Ketekente has consistently featured in high-profile political ceremonies, notably during presidential inaugurations and state visits. From the early post-independence era, when President Kwame Nkrumah donned the cloth to visually assert African sovereignty, to more recent appearances by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo at international forums, Ketekente has served as a cultural signifier of Ghanaian identity on the global stage. These garments function not merely as fashion, but as deliberate diplomatic tools that embody resistance to colonial legacies and assert African pride ([12]; [18]). In Figure 1, a historic photograph from the Library of Congress presents Dr. Kwame Nkrumah being sworn in, wearing Ketekente cloth at his first presidential inauguration. Serving a similar function to deepen diplomatic ties, the Kente named “Adwene si Adwene so” which literally means “the meeting of minds”, was gifted to the United Nations (UN) in 1960 to symbolically reflect the rudimentary mandate of the UN as interaction of different ideas and perspectives towards a common goal ([35]) Such symbolic uses resonate with the theory of sartorial diplomacy, which posits that textiles and clothing can serve as non-verbal communicative artefacts in international relations ([38]).

The enduring presence of Ketekente at diplomatic events signals Ghana’s strategic use of material culture to influence perception, foster soft power, and brand itself as a custodian of African heritage. Since Dr. Nkrumah’s era, the Ketekente has emphatically resounded as a state symbol repeatedly featured either fully or sparingly in the wardrobes of all presidential inaugurations just as the recent case of second swearing of President John Dramani Mahama (See Figure 2). In the recent case of Excellency John Dramani Mahama, his inaugural costume blends both the Ketekente and Fugu (Handwoven cloth of the people of Northern Ghana usually distinct as stripped and non-multicoloured patterns as discussed earlier) to highlight the rich Ghanaian cultural artistry ([30]). Just as Dr. Nkrumah, President Mahama therein through hist inaugural semiotic costumology emphasise critical essence of the varied Ghanaian cultural objects in reflective resonance of his statesmanship. Whereas the focus of this paper is on the multi-patterned colourful cloths of Ewe and Akan origins, we strongly believe the Fugu deserves a level of cultural protection and enlistment by Ghanaian Folklore Board to promote the cultural heritage of the Northern ethnic societies and to intensify the Ghanian identity globally.

Source: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/pnp/cph/3c10000/3c12000/3c12300/3c12312r.jpg.

Figure 1. Kwame Nkrumah in Ketekente for his presidential inauguration in Ghana, 1960.

Source: https://ameyawdebrah.com/kente-fugu-and-agbada-a-showcase-of-ghanaian-fashion-at-mahamas-inauguration/#google_vignette.

Figure 2.His Excellency John Dramani Mahama in blended Ketekent during his swearing-in as the 6th President of Ghana’s 9th Republic.

Again, the findings of this study on Ketekente as a diplomatic and cultural symbol can be situated within [7] theory of cultural capital and symbolic power ([21]). Kete and Kente weaving traditions represent more than aesthetic craftsmanship; they function as cultural capital embodied knowledge, artisanal heritage, and identity markers that accrue both social prestige and economic potential. When Ghanaian leaders and diasporic communities wear Ketekente in diplomatic forums or civil rights campaigns, they are enacting a form of symbolic power, reasserting African dignity and reclaiming visibility in historically Eurocentric spaces. For example, historical data reveals that, the Kete was used as a textile statement of civil rights, political and cultural identity by a Master Ewe weaver called Fiawodzo Anatsui (father of El Anatsui). As presented in Figure 3, the account records that Fiawodzo Anatsui of Anyako (a town in the Ghana Ewe land) wore Kete on the occasion of the Prince of Wales’s visit to the Gold Coast colony in 1925, woven with English texts reading “Lean liberty is better than fat slavery” and “God save the King” ([9]) indicating its use as a medium for expressing pride liberation than slavery which rubs off the civil rights and cultural identity of societies. The cloth as presented in Figure 3, also shows the mastery of integration of motifs like human figures and animals woven into geometric patterns which classically distinct Kete from Kente aside their semblance in muti-colour geometric patterns. As [31] argues, cultural capital is contextually defined by those who wield institutional power. Thus, by proposing a rebranding of the cloth under the unified term Ketekente, Ghana not only asserts cultural ownership but also challenges dominant narratives that marginalise indigenous African craftsmanship in global cultural hierarchies.

Source: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img/APIUysi8ZDco07fV97AjJf6gd416hBaKG1GX0-QS58_JzdiWnA3_HdzLHUg7HaMj9xEXxsXdswhAhTJV5jlQvMQ=s1600.

Figure 3. Master weaver Fiawodzo Anatsui in Kete that reposes a textile statement advocating liberation and cultural identity during the Price of Wales’s visit to the Gold Coast colony in 1925.

Beyond Ghana’s borders, Ketekente (commonly referred to as Kente cloth) has become a powerful symbol of African heritage and Black pride, widely embraced by communities in the African diaspora as an expression of cultural identity and resilience ([4]). Notably, during the 2020 global antiracism protests sparked by the death of George Floyd, U.S. lawmakers of the Congressional Black Caucus wore Kente stoles while kneeling in remembrance of a moment that reverberated worldwide ([26]). While this gesture of the Caucus was met with mixed responses especially regarding the tensions surrounding the death of Floyd, the use of the stole underscored how Ghanaian woven cloth has been reinterpreted by diasporic communities as a symbol of ancestral connection and resistance of the people of African identity. Figure 4 presents an image sourced from The Washington Post, depicting U.S. lawmakers draped in Kente stoles during a protest in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.

Source: https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/KSPANZVJXQI6VEDD42N5MUQJIA.jpg.

Figure 4. U.S. Congressional black caucus members wearing Ketekente cloth stoles.

Such international use of “Ketekente” as proposed, affirms its role within Pan-African discourse, where cultural artefacts are mobilised to build collective memory, forge solidarity, and confront systems of oppression ([16]; [25]). However, this also raises questions about cultural appropriation, authenticity, and the economic benefits (or lack thereof) that accrue to Ghanaian artisans and weavers. This is because, the mention of Kente in the narrative of the Black Caucus potentially marginalises Kete as the actual weavers of that particular collection of stoles used in this demonstration could have either be woven by the Asante or Ewe weavers. Again, artisanal appropriation remains blurry as it is uncommon for weavers to leave their signatures on the woven pieces. Perhaps this practice justifies the collective ownership ([16]) of the handwoven fabrics as recgonised by UNESCO as cultural artifact ([34]). However, their recognition and use of “Kente” seemingly marginalises both Kete and Fugu thereby underline the proposed integrative term, KeteKente for the multi-pattern colourful handwoven cloth whereas Fugu is also uniquely recognised as another Ghanaian cultural object.

The global circulation of Ketekente as a tool for Black unity and civil rights advocacy resonates with the concept of Afrocentric diplomacy, a framework where African nations engage global actors through culturally rooted expressions ([6]). Sartorial diplomacy, in this context, becomes a medium for enacting Pan-African solidarity. For example, the symbolic use of Kente cloth by U.S. congress members during the George Floyd protests in 2020 was not merely performative but reflected a deeper diasporic connection to African heritage ([26]). In this regard, Ketekente has emerged as a textile emblem of Pan-African resistance, akin to how dashikis or Afro combs became icons of the Black Power movement ([36]). The politics of dress, therefore, is not peripheral but central to the ideological coherence of the Pan-African project. In this regard, use of the Ketekente by the congress consolidates it international or geopolitical usage as a semiotic cultural object and insignia to make visual statements of marginalised diaspora of African origin just as it was done in 1925 by Fiawodzo Anatsui.

Despite the prestige and global visibility of Ketekente, the industry that produces it remains highly informal. Studies suggest that many weavers lack formal training in copyright or design protection [17]. In most weaving communities, traditional knowledge is transmitted orally and informally, leaving artisans vulnerable to design theft and economic exploitation particularly as foreign entities replicate patterns in mass-produced prints ([24]; [37]). For example, it is common to find imported printed ketekente on Ghanaian markets sold at cheap prices for the masses to patronise.

The lack of standardisation, policy support, and access to intellectual property education impedes the sector’s growth. As [18] and [17] notes, the skewed global discourse often referring to all Ghanaian handwoven cloths as “Kente” marginalises the term “Kete” and the contributions of Ewe weavers. This asymmetry reflects broader issues of cultural hegemony, requiring deliberate rebranding efforts that promote equity across ethnic contributions. Meanwhile, curated collections of the British Museum hold the sample unique master artistry of fine cotton Ewe cloth (object number 2008,2019.1) characterised supplementary weft patterns in multicolored stripes and seamlessly woven figurative patterns (See Figure 5).

This fragment demonstrates the characteristic weaving style and narrative visual language of Ewe tradition and is uniquely different from the Asante kente colourful patterns as presented in Figure 6. It is for this reason that the seemingly marginalised narratives about the Ewe Kete in literature against the popularity of the Asante kente (Figure 6) becomes topical for national attention. Again, the labeling of the Ewe Kete (Figure 5) as “Ewe cloth” as against the Asante Kente (Figure 6) as “Asante Kente” on the British Museum website, whether deliberate or not, adds to nuanced marginalisation of the Ewe Kete master handwoven pieces. Similarly, for fairness in cultural representation, Fugu of Northern Ghanaian origin equally deserves curatorial space in the British Museum archives. Beyond the British Museum, academic, heritage literature and documentary on traditional textiles in Ghana shows that Kente is globally recognised and protected, but less documented for Kete, indicating an imbalance in scholarly and institutional attention to related textiles. Specifically, Ghana’s Kente was recently inscribed on UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity list, highlighting its global prominence relative to Kete and fugu, which are lesser-recognised as woven forms in some public presentations or advocacies by government officials, historians and experts in the Ghana Folklore documentary ([14]; [34]; [17]). For instance, the re-branding of Asante Kente as an international commodity has been once advocated by a former Ashanti Regional Minister ([14]). However, due to their abilities to weave both geometric patterns and figurative motifs ([17]; [18]), such marginalisation could potentially minimise the production of the figurative designs as the geometric ones are what have been popularised as kente.

Source: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/E_2008-2019-1.

Figure 5. Ewe Kete (circa 1920-1940), object number 2008, 2019.1, British Museum.

Heritage-based tourism constitutes a strategically important yet persistently underexploited avenue for the promotion of Ketekente within Ghana’s cultural economy. Prominent weaving centres such as Bonwire and Agotime attract both domestic and international visitors, particularly during annual cultural events including the Agbamevorza and Bonwire Kente Festivals ([17]). Despite this visibility, the broader heritage tourism potential of Ketekente remains constrained by persistent infrastructural deficits, fragmented marketing strategies, and limited, uneven state investment. These structural limitations inhibit the translation of cultural visibility into sustained economic and cultural value.

Empirical field evidence further reveals an uneven tourism landscape in which select centres, notably Bonwire, receive disproportionate national and institutional attention, while numerous Ewe weaving communities remain marginalised within dominant heritage narratives. This asymmetry not only reinforces regional inequities but also weakens the inclusive national identity that Ketekente symbolically embodies. In this regard, [33] framework for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage emphasises inclusive community participation, equitable representation, and decentralised transmission of heritage practices, thereby underscoring the need for balanced recognition across weaving communities. Prioritising and establishing decentralised weaving hubs, structured training centres, and integrated cultural tourism packages that advance diverse weaving traditions in Ghana could reposition Ketekente as a genuinely inclusive heritage brand while simultaneously strengthening local livelihoods and cultural sustainability.

Source: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/E_Af2004-04-1.

Figure 6. Asante Kente (Circa 1880-1920), Object number Af2004,04.1, British Museum.

This study set out to examine Ketekente as a cultural, political, and economic resource within Ghana’s national and international engagements. The findings demonstrate that Ketekente which is masterfully handwoven by both Ewe and Asante communities extends far beyond its material form as a textile artefact to function as a powerful instrument of diplomacy, a global symbol of African and Pan-African identity, and a largely underutilised asset within Ghana’s tourism and creative economy. Through contextual and narrative analysis of historical events, state ceremonies, and protest performances, the study traced the transformation of Ketekente from a marker of ethnic prestige into a strategic tool of statecraft and soft power.

