I must commend your command of English. You are a true adept in that language.
You go beyond utilitarian efficiency to arrive at poetic force. I would like such ability to conjure a fusion of image and idea emerge in my own writing.
I appreciate your development of the concept of fusion of horizons, using that splendid quote from Gadamer.
I get the impression though, that, in your interpretation of Achebe you are superimposing your wishes on historical realities.
You are arguing, with Dasylva, that Nigerian ethnicities, as a whole, are not integrated into Nigeria. You describe integration as trans-ethnic identification with the nation. You justify Achebe's argument that Igbos are unintegrated into Nigeria based on that premise.
First, Achebe in that essay never claimed to be speaking for all Nigerians as you claim to be. He did not present himself as representing the interests of Nigerian ethnicities generally. He did not describe himself as analysing the integration of various ethnicities into Nigeria.
In terms of the content and prominence given to the paragraph where he declares his point, he describes himself as speaking for the Igbo and the Igbo alone :
"There are many international observers who believe that Gowon's actions after the war were magnanimous and laudable. There are tons of treatises that talk about how the Igbo were wonderfully integrated into Nigeria. Well, I have news for them: The Igbos were not and continue not to be reintegrated into Nigeria, one of the main reasons for the country's continued backwardness."
Does this quote from Achebe not put paid to your effort to claim a pan-Nigerian argument for Achebe? Would you want to argue, perhaps, that Achebe meant that what was being done to Igbos was being done to everyone else? If so, by whom? Would that not be a contradiction?
Secondly, Achebe's essay begins and ends with the discussion of what he understands as the plight of Igbos. The only effort to relate this plight to Nigerians in general is his argument for Igbo domiance before the civil war:
"It is my impression that Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself and for his Yoruba people. There is, on the surface at least, nothing wrong with those aspirations. However, Awolowo saw the dominant Igbos at the time as the obstacles to that goal, and when the opportunity arose – the Nigeria-Biafra war – his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to every length to achieve his dreams."
and his argument that :
"The Igbos were not and continue not to be reintegrated into Nigeria, one of the main reasons for the country's continued backwardness."
Does this strike you as a pan-Nigerian argument of the kind you are invoking?
Secondly, you argue that the prominence of Igbos in Nigerian national life does not imply national integration. You claim that integration is defined by identification with a national entity.
I would describe that as contradicted by the reality of Nigeria. The complex and varied points of integration of groups into social systems demonstrated by Nigerian social life demonstrates that a significant degree of social integration is taking place in the nation.
These points of yours are not true, to a significant degree, with reference to Nigeria:
'...integration involves the ability of the Nigerian state to generate a feeling or sense of belonging that would necessitate the transference of ethnic loyalty to the Nigerian state. It is only then that nationhood would be born in Nigeria. As it is now, Nigeria is a mere contraption of nationalities and ethnicities. Integration has not happened for any group and subgroups...
Integration translate into a fusion of ethnic energies. I cannot cease being a Yoruba just as you must remain Ibo (or Hausa, Efik, Edo, Kilba, etc). However, for Nigeria to succeed, it must make it possible for me to remain who I am; it must give me reason to transfer my ethnocentric allegiance to the national framework without losing myself in the process.'
Integration translate into a fusion of ethnic energies. I cannot cease being a Yoruba just as you must remain Ibo (or Hausa, Efik, Edo, Kilba, etc). However, for Nigeria to succeed, it must make it possible for me to remain who I am; it must give me reason to transfer my ethnocentric allegiance to the national framework without losing myself in the process.'
It is more realistic to describe national integration in terms of action rather than the speculative psychological states you are depicting, speculation contradicted by the social realities demonstrated by the social actors in question.
If, after the horrors of the 60s, Igbos could migrate to the North, it makes a statement about their conviction about their sense of belonging in the nation. To what degree is this commitment justified in the light of Boko Haram terror? Are Igbos evacuating the North as they did in the 60s? If they are not, and they are able to set down roots, both familial and professional in the North, they have achieved a significant degree of social integration in Northern Nigeria.
If, after the Biafran atrocities in the Midwest and the anti-Igbo atrocities by Nigerian troops, Igbos can settle in the Midwest and become a force in the Catholic church, in academics, and in business, building families, living peacefully and owning homes without fear, across generations, then the Igbos have achieved significant integration in the Midwest.
If Igbo organisations can come together and take to the governor of Lagos state a request/demand that, on account of their contributions to the state, they should have greater participation in the government of Lagos state, then Igbos have achieved significant integration in Lagos state.
By what rights of association are Igbos able to make such a demand/request in Lagos state? By what rights are they able to enjoy particular rights due to a Nigerian citizen wherever they live in Nigeria?
By what rights are people of Igbo ancestry employed in the Nigerian government?
All these rights emerge because they are Nigerians. They are not enjoying these rights because they are individuals from anywhere . They are not enjoying them only because they are qualified. They are enjoying them because they are Nigerians. They are employed because they are Nigerians.
