Ebe,
With respect for members on this forum and the high academic institution you represent, you must clarify the questions raised by Kayode Fakinlede based on one of your responses to Olayinka Agbetuyi on the subject under discussion which actually originated from Kayode Fakinlede's post.
Excerpting from your response to Olayinka Agbetuyi, Mr. Fakinlede wrote under item 4, "You seem to believe that there is something intrinsically worthy of being defended in the nation-state." Therefore, in item 5, he asked you politely, "Sir, are you talking about all nation-states or Nigerian in particular? Are you saying that no nation-state should be defended against any form of aggression, external or internal? That is, the collection of people you defined later in this article should not defend themselves against any form of aggression?
Of all the questions asked by Mr. Fakinlede, item 5 seemed to attract your attention. Thus, you wrote among other things, "Your response to my post is riddled with misrepresentations, facile understandings and rhetorical questions that rest on mischaracterizations and misreading(s) of what I was arguing." Pointing out what constituted misrepresentations, facile understandings and rhetorical questions that rested on mischaracterizations and misreading in Mr. Fakinlede's questions, you wrote, "Where did you get the idea that I do not believe the nation-state or that I do not believe that it should be defended against external aggression?"
In your response earlier to Olayinka Agbetuyi under your item 1, you wrote, "You state that a propaganda war is being waged against the country's survival and then you imply that the country has to be defended against these people you describe as propagandists. I couldn't disagree more. My disagreement is multifaceted. You seem to believe that there is something intrinsically worthy of being defended in the nation-state. UNLIKE YOU, I'M NOT SUCH A BELIEVER IN THE NATION-STATE as an inherently valuable political commodity. You say propagandists ARE WAGING A WAR AGAINST NIGERIA'S SURVIVAL. TO WHICH I SAY, SO WHAT...." Further in your item 2, you wrote, "To label or rename them propagandists against the country or as people who are attacking the country's survival is to delegitimize and even criminalize them. Why is the country's survival more important to you than the rights and aspirations of the peoples who constitute it? A state that is afraid of dissent and alternative political imaginations IS AN INHERENTLY WEAK STATE THAT IS BETTER DISSOLVING. ....//.... When you imply that we have to defend the nation against the attack of propagandists, you are casting the agitators as external to the country, as internal enemies. You are Othering them." From the above excerpts from your response to Olayinka Agbetuyi it is clear that 'you don't believe in nation-state' because in your response referred to above, you wrote, "UNLIKE YOU, I'AM NOT SUCH A BELIEVER IN THE NATION-STATE," which is not an idea concocted by Mr. Fakinlede as you made it to look like. Similarly, the idea that you do not believe that it (the nation-state) should be defended against external aggression is not of Mr. Fakinlede's making since you stated in your response to Mr. Agbetuyi thus, "You say propagandists ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST NIGERIA'S SURVIVAL. TO WHICH I SAY, SO WHAT... WHEN YOU IMPLY THAT WE HAVE TO DEFEND THE NATION AGAINST THE ATTACK OF PROPAGANDISTS, YOU ARE CASTING THE AGITATORS AS EXTERNAL TO THE COUNTRY, AS INTERNAL ENEMIES. YOU ARE OTHERING THEM." Are the agitators for the dissolution of the Nigerian State not enemies of Nigeria just as the secessionists that declared the Niger Delta People's Republic from Nigeria through their leader, Isaac Adaka Boro on 23 February 1966, and Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu's declaration of the then Eastern Region, a Republic of Biafra, from Nigeria on 30 May 1967? Was it wrong for the Federal government led by Generals Ironsi and Gowon to crush those secessionists militarily?
The arguments we have heard so far from those who want to tear the Nigerian nation into pieces are: the amalgamation of 1914 leading to the Nigerian State was done without consultation; and the current agitators for the sovereign state of Biafra is due to the marginalisation of the Igbo in Nigeria after the end of the war. Prior to independence, Nigerian leaders as representatives of the people of Nigeria attended many constitutional conferences at which they accept the existence of Nigeria as a country. The leaders also agreed to live and be ruled under a national constitution. Any Igbo that thinks it fashionable now to disparage Lord Lugard should first throw away the red cap he imported from Morocco to decorate the warrant chiefs he created in lieu of lack of traditional rulers in Igbo land as it were in the North and the West. The warrant chiefs were eventually upgraded to Eze which according to Chinua Achebe the Igbo protested saying Ezebuilo, meaning A-King-Is-An-Enemy. Igbo cannot throw away Lugard's amalgamation of Nigeria in 1914 and keep his red cap.
On marginalisation of the Igbo in Nigeria the newly appointed President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo, Chief John Nnia Nwodo said a while ago that Igbo youths' agitation for Biafra was due to marginalisation of the Igbo in Nigeria since the end of the war. He condemned the arrest and the reprimand of Nnamdi Kanu in lawful custody for treasonable felony. Suddenly, at the beginning of July 2017, the President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo, John Nnia Nwodo had cause to address members of Anambra State House of Assembly. The reason was because Nnamdi Kanu who had been granted bail had issued a decree that the constitutionally planned Anambra Gubernatorial election in November shall not take place. Chief Nwodo was angry over the child that had outgrown his parents. The Ohaneze Ndigbo in his address engaged in a roll call of Ndi Anambrans who had held and still hold important positions in the administration of Nigeria. Due to the fact that he posited that Anambra accounted for more than fifty per cent of all Ndi Igbo progress in Nigeria, Obi Nwakanma countered him and wrote that if he were to address members of either Ebonyi, Enugu, Abia or Imo state House of Assembly, his roll call of people in each of those States who had held and are still holding important federal appointments would be similar to that of Anambra. Thus, the Southeast or the Igbo are not marginalised in Nigeria according to the President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo, Chief Nnia Nwodo, and Obi Nwakanma. Thereby, the main pillar on which the agitation for Biafra stands crumbled.
In his post of July 6, Ebe pointed out, "Only three years ago, Northerners, especially people from the so-called core North, were denouncing the union and openly saying they would be fine with the country dividing. Some of them even threatened to tear the union apart if power did not return to the North - and by North they did not mean my kind of North." One observes here, that Ebe did not name those from the core North that wanted to tear the country into pieces, especially if power did not return to the North. Noteworthy, however, is Ebe's remark that the demand for power to return to the North did not embrace his own ethnic minority part of the North. The impression created in Ebe's post is that Kayode Fakinlede's call for patriotism to Nigeria is because he belongs to the same ethnic group as the Ag. President Osinbajo. Fortunately, the illogicality of Ebe's assumption was highlighted by Malami Buba in his 10 July 2017 post thus, "Isn't it also 'crude literalism' to assume that Kayode & co., are being patriotic because (Yoruba) Osinbajo is the Ag. President?" Illustrating that it is unfair to attribute the cause of Fakinlede's patriotism to his tribe's man at the centre, Malami Buba wrote, "Nor would it be fair to the Idoma, I think, conversely, to assume that your deep suspicion of effusive patriotism is a reflection of Idomaland's marginalisation at the centre." Responding to Malami Buba, Ebe wrote, "First of all Idomaland is NOT marginalized 'at the centre' as you claimed. I assume that you're using the conventional Nigerian definition of marginalization, which rests on federal visibility in appointments etc. ..//... Since 1999, Idomaland has been disproportionately visible at the federal level relative to their size (even in Benue we're a minority). Every government since 1999 has had Idoma ministers; they've been service chiefs, presidential advisers, etc. David Mark, an Idoma, was Senate President for 8 years. The current government has an Idoma as minister of Agriculture, and an Idoma, Air Vice Marshall Morgan, as Chief of Defence Staff." Marginalisation at the centre as a reason for being unpatriotic to Nigeria is not applicable to Ebe's Idoma ethnic group just as it is not to Chief John Nnia Nwodo and Obi Nwakanma's Igbo ethnic group. On what is agitation for the disintegration of Nigeria based if all the ethnic and the two dominant religious groups are well represented at the centre? As I have said before the ethno-religious belonging of people in government is of no importance to the masses of Nigeria but their abilities to produce goods and services expected of their offices to Nigerians. If the political and economic condition of Nigeria of which citizens are displeased are brought about by the amalgamation of ethno-religious groups at the centre, the same leaders from each tribe who are now at the centre will preside over the emerging decentralised or disintegrated units.
The questions raised by Kayode Fakinlede and the clarfications he sought from you, Moses Ebe Ochonu are genuine and intellectually very refreshing. To browbeat him the way you did is called in Latin, Ignoratio Elenchi, otherwise known as ignorance of proof, defined as a deliberate act of evading the real issues and drawing conclusions that are irrelevant and completely at variance with the subject matter. As we say in my mother tongue, only a tussled and ruffled dog barks away its panic and mistakes it for strength.
S. Kadiri
Skickat: den 11 juli 2017 14:52
Till: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: IF YOU LOVE NIGERIA, SAY SO
Sent from my iPad
--MEOc;--Please I need further clarification on the issues you raised in your article. Please read below:
1. You state that "a propaganda war is being waged against the country's survival" and then you imply that the country has to be defended against these people you describe as propagandists. I couldn't disagree more.
