This text, long out of print,
deserves to be read by newer generations of Sierra Leoneans.
Published in 1962, the book is an interesting counterpoint to Fyfe’s A
History of Sierra Leone, published in 1961. Porter surprises in this book.
One infers from the title a defense of all things Krio.
The first hint this might not be the case occurs in the preface, when he
describes “A History of Sierra Leone”, the seminal work by Christopher Fyfe,
as the “apologia” and “apotheosis” of Krios. Hm…m…m, what have we here? Professional disagreement,
even rivalry? With the English writer taking the side of the Krio and the Krio writer in
opposition?
Fyfe is the doyen of Sierra Leone historians, and most later ones cite him extensively. A large part of
historians’ work involves the interpretation of numerous bits of evidence
available to them. The major facts of the history are not in dispute. What could be questioned is
the conclusions that are drawn from these facts and from the numerous other
small pieces of evidence. There is a certain amount of subjectivity involved.
Fyfe had unparalleled access to Sierra Leone Government archives and
additionally spent massive amounts of time researching British government and
institutional records. There is a danger in this situation that Fyfe’s
conclusions have in effect become the conclusions of all subsequent
historians and accepted fact, even though the original interpretations and
conclusions might have been in error. Porter, working contemporaneously but
independently, provides valuable reinforcement for Fyfe’s work. When, for
instance, Porter says ( p 13) that the period from
1870 to the First World War was the heyday of the Krios
in Sierra Leone and West Africa, he is coming to the same conclusion,
independently, as Fyfe.
Porter’s principal concern is
with the structure and social stratification of Freetown over the years, but in order to
analyze this he delves extensively into the history. In discussing the early
Settlers, Porter appears to come down against the Nova Scotians
in their long-running feud with the Sierra Leone Company. He quotes the view
from the directors in London
quite lengthily, while giving short shrift to the complaints of the Nova Scotians, the failure to provide them with the land that
had been promised and the imposition of quit rents. Where Fyfe showed
sympathy, even admiration, Porter appears to downplay the achievements of the
ex-slaves who made the first crossing from Canada. In describing their
encounter with a slave ship traveling in the opposite direction, Porter
writes, “This simple reference underlines the peril of those days and
the courage and faith of those who had dared to take others (my emphasis) to the shores of Africa…”
The main focus of Porter’s
book, though, is the social stratification of Krio
society, and he finds in the early years of Freetown that status was based on
‘ascribed, not achieved” criteria, on what group you came from; he concludes
that the Nova Scotians were the main beneficiaries
(and promoters) of this. After the Settler groups (the Black Poor, Nova Scotians and Maroons), the landing of the Recaptives, or Liberated Africans, began in 1808, and
this profoundly altered the social mix of Freetown. Porter judges the Settlers quite
harshly relative to the Liberated Africans. The Settlers are portrayed as
members of a privileged, exclusive group, determined to cling on to status
and power, whilst the Liberated Africans are viewed as hardworking and
excluded people who rise by dint of hard work and perseverance. The portrayal
of the Nova Scotians could be contested quite
vigorously, but perhaps not in a book review. Suffice it to say that bcause of their shared life experiences, the Settlers had
developed a self image and identity, a consciousness, that
the recaptives had not.
Porter concludes that Settlers
(Nova Scotians and Maroons, as opposed to Recaptives) achieved ‘status crystallization’ (a
situation where class, status and political power are all held by the same
individuals or groups) in the period up to 1830, before being challenged by
the Recaptives. He further concludes that by 1870
the Settlers and Recaptives had essentially merged
into one group, the Krio, and this group made
remarkable strides in a very wide range of endeavours,
up to the turn of the century. Porter arrives at the same conclusion as Fyfe
that after the declaration of the Protectorate (1896), the British began a
deliberate policy to separate Provincials from Krio
influence and to reserve top administrative positions for whites rather than Krios – Fyfe reports a significant drop in the number of Krios holding top civil service positions after the
1890s. Porter views the period of Krio dominance,
in class, status and power, as coming to an end around the period of the
Second World War. Up to this time Krios were
unquestioningly at the top of the black social strata in Freetown (interestingly Porter never
questions the whites’ position, at the very top, in the overall social
strata), with the ‘Tribal Africans’, as he calls them, (ie
Sierra Leoneans from the Provinces) at the bottom
of the social ladder.
Porter details the slow but
steady increase in social and political inclusiveness in Freetownafter the declaration of the Protectorate in 1896. A new constitution was
promulgated in 1924, with direct Colony (ieFreetown) election of a
minority of the Legislative Council – the majority of members were still
appointed by the Governor, including Paramount Chiefs from the Provinces. And
then in 1951 another new constitution provided for the direct election on a
national basis of a majority of the members of the Legislative Council.
Slowly power and wealth in Freetownslipped
from the dominance of the Krios. Porter is in
general positive about these developments. He spends considerable time and
detail analyzing the effects of Provincial migration to Freetown, with the attendant transition
from a closed social system to an open one. Writing around the time of Independence, Porter,
like a good number of his generation and social class, was optimistic about
the future of the new nation. He was hopeful that with the transfer of
political power from Krio to Provincial, completed
at Independence,
a new unified society would be built. He foresaw development and
industrialization creating a new basis for wealth and the emergence of a new
and large middle class, superceding the ‘elitism’
of the past. He foresaw a time in Freetown
when “all its inhabitants would have been brought into the one social
system”.
Fifty plus years on from
Porter’s writing it is difficult to find similar optimism. The fatal flaw in
Porter’s projections was that he looked only at what was happening in Freetown. He spends no
time at all examining social structures in the Provinces and their effect on Freetown. Perhaps
reflecting the narrowness of the book title and committing the same sin he
accuses early Settler society of, he was too
introspective, concerned with social stratification in Freetown among the
Krio to the exclusion of all else. If one agrees
that in a healthy society status should be ‘achieved’ rather than ‘ascribed’,
then this principle must be applied to the entire society, not just to parts
of it. In a unitary state, with a common language and freedom of movement
(which did not apply to the present day Sierra Leone before 1900), there
is substantial interaction and population movement between the different
parts of the nation. Porter hails the possibilities of “industrialization and
its twin process, urbanization”; the reality is, the
one is ongoing at a hectic pace, whilst the other has eluded us. We need a
new, modern-day sociologist to analyze social structures throughout the territory of Sierra Leone.