The deployment of Ketekente in presidential inaugurations, diplomatic encounters, and transnational civil rights movements underscores its capacity to communicate political values, consolidate diasporic solidarity, and project Ghana’s cultural authority on the global stage. However, this symbolic prominence exists alongside persistent structural challenges within the weaving sector. The absence of formal institutional support, limited intellectual property protections, and uneven national recognition constrain the economic and cultural agency of weavers, who largely operate within informal systems. Furthermore, the marginalisation of the term Kete in global discourse and tourism narratives reflects deeper historical and institutional inequities that continue to shape cultural visibility and value. Collectively, these findings reveal a disconnect between Ketekente’s international symbolic capital and the material conditions of its production, signalling the need for more coherent and inclusive cultural governance.

To fully realise Ketekente’s potential as a vehicle for cultural diplomacy, economic diversification, and sustainable heritage preservation, this study recommends a coordinated, structurally grounded national strategy. Central to this agenda is the adoption of a deliberate national rebranding framework that formally positions Ketekente as a unified cultural symbol while explicitly recognising its plural genealogies within both Ewe and Asante traditions. Such a reframing would promote terminological coherence across educational curricula, tourism narratives, policy documents, and international cultural platforms, thereby strengthening Ghana’s cultural visibility and symbolic cohesion in global heritage and creative economy circuits. In this regard, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts should advance inclusive heritage dialogues with scholars and cultural practitioners to ensure equitable representation of Ghana’s diverse artistic traditions. National and international curatorial records and heritage archives should also be reviewed and updated to reflect a more accurate and inclusive account of Ghanaian textile histories.

In addition, clear cultural guidance should be developed regarding the wearing of Ketekente as an anti-racist and solidarity symbol in global contexts. While the cloth has been widely adopted in civil rights protests and anti-racism movements, its symbolic use should be accompanied by contextual education that foregrounds its Ghanaian origins, historical meanings, and the lived realities of the weaving communities. Such guidance would help preserve symbolic appropriation and ensure that the wearing of Ketekente functions not merely as visual protest, but as an informed act of cultural respect, political solidarity, and ethical representation.

Equally important is the institutional development of weaving infrastructure through the establishment of national weaving hubs in both Eweland and Asanteland. Strategic collaboration between the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture and local governance structures would enable these centres to function as spaces for skills transmission, heritage conservation, design innovation, and structured tourist engagement. Embedding training and experimentation within culturally grounded environments, such hubs would facilitate intergenerational knowledge transfer while aligning traditional craftsmanship with contemporary creative and market demands.

The long-term sustainability of Ketekente further depends on strengthened intellectual property protection mechanisms. Targeted legal education and advisory systems should be developed to empower weavers to protect their traditional cultural expressions from misappropriation and unauthorised commercial exploitation. Context-sensitive guidance on copyright, geographical indications, and related protections would align local practices with international frameworks, reinforcing cultural ownership while enabling ethical participation in global markets. In parallel, heritage tourism strategies should be decentralised to promote Ketekente beyond dominant sites such as Bonwire. Equitable investment in visitor infrastructure, interpretive centres, hospitality services, and curated cultural routes across multiple weaving communities would foster more inclusive and immersive engagements with Ghana’s handwoven textile traditions. Such an approach would redistribute economic benefits while strengthening regional cultural identities within the national heritage economy.

Finally, the integration of Ketekente into Ghana’s cultural diplomacy architecture requires closer alignment between cultural policy and foreign affairs. Embassies, consulates, and cultural attachés should be systematically equipped to deploy Ketekente within exhibitions, ceremonial exchanges, and public diplomacy initiatives. When worn or displayed in international anti-racism forums, cultural summits, or commemorative events, Ketekente should be presented with interpretive narratives that frame it as both a symbol of resistance to racial injustice and a living heritage sustained by specific Ghanaian communities. Addressing the structural challenges identified in this study will enable Ketekente to evolve from a powerful symbol into a fully institutionalised cornerstone of Ghana’s national identity, cultural diplomacy, and global visibility.