2. My disagreement is multifaceted.
3.
Sir, what do you disagree with? Is it the fact that a propaganda war is being waged, or the country should not be defended? Are you saying that a propagada war is not being waged or that we should not defend our country against it if it is true?
4. You seem to believe that there is something intrinsically worthy of being defended in the nation-state.
5.
Sir, are you talking about all nation-states or Nigeria in particular? Are you saying that no nation-state should be defended against any form of aggression, external or internal? That is, the collection of people you defined later in this article should not defend themselves against any form of aggresion?
6. Unlike you, I'm not such a believer in the nation-state as an inherently valuable political commodity. You say "propagandists" are waging a war against Nigeria's survival. To which I say, so what--assuming that this is even true.
7. If propagandists are waging war against Nigeria, and you say so what? Are you saying that Nigerians should not defend thenselves even if it is true that a propagandist's war is being waged against them? Or are you saying that there is nothing like a propagandist's war. Since you in particular are not a believer in the nation state as a political commodity, are you saying that the rest of us should then take your belief system as a matter of faith?
8.
9. If the nation-state is so fragile as to collapse because of what you describe as the "propaganda" of some of its citizens then it is not a worthy political configuration to begin with and is definitely not worth defending.
10. I was thinking the main reason why you want to defend something really is because of its fragility and that you are trying to defend it against all forms of enemies so it can be strong. Appareently you see it otherwise. A chick is not worthy of being defended against the kite by its mother because, you know, if if cannot defend itself, it should not exist in the first place
11.
12. Besides, with all the resources and apparatuses of counter propaganda, surveillance, and informational warfare available to the Nigerian state, does it need you and I to defend it or ensure its survival against "propagandists"?
13. I was thinking it is you and me (and 180 million others) that make up what we call the Nigerian state? But you say Nigeria, which is you and me do not need us to defend itself. And your reason is because we (you and I and 180 million others) do not need to defend ourdelves in order to ensure its survival against the propagandists
14.
15. I am obviously not as invested in the idea of the nation-state as you are, not only because of its recency as a unit of political organization but also because of its deployment in many places as instruments of oppression and as a way to deny people their legitimate rights to self-determination.
16. Are there places where the nation-state are not defined as instruments of oppresion, or is this a necessary requirement of the existenc of a nation-state a possibility th. Is there a posibility that a nation-state mey work towards a more perfect union pr is this just a mirage?
17.
18. There is absolutely nothing sacrosanct or intrinsically praise-worthy about the Nigerian nation-state or any other nation-state for that matter. The nation-state is an empty sign, having no meaning of its own outside its human relational content. It is the relationships that people within its territorial borders forge among themselves and the benefits they derive therefrom that give it meaning.
19. Apparently then the nation-state has some meaning: it is the relationships that people within ITS borders forge among themselves AND the BENEFITS therefrom - your words. The Nigeria nation-state, therefore has these intentions for its existence and that IS the reason why we, who believe in it are trying to defend it from PROPAGANDIST'S AND BIAFRANISTS.
20.
21. Outside of these relational benefits, the nation-state is an empty, haughty, jealous entity that tyrannically stifles alternative and rival political imaginations. A nation-state is only as valuable as the investments people make in it and the benefits they derive from it.
22. A nation state IS as valuable as the INVESTMENTS people make in it and the benefits they derive from it – CORRECT.
23.
24. If people no longer find it useful as a vessel for achieving their aspirations or no longer find the human associations that it engenders useful, what good is that nation-state and why is it worth defending,
25. I presume you are talking about Nigeria here. What evidence do you have to come to this conclusion? The propaganda of the Biafranists or the daily give and ttake that go on among ALL Nigerians?
26.
27. especially if by "defending" it you're challenging the legitimate rights of citizens to imagine their political futures elsewhere? This idea of defending the nation against internal enemies (you call them propagandists) is as dangerous as I've ever heard. It is a recipe for tyranny, oppression, and the silencing of oppositional and centrifugal agitations.
Are you implying that a nation-state cannot have internal enemies or that a nation-state should not defend itself against it? Any defense against thieves, robbers, bribe takers, terrorists, propagandists are supposed to be seen as a recipe for tyranny?
2. The people you call propagandists against the Nigerian nation are far from that in my opinion. They are agitators, whose grievances and centrifugal and separatist agitations are legitimate in a democracy and are legalized by all known international legal precepts governing the right to self-determination.
And therefore we who have a different opinion about our country should just give them a free pass?
To label or rename them propagandists against the country or as people who are attacking the country's survival is to delegitimize and even criminalize them.
I thought if you declared that you you want to tear a nation or anything apart, you are an enmy of that country. Is there any other definition for enmity?
They sure are not expressing love for Nigeria.
Why is the country's survival more important to you than the rights and aspirations of the peoples who constitute it?
What????!!!!!
A state that is afraid of dissent and alternative political imaginations is an inherently weak state that is probably better off dissolving. What you're advancing is the stuff of fascism and dictatorship. When you imply that we have to defend the nation against the attack of propagandists, you are casting the agitators as external to the country, as internal enemies. You are Othering them. What is your locus standi for doing that? Other than expressing their discontent and dissatisfaction with the union and aspiring to control their own destinies either as separate nations or as autonomous units within the nation, what crime have they committed? Dissent and agitations should be welcomed in a democracy and in a nation state. They're a useful gauge of how functional and dysfunctional the union is or has become. Besides, history has shown that hostility to such agitations only makes them worse because they go underground, fester, and emerge in bigger, more disruptive forms. I appreciate people who acknowledge the dysfunctional union and make rational arguments about 1) how the dysfunction should be addressed, and 2) the benefits of preserving the union in a more equitable and acceptable way. Soyinka just put out an essay in Newsweek, in which he celebrates the centrifugal agitations as reflecting the ills of a mortally diseased union and then pivots to make the case for Nigeria's continuity as a reconstructed federated union.
Most Nigerians probably agree with Soyinka but that is not the intention of the Biafranists. They are sworn enemies of the cintinues existence of Nigeria. You cannot possibly be rooting for them
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 2:43:38 PM UTC+1, Kayode J. Fakinlede wrote:In recent months, I have witnessed the most organised and coordinated effort to tear down our country that any person or a group of people can muster. Nigeria, our country, has suddenly transmogrified into a country of confused people who cannot put two and two together, its impending doom and imminent collapse being broadcast every minute on the internet and the print media.
Some months before, I was at a gathering in the United States and, as a lone person out, I had tried to defend our country among some of these naysayers only to find out that I was dangerously outmunbered. "What has Nigeria done for you?; why should I speak well about Nigeria, etc, etc?' These kinds of questions were coming from even new arrivals and from young people who had just received their freshly minted certificates in one university or another in Nigeria and were lucky enough to have been able to secure a visa to America. Of course, I had previously, and several times found myself among groups of Nigerians who would spend the night castigating our country and throwing darts at it. Some even swore never to set eyes on Nigeria for ever.
Ah, Ah!!, I discovered why it is easy for these to put Nigeria down. The light and glare of the country America have blinded them to the reality of where they come from and the sacrifices made by their forebears to get them there. Evidently, much that they see and experience in America magically appeared across the landscape. A little learning, they say is a dangerous thing.
Of course, there is a majority of us, the silent majority, who by reason of our experience know that things do not always go harmonioulsy in God's own country. In America, in spite of the daily jostling of each individual to get to the top regardless of whose ass is gored, we see the combined efforts of its citizens, irrespective of and in spite of their differences, to continuously improve - emphasis on improve - the school system, the legal system, the water system, the health provision system, the electricity supply system, roads and bridges, etc.
'Towards a more perfect Union,' Americans often proclaim this as their intention. But when I see the level of acrimony some issues generate within the polity, I often wonder if a perfect union can ever be achieved on earth. But at the end of it all, I realise that the glitter and fluorencence that we foreigners now come to enjoy are the results of years of the acrimonious debates and sacrifices – emphasis on sacrifices - made by their forebears.
One fact seems to run through the vein of all Americans though, they love their country, warts and all. Every American proclaims this at the roof top every time and before they start the aforementioned acrimonious debates.
Majority of Nigerians are like Americans too. We wake up in the morning, try to take care of our families the best way we can, get to our individual workplaces to earn a living, send our children to the best schools we can afford, and in general try to earn a living. We also love Nigeria, warts and all. And try our best to work towards a better Nigeria.
But we have let the naysayers hijack the debate. We have allowed them to control the tempo of our discussion. We have given them the megaphone, they are now browbeating us with negative propaganda, and we are cowered by the intensity of their intention.
Let us therefore begin to take to the bulhorn to declare our love for our country Nigeria. Let our positive proclamation drown the organized, cacophony and grandiloquence of the naysayers. They do have a plan and their plan is to tear Nigeria apart. We have a better plan and that better plan is to keep Nigeria one. And we do not have to debate or apologize to anyone for this.
God bless Nigeria
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment