If you must buy a baboon don’t buy the one with a 10% discount. PCD
You call them Ibo, but are they really Ibo? They are strangely and strongly dichotomised by church denominations and sects, while in one state Catholics will never rule, in the other Protestants will never.
They still practice the ‘osu’ caste system, and but for the Supreme Court women don’t inherit nada from a region that produced an Iweala, Dora, and a host of strong women. They say Warri ‘no dey’ carry last, but ever wondered how a Sapele dude needs a note from Kano to get a job in Warri petrochemical? The man from Rivers, or the mysterious South-south, which in itself is a misnomer, insists he’s no Ibo and yes he’s not…
An Abia man sees his Ebonyi brother as inferior, and the Bénin man thinks less of the Bayelsa man. The Ibo man disdains the Ikwere man, and mocks the Efik person…
While I could go on and on, enter the Yoruba man who hates the Ibo man, or rather disdains him. Both even fight who is superior – Chinua Achebe or Wole Soyinka. Anyway, the Ijebu and Egba of Ogun state continue the superiority war. And the Lagosian with his Egba and Ijebu brothers will tell you that other Yoruba are ‘Ara Oke’. Don’t even bring the Ogbomosho man into it, or that debate between Ife and Ibadan.
Southerners HATE themselves, fight over ‘who know book pass’, ‘who thief pass’, instigated by their middle class, watched by their elite, fought by their downtrodden…the Zik and Awo war is rehearsed by each group. And every other component of that geography called South is negated.
So we have these group of dudes, miscreants, and ruffians, trouble mongers, in the North we call them ‘yan iskas’, they suffer from ‘iberiberism’. In the South, the significant difference is that the ‘yan iskas’ there are elitists and even claim a high level of intellectualism.
So the South fights itself then fights the North as they also battle themselves. In this concluding part of my treaties on Nigeria’s North and South, kindly follow me and let’s share and learn.
The North-South dichotomy is not a subject within the shores of this nation that I mumble about; it evokes a lot of passion from the heated arguments which it generates, everyone holding dear to their values, idiosyncrasies and what not. A lot has been written on old perspectives likewise new viewpoints. The power tussle has added new dimensions to it.
For example, when power goes to the North it likely won’t go to the Middle Belt (don’t ask me to explain) and many rightly or wrongly think that it won’t go to a Christian. And by 2023, it won’t go to Osinbajo because ‘they’ say Obj had eight years as president, Osinbajo would have by 2023, had eight as vice-president and if given would have eight as president…’haba na only dem waka come’. We are as complex as this!
Every nation has one dichotomy or the other, if it is not north/south, it is blocs or religions or even ideological dichotomies. There are several reasons such dichotomies exist. Sometimes it is a function of creation like we have in the Nigerian case. The North-South dichotomy is a big myth to our politicians when they want to steal but after the stealing it becomes an issue.
In our sensational North-South dichotomy, we have in every sense approached most problems sectionally thereby creating all kinds of unnecessary petty-culture-ethnic parapoism and elite mentality in dealing with our national issues. Dichotomy is one that is used by political apologists as a socio-economic weapon.
Apart from the positive, the dichotomy has been used to exploit and bamboozle the masses without major consideration for the dynamics of the law of development which in essence deals scientifically with the unity and struggle of opportunities and opposites.
Another musing on the issue of the North-South dichotomy is that in truth only a social revolution can solve our problems, be they political, economic or social. In this sense we need more than the APC or PDP. We need the progressive elements to come together as a striking force. They have a revolutionary duty to this nation to help in striking a balance in the North-South dichotomy, to disabuse the thought pattern that has been built.
An example of this could be in tackling the ideology of hatred, one that has just swept across again with the concluded 2019 elections, because this is a factor that reactionary elements within the system use in battling the progressives. Like several years ago, the problem still persists, the North-South dichotomy borrows a lot from bourgeois theories, which essentially is directed at confusing our intellect, like we try to argue within the parameters of “anti-class theory”, “theory of undevelopement”, “take off theory”, “theory of cooperation”, “theory of external push”, “end of ideology theory”, “convergence theory”, “the theory of the periphery in the periphery”. Wonderful sociological concepts do very little in helping us shift in the way of progress.
In ending this short take on the North-South dichotomy it is important to look at how it denies us of one thing – the national question. What is a nation? We cannot fully understand the implication of the North-South dichotomy without answering the national question scientifically and practically in relating this phenomenon to our socio-politico-economic development.
The national question “is a question of solving vital national problems of social development, abolishing national oppression and inequality, eliminating obstacles to the development of peoples, including achievement of factual quality and internationalism in national relations.”
Reactionary scholars often defend the essence of reactionary bourgeons nationalism. They refute the fact that the nation is a social category, a historical community. For instance, Jacques Chwalier developed a subjectivist concept of the nation, glorifying that a nation is created by the wishes of living together. In another ideology of nationalism, Maurice Cranston maintains that the basis of the nation is national will and its existence depends on the common desire of people. However, both Max Savelle and Peter Haslett hold the view that “a nation is just a metaphor”.
The concepts “national character”, “national culture”, national consciousness”, ”national philosophy and psychology” are often used and discussed without carefully and critically understanding their contradicting class nature in antagonistic societies and their relative independence. So, any theory of nations should and must nullify all reactionary elite’s ideological devices and expose their class character. A scientific definition is suggested: the nation is a lasting historical community of people constituting a form of social development based on the community of economic life in combination with the community of language, territory, culture, consciousness and psychology.
The summary of this last of my tripartite essay is both a warning and a challenge on the basis of what I have outlined; it is only fair and fitting to direct our critical analysis of the Nigerian political climate in the form of serious warning to the reactionary forces in the country. At the same time, we shall only be performing our historical function if we are alert to the progressive force in the country about the most urgent need for a collective approach and prompt action against elitist domination and exploitation of our national affairs and national resources. We cannot abdicate our responsibility to do and say what is right.
This is the only way we can continue to be right. We are seriously warning the reactionary force to come to grips with realities of the moment, which point to the inevitabilities of the future, because time is running out, at us to initiate a wind of hurricane of social revolution. The ‘yan iskas’ are at work across dichotomies, across faith, for how long? Only time will tell.