, and the majority of its citizens being indigenous with their own culture and traditions that are totally different from the western way, it’s a national culture that does not encompass the majority of the population. With the exclusion of the indigenes in the first 100 or so years of the republic, the emergence of a traditional culture has been slow. However, with the ascendancy of Tubman to the presidency and later the advent of Tolbert to power, the efforts to encourage, increase cultural awareness, and preserve cultural heritage has surged. Increasingly, there has been significant collaboration of the repatriates and natives through marriage, political affiliation, press, government, business, and sports. This transformation has taken a backseat to ethnocentrism that have been spurred by the 1980 coup, the ethnic cleansing of the Gios & Manos by the Krahns, the civil war, revenge, and other unmitigated atrocities directed at certain groups because of their tribal affiliation. Prior to the coup, and in the early days of the nation, cultural pluralism existed and it was not uncommon to find members of different tribes living among other tribes. According to Warren d’Azevedo, “ethnicity and loyalty were not identical, nor did ethnic difference preclude a wider range of social interaction including intermarriage.” (Saha p. 97) However, since the coup, ethnocentrism has fostered and there has been a lot of tribal polarization in the last twenty-two years than at any time in the history of Liberia.

Common Indigenous Activities
Indigenous Liberians had engaged in smelting and processing iron ore for centuries. As indicated by various implements used by the natives and their weapons of choice, cutlass and spears, iron ore processing was an integral part of their cultural activities. Basketry and weaving were also fond past-times of the natives, especially the coastal natives who fished for a living. Pottery and painting were also primary activities of the indigenous Liberian. The primary colors used to paint were brown, white and red clay. Most tribes also engaged in wood sculpting as most traditional rituals involved dancers or devils that were masked according to the ceremony. Along with the dancers, music and singing were primary activities that the natives engaged in. Some tribes had specific types of dances for different functions such as wedding, funeral, childbirth, change of seasons, Poro or Sande societies induction, prayers and any other activity that warranty festivity.

Integration versus Assimilation
Given that the recaptured Africans were not afforded the same amenities as the repatriates, there was quicker integration between the indigenes and themselves. The recaptives were usually taken as servants or “forcibly indentured and apprenticed to Liberian subjects, the adults for seven years and the children till …twenty-one.” (Boley, p. 24) These two suppressed groups bonded more easily and the differentiation between them and the colonists was illuminated by J. P. Pinney who wrote “the natives are, as to wealth and intellectual cultivation, related to the colonists as the Negro of America is to the white man;… A colonist of any dye…think himself degraded by marrying a native.” With regards to integration, he further wrote “…so little effort is made by the colonists to elevate them (the natives) as is usually made by the higher classes in the United States…” It is clearly seen that there was a concerted effort on the part of the Americo-Liberians to remain a class unto themselves and limit their integration with the natives.

Efforts to encourage, increase awareness, and preserve the indigenous cultural heritage was paid lip service for the first 100 years of the republic. However, from the late 40’s during President Tubman’s presidency and the introduction of the Open Door Policy to the Tolbert presidency (with mantras such as Total Involvement for Higher Heights, create a Wholesome Functioning Society, and getting the natives from Mats to Mattresses) genuine efforts towards integration and preservation were made.

In 1952, the Bureau of Folklore was created in the department of Interior. Simultaneous with the creation of this bureau, foreign scholars and researchers began to develop interest in Liberia and the indigenous element. By 1964, ground was broken and construction begun for a National Cultural Center that was completed a year later. A major step was taken when the Bureau of Culture Affairs and Tourism was established as a wing of the Ministry of Information. This positive trend continued with the proliferation of other cultural institutions such as the National Museum, The Africana Museums, The Tubman Center for African Culture and the W. V. S. Tubman Library/Museum. With the support of cultural activities booming, cultural groups for dance, drama, and choral performances were springing up everywhere. Cultural recognition went to another level when president Tubman was invited to witness the rite of initiation of a group of boys into the Poro Society in Besao, Bomi Territory (now Bomi County). More recognition was forthcoming when the national cultural troupe was invited to participate in various international festivals of art and culture.

With all of these efforts, there still has not been a seamless integration of the indigenous Liberians into the dominant minority Americo-Liberian culture. There has been assimilation on both sides but there are still stark differences and significant effort to reconcile differences is not evident. Except for a token few, the majority of the indigenes remained uneducated, uninformed, and denied access to the opportunity to share in the wealth of the country. The literacy rate is a mere 38.3% (CIA World Factbook, p. 3) Seemingly, it was the responsibility of the token few to ensure that the kinsmen were kept in line and subscribed to the status quo. Most of the efforts only tended to preserve the indigenous way of life, not necessarily integrate it into the every day life of the republic. Additionally, there was resistance by some tribal members who did not feel that cultural nationalism was the appropriate route as they felt there were significant territorial cultural differences that were not been reflected in the creation of a national “cultural” effort. Ultimately, the inability of the different tribes to integrate with each other and more importantly for the indigenous culture to integrate with the westernized Americo-Liberians has turned Liberia into a cleft nation.

Education
The traditional education was basically fostered by the Poro and Sande societies that taught boys and girls to become sound citizens of their communities and served as their transitory medium from childhood to adulthood. These institutions were responsible for the education of their charges in the history, lores, customs, and norms of their respective tribes. They were also responsible for training them in the finer points of life, including sexual behavior and expectations, social services, leadership, courage, respect for authority, and self-discipline.

The secular education was the domain of the Americo-Liberians and in the early stages of the republic, only few indigenes were allowed to attain western education. English was the language of choice and the Americo-Liberians were not inclined to incorporate indigenous Liberian languages in the schools. However, Edward W. Blyden, noted writer, educator, scholar, diplomat, and statesman, who emigrated to Liberia in 1850, proposed and advocated “to remove virtually the whole of English literature from the curriculum of the college” upon becoming president of Liberia College in 1981. (Saha, p. 107) Obviously, the settlers who for all intents and purposes had marginalized the indigenous culture and were not willing to allow co-existence at such a level greeted this heresy with resistance. Other educated Liberians obviously embraced Blyden’s idea and even as late as the 1970s an indigenous author and cultural proponent, Kona Khasu, propagated that “Liberian schools should incorporate in their curricula more Liberian literature…ballads and folk lyrics should be demanded…Shakespeare should be de-emphasized.” (Saha, p. 108) Nonetheless, the English language was the national language and the primary medium of education in schools, colleges, business, and every day life.

COUNTRY VERSUS CONGO
In comparing the value systems of the indigenous versus the Americo-Liberian, one see some stark differences between the two peoples. Even though these differences and similarities are not absolute, they represent the majority of each group. We have already discussed the religious, political, cultural, and educational differences between the two groups. In this section, we will focus on other dimensions across which we can compare the two groups.
The typical Americo-Liberian is a more individualistic person, more concerned for his personal or inner circle aggrandizement than opportunities that will benefit the larger group or society as a whole. The indigene is more in tune with his community and looks toward establishing and creating group benefits. Both groups do tend to exhibit nepotism and prefer family or a circle of close friends to strangers however, it can be argued that the Americos have traditionally preferred alliances with strangers primarily due to the economic windfall rather than collaborating with indigenous Liberians. The Americo-Liberian is more confident in his/her expectations of privilege and seeks to validate the legitimacy of his/her birthright to the silver spoon. On the other hand, the native Liberian seeks to be included in the main stream. His efforts are expended towards a synthesis and integration of his values and customs with those of the imported western culture. Even though there are diehards that seek to isolate themselves from the congo, majority of the indigenous folks want to assimilate into this culture and be accepted as equals.
Where the indigenous folks would like to preserve their culture and co-exist in the western world, the Americos do not take pride in the indigenous culture or local languages, except when it is politically expedient for them to do so. Most Americos exhibit a superiority complex whereas indigenous Liberians may not necessarily have an inferiority complex but a heightened sensitivity to anything negative or perceived to be negative about their ethnicity or culture. Because of their love for culture and their desire to maintain their cultural traditions, the indigenes are generally perceived as uncivilized whereas the Americo-Liberians perceive themselves as the epitome of civilization. Phrases such as “you can take the man out of the country but you cannot take the country out of the man” symbolize the general congo mentality that the native man can never be civilized. As lamented by a Liberian professor residing in the United States, “the neglect of local culture is such that the national sense of development is the replication of Western ideas, paradigms and institutions. This orientation impedes the emergence of a national culture.” (Saha, p. 96) The existence of a dualistic culture with one side having shades of pluralism of ethnic orientation also inhibits the development of a national culture.

The diet of both cultures are pretty similar except that ethnic groups tend to indulge in their particular ethnic dishes more often whereas the Americo-Liberians tend to have a wider variety that includes most of the various ethnic dishes. Western cuisine is also more expensive and is generally not a part of the regular diet of indigenous Liberians. Liberians in general believe in the dignity of labor however due to the indenturing of indigenous Liberians to the Americo-Liberians, certain jobs or activities are deemed too lowly to be performed by some Americo-Liberians who designated these tasks to the natives. With this warped perception, the typical Americo-Liberian expects to be in a superior-subordinate relationship with the native Liberian regardless of other parameters that should determine superiority in the particular relationship.

I believe that deep down, Liberians are generally good people however, the last thirteen years have really tested my faith in the people I know and love. I know Liberians as a fun loving people who will celebrate every occasion with pomp and pageantry. Even though we are not goal setting people and most times do not achieve the specific timelines we set for ourselves or the activities we are involved in, we generally try to get the job done. We have a high tendency to dwell on the past and hope for the future rather than being very proactive to enact change in the future. We are open with our emotions and expressions even though we are low context due to the numerous languages and the need to be explicit in our communication so as not to be misunderstood.

Why
All of the above begs the question as to why the indigenous Liberians and the Americo-Liberians have not reached a happy medium even though they have co-existed in a small land mass for 180 years. I propose that the lack of significant progress in the cultural integration and assimilation of the two groups has contributed greatly to this divide. Compounding the separation is the diehards on both sides of the issue who have relentlessly denigrated the others, refuse to admit the wrong doings of their ancestors, and continue to perpetuate the differences between the two groups. Liberians in general are very proud people, sometimes to a fault. Even though a large segment of the population have been calling for national reconciliation and there have been numerous conferences on how we can best resolve these differences, there has been no real convergence of the two cultures. According to Sir Harry Johnston, Liberia was an attempt at atonement by the U.S., Britain, and partially France for slavery. At the time of his writing, circa 1906, he posited that “…the main future of these Negroes in the United States who cannot be absorbed into the American community …lies in the West Indies and …tropical South America.” (Johnston, p. vi) He believed that they had become too widely separated in physical constitution, in political and commercial ideals from Africa to resume with ease the African citizenship of their forefathers. Looking at the present, his words seem like a prophecy still being fulfilled.

CURRENT SITUATION
The current atmosphere in Liberia is dismal. The basic needs of the citizenship are not being met and it seems like government has no ability to live up to its civic responsibilities, not including the numerous promises that are made to the Liberian people. There has also been consistent threats from rebels who have had several skirmishes with government troops and have been calling for the resignation of Charles Taylor. All political activity has been suspended even though elections are upcoming. Thousands of Liberians are refugees all over the world and cannot return home for fear of retribution or due to the fact that they have lost everything.
Economics
Liberia is in serious social and economic ruins at the moment. The key to the recovery of Liberia lies in the process of reconciliation and cultural integration. Currently, the economy is basically dependent on timber exports and maritime revenue, as well as illicit diamonds operations. The entire economic policy from a fiscal and monetary perspective needs to be overhauled through some stringent policies and measures geared towards domestic investment in production and service industries. Liberia needs to decrease its reliance on the country's primary products, i.e., rubber, iron ore, timber and gold whose value has declined on the world market due to decreased demand for said products. We need to focus on the formation of domestic capital and implement policies that will encourage and increase domestic production. The engrained Liberian practice of nepotism, promoting familial and social connections should be aggressively eliminated and meritorious qualifications should become the measuring standard for jobs, contracts, and other economic opportunities.

A primary concern should also be a strategy for redistribution of wealth and a concerted effort to reduce the imbalances created by disparities in income and employment opportunities. Liberia must promote an enabling environment that encourages the growth of new economic activities in manufacturing, agriculture and a service sector of the economy.

Prognosis
Even though most Liberian’s are very pessimistic about the future of the country and have no faith in a total recovery, I believe that the burning desire most have to return home can be transformed into the energy or force necessary to enact change. The discussions about national reconciliation will have to be elevated from its present verbiage and politically-correct posture to a more serious, truthful, and detailed examination of the factors and circumstances that have reduced a once proud nation into a rubble. Reconciliation should become a government initiative that is designed to reach understanding amongst the various parties, encourage tolerance, ensure that the perpetrators acknowledge their guilt, reach compromises, and make every effort to appease the aggrieved parties. Policies should also be implemented that will enable the creation of a viable middle class the will bridge the gap between the haves and have nots.

Nearly all Liberians believe that Charles Taylor is the fulcrum on which the future of Liberia hinges. Even though there is a lot of resentment directed towards Taylor, if he could address the current socio-economic and political problems in a systematic fashion that includes a diverse cross-section of the population I believe Liberians will be willing to work with him. The first step in this direction should be a genuine repatriation program that will ensure the safety of all Liberians who return home as well as a reclamation program that will ensure properties are returned to the rightful owners.

One significant development that has been occurring over the last few years is the increased assertiveness of Liberians about their basic human rights and civil liberties. This development is confirmed by the proliferation of advocacy and watchdog groups monitoring human rights violations in prison, in community life, in government, and in the security and communication professions. Another key factor that will enhance the progress to recovery will be influx of new leaders with new ideas on the political scene as the recycled politicians have not been able to truly engage Taylor in significant dialogues leading to some form of power sharing and amicable resolution of genuine grievances. All of the above will be for naught if the Liberian leader is focused on maintaining absolute control of the state and its machinery. Taylor will have to revert from his obsession with absolute power and create an environment that is accountable to the Liberian people.

POSSIBLE METAPHORS REJECTED
The Liberian Party
The Liberian Party is a metaphor that I thought long and hard about using. I thought it captured the happier side of Liberians and reflected to some extent their ability to forgot about their issues and problems and enjoy themselves. However, such a metaphor will not fully represent the masses because a vast number of Liberian’s have not lived a “party life” nor has life been easy for them in the last few years. Even though this metaphor could have sufficed, I rejected it because it does not capture the full picture of Liberians today.

Going to the Farm
Going to the farm is a somewhat appropriate metaphor for numerous Liberians as quite a few still depend on the land for subsistence and for commercial purposes, work on others farms, or work on the plantations of foreign concessions, local companies, or rich individuals (who also visit their farms). However the farm is also representative of the indenturing of indigenous Liberians and the exploitation that has gone on in terms of labor and flesh. Rich Americo-Liberians have used the farm as an opportunity to profit economically from the cheap labor of the indigenes, their wives, and children as well as an opportunity to be sexually indulgent with the females, sometimes very young (age of consent is 13), of their choice. Therefore I felt that focusing on the country versus congo sorts of captures this metaphor in a way and also provides we with greater research resources.

The Liberian Pride
Pride is a virtue inherent in nearly all Liberians, sometimes to a fault. Liberian’s can be so prideful as to look down on others and feel certain activities are below their level. I have always been intrigued at the prejudice/discrimination Liberian’s (particularly Americo-Liberians) have displayed against foreigners (especially other Africans) in their own country and against other foreigners when they are themselves in a foreign country. I did not focus on this subject because it is narrow and would have been primarily anecdotal or based on my experience with no opportunity for substantial research.

ESPECIALLY HELPFUL ANNOTATED REFERENCES
Boley, George E. S. (1984). Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Dunn, D. E. & Tarr, Byron S. (1988). Liberia: A National Polity in Transition. Metuchen, NJ & London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Gannon, M. (2001). Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journey Through 23 Countries, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kieh, George Klay (1992) Dependency and the foreign policy of a small power: The Liberian Case. San Francisco, CA: Mellon Research University Press.

Moore, Bai T. (1979). A Review of the Culture and Customs of the Different Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia: Ministry of Information, Culture Affairs & Tourism.

Saha, Santosh C. (1998). Culture in Liberia: An Afrocentric View of the Cultural Interaction Between the Indigenous Liberians and the Americo-Liberians. African Studies: Volume 46. Lewiston, US; Queenston, Canada; Lampeter, UK: The Edwin Mellen Press




BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aning, E. K. (1997). The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict: The Case of Liberia and West Africa. Copenhagen, Centre for Development Research. Working paper. http://www.cde.dk/working_papers/wp-97-4.htm.

Bellman, Beryl L. (1984). The Language of Secrecy: Symbols and Metaphors in Poro Ritual. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Best, Kenneth Y. (1974). Cultural Policy in Liberia. Paris, France: The Unesco Press.

Boley, George E. S. (1983). Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bowier, J E. Z. (1988). Annual Report of The Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism to the National Legislature of the Republic of Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia: Ministry of Information, Culture Affairs & Tourism.

Burrowes, Patrick C. (1989). The Americo-Liberian Ruling Class and Other Myths: A Critique of Political Science in the Liberian Context. Philadelphia, PA. Temple University: Institute of African and African-American Studies.

CIA World Factbook – Liberia: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/li.html

Dunn, D. E. & Holpoe, S. E. (1985). Historical Dictionary of Liberia. Metuchen, NJ & London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Dunn, D. E. & Tarr, Byron S. (1988). Liberia: A National Polity in Transition. Metuchen, NJ & London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Fulton, Richard M. (1971) Liberia: An Evaluation of Rural Research. Rural Africana: Current Research in the Social Sciences. East Lansing, MI. The African Studies Center, Michigan State University.

Gannon, M. (2001). Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journey Through 23 Countries, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Harley, George W. (1941) Notes on the Poro in Liberia. Cambridge, MA. The Museum (papers of Peabody Museum, vol. 19. No. 2.)

Huband, M. (1998) The Liberian Civil War. International Specialized Book Services

Indiana Immigrants to Liberia: http://www.statelib.lib.in.us/WWW/ihb/inemigrantslifelib.html

Johnston, Sir Harry (1906). Liberia. London, England: Hutchinson & Co. Paternoster Row.

Kieh, George Klay (1992) Dependency and the foreign policy of a small power: The Liberian Case. San Francisco, CA: Mellon Research University Press.

Liberia: African-American Mosaic Exhibition. Library of Congress. http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam003.html

Moore, Bai T. (1979). A Review of the Culture and Customs of the Different Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia: Ministry of Information, Culture Affairs & Tourism.

Newafrica.com. Africa South of the Sahara 2000.

Saha, Santosh C. (1998). Culture in Liberia: An Afrocentric View of the Cultural Interaction Between the Indigenous Liberians and the Americo-Liberians. African Studies: Volume 46. Lewiston, US; Queenston, Canada; Lampeter, UK: The Edwin Mellen Press

Spine. The Politics of Miseducation: The BWI of Liberia 1929-1984

Van der Kraaij, F. P. M. (1983). The Open Door Policy of Liberia – An Economic History of Modern Liberia. Bremen: Im Selbstverlag des Museums.



ATTACHMENT A – Ethnological Map of Liberia



ATTACHMENT B – Positions Held by Relations of President Tolbert from 1972-1980

Position Relationship
1. Minister of Finance Brother
2. President Pro-Tempore of Senate and
Senator, Montserrado County Brother
3. Deputy Auditor-General Brother
4. Mayoress of the City of Bentol Sister
5. Assistant Minister of Education/Supervision Daughter
6. Deputy Minister of Education/Instruction Daughter
7. Chairman, House Foreign Relations Committee and
Representative, Montserrado County Son
8. Deputy Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Nephew
9. Assistant Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Nephew
10. Agricultural Attache to FAO, Rome, Italy Nephew
11. Executive Secretary Niece
12. Minister of Defense Son-in-law
13. Minister of National Security Son-in-law
14. Deputy Minister of State for Presidential Affairs Son-in-law
15. Commissioner of Immigration Son-in-law
16. Assistant Minister of Public Works Son-in-law
17. Mayor, City of Monrovia, Brother-in-law
18. Deputy Governor, National Bank of Liberia Nephew-in-law
19. Liberia Ambassador to France Sister-in-law
20. Army Chief of Staff Nephew-in-law
21. Director, National Security Agency Nephew-in-law
22. Deputy Director, National Police Nephew-in-law


Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
ATTACHMENT C – Proportion of Free Negroes, Coastal States, 1790

States 1790 1810

Delaware 30.5% 75.9%

Maryland 7.2% 23.3%

Virginia 4.2% 7.2%

North Carolina 4.8% 5.7%

South Carolina 1.7% 2.3%

Georgia 1.3% 1.7%


Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 5.
ATTACHMENT D – Status and Recorded Numbers of Negro Emigrants to Liberia
1822-1867 Under the Auspices of the American Colonization Society and Others*

Born Free 4,541

Purchased their freedom 344

Emancipated to go to Liberia 5,957

‘Free men’ 753

From Barbados 304

Unknown 68

Total 12,009 **

Settled by Maryland Society 1,227

Recaptured African slaves settled in
Liberia by US Government 5,722

Grand Total 18,958


Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 22.

*Adapted from American Journal of International Law, Supplement, Vol. 4 (1910)
(New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation), pp. 532-33.

**Note correction: Total number of emigrants settled by American Colonization
Society is 12,009 instead of 11,909. Grand total of settlers is 18,958. See J. Gus Liebnow, Liberia: The Evolution of Privilege (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1969), p. 8.

ATTACHMENT E – Political Parties Prior to the 1985 elections won by Samuel K. Doe

Party Origin & Leader
National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL) Formed by Samuel Doe to enable his candidacy in the return to civilian government
Liberian People’s Party (LPP) Formed by remnants of MOJA under the leadership of Amos Sawyer
United People’s Party (UPP) Formed by members of the banned (by an act passed by the Liberian legislature in 1980) People’s Progressive Party (PPP) under the leadership of Gabriel Baccus Matthews
Liberia Action Party (LAP) Formed by Tuan Wreh, counselor at law
Unity Party (UP) Formed by Edward Kesselly, former chairman of the Constitution Advisory Committee formed during the PRC reign
National Integration Party (NIP) Formed by E. Sumo Jones, former minister of commerce in the Tolbert government
Convention Democratic Party (CDP) Formed by Wade Appleton, counselor at law
People’s Liberation Party (PLP) Formed by Hawa Clemens Danquah, housewife
First All-Integrated Republican Party (FAIR) Formed by Edwin Dunbar, engineer
Labor Party (LP) Formed by Joseph W. Nimley
Liberia Unification Party (LUP) Formed by Gabriel Kpolleh, former public school teacher


Copied from Liberia: A National Polity in Transition. Dunn, D. E. & Tarr, Byron S.
(1988). Metuchen, NJ & London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.


ATTACHMENT F – Political Parties Prior to the 1997 elections won by Charles G. Taylor

Party Leader/Chairman
National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL) Isaac Dakinah
Liberian People’s Party (LPP) Togba-Nah Tipoteh - chairman
United People’s Party (UPP) Gabriel Baccus Matthews – chairman
Liberia Action Party (LAP) Cletus Wotorson
Unity Party (UP) Charles Clarke
National Patriotic Party (NPP) Charles G. Taylor
All Liberia Coalition Party (ALCOP) Lusinee Kamara
People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Chea Cheapoo - chairman
Reformation Alliance Party (RAP) Henry Boimah Fahnbulleh - chairman
Free Democratic Party (FDP) Roderick Nyennatee Lewis – chairman
Liberia National Union (LINU) Henry Moniba - chairman
True Whig Party (TWP) Rudolph Sherman – chairman


Source: CIA World Factbook – Liberia, http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/li.html

ATTACHMENT G – Ideal Recruiting Report of

Chief District Section Tribe No of Men

Sent Arrived

CC Kpama Yomo Kakata Kpama Kpelle 15 15
CC Kpabah Gbeles Kakata Gbelee Kpelle 10 7
CC Gbalokai Kakata Konoyea Kpelle 11 11
CC K. Daniel Kakata Queline Kpelle 14 10
CC D. Livingstone Kakata Sanoyea Kpelle 10 18
CC K. Lupu Kakata Mekllie Kpelle 14 14
PC B. Zinnah Bopolu-Suehn Popolu Kpelle 24 24
PC Menyongai Kakata Gibi Bassa 42 38
PC Vana Woo Bopolu-Suehn Kongba Gola 13 13
PC Varfee Sirleaf Bopolu-Suehn Mecca Mandingo 9 9
PC Mongru Sanniquellie Gborplay Geh 32 32
PC Mongru Sanniquellie Stolay Geh 21 21
PC Wydordea Tappita Messonah Manp 27 21
PC G. Toweh Tappita Boe-Quella Gio 18 8
PC Wydordea Tappita Yarwin Mano 17 12
PC Weipah Tappita Doe Gio 16 11
PC Segbeh Dahn Tappita Gbai-Gblor Gio 14 6
PC Nyonton Paye Tappita Kpiaplay Krahn 16 16

Total 334 287

Note: ‘PC’ designates Paramount Chief, leader of a Chiefdom within a District; ‘CC’
Means Clan Chief, leader of a clan within a Chiefdom; and ‘TC’ represents Town
Chief, leader of a Clan within a town.

Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 42.

ATTACHMENT H – Tribes as Represented on Firestone’s Labor Force

Tribe Number

Bassa 2,685

Belle 435

Buzzie 4,004

(T) Tcjoem 31

Dey 73

Gbandi 1,594

Gio 3,975

Gizzie 1,969

Gola 766

Grebo 2,585

Kpelle 5,486

Krahn 571

Kru 563

Mandingo 247

Mano 3,666

Mendi 1,197

Vai 259

Total 30,016

Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 43.


ATTACHMENT H – Recommendations of the International Commission of Inquiry Into the Existence of Slavery and Forced Labor in the Republic of Liberia

(a) Institution of an ‘open door’ policy, since the ‘closed door’ policy which for so long seems to have been favored by the Liberian Government, is not in the best interests of the Republic; that it is, in fact, at the root of the financial and other major difficulties in which the country is now involved. It impedes development by masking maladministration, discouraging research, delaying civilization and education, preventing competition and generally stifling commercail enterprise…

(b) Extension of education to all alike.

(c) Native policy to be radically reconstructed.

(d) Barrier between civilized and uncivilized to be broken.

(e) Policy of suppression to be abandoned.

(f) Humiliation and degradation of chiefs to cease.

(g) Re-establishment of tribal authority of chiefs.

(h) Complete reorganization of administration of the interior.

(i) Removal of present District Commissioners.

(j) Substitution of European or American Commissioners with Assistant Commissioners.

(k) Institution of some form of Civil Service.

(l) Rearrangement of the political division of the country.

(m) Pawning and domestic slavery to be made illegal as preliminary to total abolition.

(n) Shipment of laborers to Fernando Poo (sic) to cease.

(o) Road program to be curtailed.

(p) Much stricter control of Frontier Force soldiers.

(q) Reconsideration of duties of Frontier Force soldiers.

(r) American immigration to be encouraged.

Adapted from Liberia: The Rise and Fall of the First Republic. Boley, George E. S. (1983). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 56.