In enjoying such rights of free movement, association, enterprise and employment across Nigeria, they thereby identify with Nigeria and are integrated into the Nigerian state.
In those national appointments, whose interests do you know them as serving? Individual, ethnic or national? If they serve national intests and are paid for the job does that not demonstrate loyalty to Nigeria? Can you identify Akunyili, Okonjo-Iweala, Ezekwesili, Bart Nnanji and Ihejirika as not committed to Nigeria?
Its not true, therefore, to describe these figures as not transferring their loyalty to Nigeria.
So, to claim that Igbos are not integrated into Nigeria, as Achebe has done, is false.
To claim, as you do, that there is no sense of national integration in Nigeria, is not true. The most you can convincingly argue for is for degrees of integration.
Also, this reductive understanding of government in Nigeria is false with reference to the role of the Igbos in government I mentioned and it does not apply to many government appointments across Nigerian history. I highlight the section I am referring to:
'If I ascend any professional height, I did it solely on my individual and even ethnic capacity. Or, through the patrimonial political opportunity afforded by the fact that I have a family or a friend in government. This doesn't imply that I love Nigeria or that she has provided the opportunity for progress for me. '
It is false for Okonjo-Iwela, for example, whose tenure as Nigerian finance minster who played a central role in Nigerian debt liquidation gave her expanded global prominence. She was also appointed, in the first place, on account of her exemplary credentials in global finance, not through patrimony.
Dora Akuntil's performance at NAFDAC not only made her eligible to continue in government it gave a global recognition . So, these figures have been advanced in their professions through working for Nigeria.
Finally, while ethnicity does define some people, not everyone can afford to be defined by ethnicity. Achebe is not V.S Naipaul, who does not enjoy Achebe's hard earned trans-civilizational credentials and can say what he likes when he likes and nothing is disturbed.
Achebe was Achebe. I say was because Achebe has de-deified himself.
Achebe is understood as one of the world's greatest writers, who, making a name from an ethnic centred corpus, speaks for humanity.
This is evident from the ideational and disciplinary scope of the secondary literature on Achebe, the geographical range of Achebe scholarship and Achebe's own self presentations in his expository writings represented by his essays. Achebe's location at the nexus of literary and national history is also one that privileges a trans-ethnic orientation, a role Achebe has played before now.
Achebe's mission with Soyinka and J.P Clark to Babangida to spare Mamman Vatsa's life so as to help stem the cycle of bloodletting in the name of power demonstrates a recognition that his place is properly with his professional compeers on national issues, speaking from a national standpoint. There was no mention of Vatsa's role as a Nigerian commander who had captured territory in Igboland during the war.
Achebe acted then as a member of a privileged generation who had reached maturity before the ethnic schism of the war and who as members of the new African intelligentsia emerging at the entry into the post-colonial period, had assumed roles of national vision.
This position is not contradicted by Achebe's role in Biafra doing his duty for his ethnicity at a desperate time. This is not such a time, however. Whatever the unresolved fallout from the war, it would be historically inaccurate amd socially incongruous to respond to the present in the spirit of the civil war period.
In the light of his historical identity, therefore, Achebe cannot afford to be is identified with a narrowly ethnic focus.
In the sad limitations of his essay previewing his book, Achebe may be seen as falling victim to internal contradictions, like Ezeulu in his Arrow of God. He could be described as falling victim to the dangers of poor communication as described in his essay "Language and the Destiny of Man".
The dangers and benefits of Achebe's intervention may be assessed in terms of the Mande description of the elder. The elder needs to be sensitive to the difference between speech and silence. When the elder speaks, they should speak with a sensitivity that shapes what is said, how it is said, when it is said, where it is said, and to whom it is said.
thanks
toyin
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:35 PM, <shina73_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
When the Awolowo interview on the Biafra war and the methods used in that war surfaced on this forum, I read the transcript as someone who knew close to nothing about the war. I I was born three years after the war ended. However, I wasn't at all surprised at the deluge of responses that trailed that transcript and the commentaries on Achebe's book and essay in The Guardian. If people had shrugged at those two issues, then there must be hope for Nigeria!
Yet, people could not have shrugged them off. The civil war and Awolowo's and Achebe's perceptions of it are significant to the survival of Nigeria as a tormented country. And the host of replies and responses have been enlightening. We've heard from igbos and the claim of being the most significant tribe in Nigeria. Yorubas have equally weighed in their opinion of Awolowo and his percieved good heart. We have even heard from Ibibios and the bitter lessons they have learnt on how not to trust in Nigeria!
What has been troubling for me, however, is another thread in the discourse which has been counseling ending the entire debate for many reasons. Some are disgusted by the potential for the disruption of friendship, others by the sheer magnitude of hatred and pent up fury flying across this cyber-forum. Still others are concerned about the binary opposition of ethnicities that has invaded the discourse. The question however still is: In spite of all these, why should people pretend that all is well, and move on with their lives? Shouldn't the time have come for the entire charade called Nigeria to blow up? And why are we at all surprised that the discourse is taking this shape, that ethnic rivalry is still alive and kicking in Naija?
Since our flag independence fifty two years ago, Nigeria has been managing the mechanical unity it imposed on its unyielding diversity with no success. The war and many other events till date are the result of the failure of that 'unity'. We have all also seen the failure of the NYSC and the quota system. And hence the inability of the Nigerian state to achieve national integration after 52 years of statehood. All plural states are confronted with that imperative of integration. Only few states have succeeded in transforming their diversity into national synergy. Nigeria certainly has not achieved that good fortune!
What does this tell us? A simple but neglected truth: Nigeria's future cannot be divorced from the ethnocentric prejudices of the ethnic diversities making up the Nigerian state.
Every human is born ethnocentric. It is an undeniable part of our human condition. In fact, our humanity and the vicissitudes of the universe is mediated by specific ethnos. Our desire to be cosmopolitan (or 'detribalise' as we say in Nigeria) most of the time deride this condition of our existence. In Nigeria, we could read our collective failure as a state as an instance of the leadership's attempt to ignore our ethnocentric situation and. Play the ostrich through series of funny 'national' policies meant to exorcise the genie of ethnicity. Yet, that genie had been out of the bottle for a while! It traumatised us between 1967 and 1970 and recently is bombing us silly.
I have not read Achebe's notorious book yet, but I believe I have the capacity to extrapolate from The Trouble with Nigeria as well as other interventions of the literary icon over the years. It seems to me that Achebe has equally been worried about why the quest for nationhood has consistently hit the rock in Nigeria. And, this is the catch, there is no other way by which Achebe could come at that trouble (or, at the manifestation of national failure instantiated in the Biafra war) except from an ethnic perspective. As far as I am concerned, no one has that archimedean standpoint. This is a position that is even most poignant given our historical situation as a country. Wouldn't Awolowo still have been in the eye of the storm if he had been, say, a Kanuri or an Itshekiri? Would the effect of whatevber strategy he advocated not been the same?
Further questions: Isn't it time to confront the albatross of the civil war and all it meant within the trajectory of statehood in Nigeria? Isn't it better to allow all the pent up furies a cathartic space for release? If every ethnic reasons and arrogance and reservations are allowed to roam the public sphere, wouldn't that allow for a reasonale assessment of our biases and prejudices, and hence make for a therapeutic reassessment?
If Nigeria must move forward, then it must allow for a cacophony of ethnic voices to speak their grievances without the arrogance of a 'detribalised objectivity'. That is the significance of Achebe's book for me. I am surprised people see him as being prejudiced. Of course, we all are! It is only through debate and confrontations that we can ever hope to arrive at what Georg Gadamer, the German philosopher, called the 'fusion of horizons' mediated by our collective resolve to speak and allow others their opinions too. Achebe has contributed an opinion within the conflicted space of discourse. That opinion must be dissected and assessed. Then others must contribute their own too with the same result.
The public sphere in Nigeria is one that has operated, for a while now, under the framework of tolerance. If another war were to happen right now, I fear for our 'objectivity'. We should remember the horror of Rwanda! What is needed, according to Charles Taylor, the American philosopher, is the transition from tolerance to recognition. You only tolerate what you can't stand! Yet, recognition requires two significant principles:
A. First, that the person I am relating with is different from me. In relating with me, s/he must necessarily relate from an ethnic perspective.
B. Second, that the person shares the same humanity with me. Our collective humanity offers a way out of the problems our ethnocentric condition may generate.
The Nigerian civil war had happened. But we have not confronted its consequences. We have been stupidly quiet about it. The Nigerian governments thought it was national wisdom to wrap it up. And we wonder why national integration had not happened! I'm surprised someone thought it had even happened for the igbos! And the reason is that they have status and governmental visibility! Ah! Of course, the South south have equally been integrated. wasn't that region offered the post of the Secretary to the Federal Government? National integration goes beyond mere visibility of any ethnic personality on the national landscape. If I ascend any professional height, I did it solely on my individual and even ethnic capacity. Or, through the patrimonial political opportunity afforded by the fact that I have a family or a friend in government. This doesn't imply that I love Nigeria or that she has provided the opportunity for progress for me. On the contrary, integration involves the ability of the Nigerian state to generate a feeling or sense of belonging that would necessitate the transference of ethnic loyalty to the Nigerian state. It is only then that nationhood would be born in Nigeria. As it is now, Nigeria is a mere contraption of nationalities and ethnicities. Integration has not happened for any group and subgroups. The ferocious tone of the debate around Awo and Achebe is a demonstration of that.
Integration translate into a fusion of ethnic energies. I cannot cease being a Yoruba just as you must remain Ibo (or Hausa, Efik, Edo, Kilba, etc). However, for Nigeria to succeed, it must make it possible for me to remain who I am; it must give me reason to transfer my ethnocentric allegiance to the national framework without losing myself in the process.
Adeshina Afolayan
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Compcros
Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems
"Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment