Collapsing Ethnic Stereotypes: How the NYSC Can Succeed

Collapsing Ethnic Stereotypes: How the NYSC Can Succeed

                                                                                  

The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

Ethnicity is often an uncomfortable conversation. It should go without saying that any constructive conversation on ethnicity and ethnocentrism—as long as its aim is to be constructive—demands brutal honesty. It demands a series of acknowledgements that must not subscribe to political correctness, an examination of scathing issues that have continuously yearned for attention. It should go without saying, also, that the aim of a conversation of this nature is not to keep us comfortable. It is to keep us all uncomfortable, uncomfortable enough to be forced to fix our problems. To have a comfortable conversation would be to have a conversation so predictable and so fuzzy that, in the end, we would all feel secure but, crucially, nothing new would have been unveiled, nothing progressive to challenge societal misconceptions. Most times, these misconceptions come in the form of stereotypes: illogical beliefs that human beings act the way they do—most times, negative ways—solely because they belong to a particular group—racial, sex, social, religious, ethnic—and that they behave only in such singular patterns. The Yoruba are extremely ethnocentric and jolly-loving. Warri people are thieves. The Igbo are money-loving and arrogant. Akwa-Ibom men are only useful as houseboys and their women are nymphomaniacs. The Northerners are easily manipulated. The Tiv are only useful for yam cultivation.

What makes stereotyping so jarring is its sheer generalization, its dismissal of the stereotyped. At best, stereotypes are unfair; at worst, they are half-truths, and half-truths are blatant lies. To propagate them is to have what Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has called “a single story” of others.

Stereotyping is magnified by the individual histories of groups, the collective history of several such groups, and the collision of both. Chronologically, Nigeria’s first problem is this: British colonialism. Our second: the long succession of bad leaders. Our third: the reluctance of the Nigerian populace to do something about the country. It bears repeating that the stereotypes suffered by our ethnicities were manufactured by the British. The British dreaded the Igbo as too enterprising, too greedy, an uppity people too difficult and stubborn to be controlled. It should be noted that the Igbo were the last ethnicity to be fully conquered, and this did not happen until the 1930s: they continued to put up resistance, the most notable of which was the 1929 Aba Women’s War. For this, the colonial authorities nursed a deep resentment against them. The British further feared that the Yoruba were too educated, too fixated on themselves, too jolly to be trusted with a responsibility as grave as governing. The Yoruba had been the first to embrace Western education en masse and already had, by 1914, students studying in English universities. They were seen as knowing as much as the colonialists did, a people who used their knowledge to benefit only themselves. And because the British decided the Hausa-Fulani were subservient, a formidable people who nevertheless posed the least threat to their motives, whose traditional hierarchies were most solid and so rendered them controllable, they practically passed on the leadership of Nigeria to them. The idea that the Hausa-Fulani were easily controlled was a misinterpretation of the binding role that Islam played in their societies. The Kanuri, the Edo, the Tiv, the Igala, the Ijaw, the Efik, the Ibibio, and other ethnicities were perceived to be toothless in the face of “the major three”: they would do anything they were made to. With this arrangement that secured their interests, the colonialists were assured that they would continue ruling Nigeria by proxy. And this was where it began. British-owned newspapers circulated these half-truths, fed them to the indigenous Nigerian populace. They exaggerated cultural and religious differences, portrayed these differences as irreconcilable. They sold the lie that Christians and Muslims, for instance, could not co-exist. It must be noted that African societies have historically been accommodating: wars, of course, were fought, but none could be traced entirely to religious differences, except the jihads which were themselves results of an imported religion. Europe, on the other hand, has been notorious for its exclusionary worldview, and had witnessed deep religious conflicts: first against Muslims (from the 7^th to the 13th century), then the Thirty Years’ War between Catholics and Protestants (1618-48). What the colonialists did could be appropriately summarized in the words of Adichie: “Show a people as one thing and one thing alone, and that is what they will become”.

By independence in 1960, each ethnicity mostly saw others as only what the British had made them out to be: groups which, for reasons ranging from religious to cultural peculiarities, should never be trusted. Events culminated in the Nigeria-Biafra War (1967-70), which could have been avoided were it not for the dishonesty and arrogance of the respective sides’ leaders, and which may largely have seen its wounds healed were it not for the Federal Government’s infamous anti-Igbo economic policies. With these, Nigeria was exactly where the British wanted her to be: in a deep pit. Five decades on, these sores continue to gape, thanks to the long succession of leaders blessed with amazing visionlessness. It goes without saying that, as former president Dr Goodluck Jonathan admitted, the older generations have failed Nigeria. They have failed their children and themselves. Everything now rests on the younger generations who, despite the indoctrination of a few of them by the older ones, still have in themselves every promising thing about Nigeria. No group can lay claim to being the face of Nigerian youths more than the NYSC: this bi-annual set of people who, given their education, should be more open-minded than most.

The NYSC was created through Decree No 24 in 1973, by the government of General Yakubu Gowon, in line with its post-war 3Rs Vision of Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation. This was in admittance of the massive role that ethno-cultural differences played in the war, in the hope that sending young graduates to parts of the country outside their ethnic zones for a year would help to mend any misunderstanding of other cultures they may have grown up with. Theoretically, it was a wise decision to focus the country’s reintegration—or integration for that matter, since Nigeria was never integrated by the British—on young people who were now expected to contribute in various ways to the country’s healing process. This programme has been a success, but not an unquestionable success. And these questions must be answered if the country is to progress an inch. Why is it that, after four decades in which Nigerian graduates have undergone this mandatory National Youth Service, the mutual suspicions among our ethnicities have continued to simmer and have arguably worsened? Why is it that the country is yet to feel the impact of this programme? Why has this scheme of 42 years, after graduating 42 sets of Nigerians whose mission has been to unify the country, failed to transform Nigeria into One?

It would be easy to counter these by pointing out that, in 2011, then president Jonathan, an Ijaw, had garnered votes from nearly all ethnicities. It would be even easier to point out that, in 1993 and 1999, two Yorubas, the late Chief M.K.O. Abiola and Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, respectively, had drawn similarly widespread votes. While this paints an assuring view, this pattern of uniform voting should not be confused as being representative of a decisive national change. It is progress, certainly, but only a microcosmic progress that dilutes itself in our macrocosm. Because Abiola’s and Obasanjo’s appeals have failed to change the way other ethnicities perceive the Yoruba, this, rather than being an answer, only raises another question: Why, in spite of this evidence of occasional cross-country acceptance, have we remained static in our ethnocentrism? What this shows is that the problem lies in a deeper place, a deeper place that has been so easily overlooked. This deeper place is, simply put, the threatening way we have been trained to interpret the behaviour of people who do not belong to our ethnicity: a way that allows us to vote for them but not trust them. Because these stereotypes have lived in our collective memory for so long, changing them becomes difficult, but not impossible. It is here that the NYSC becomes not merely a tool for reintegration but a perfect tool for recreation.

Being graduates, being educated, corps members are expected to be more understanding, more appreciative and, ultimately, more open-minded than the average Nigerian. The nuances of respect and tolerance are attitudes they are expected to have learned while in school, and their Service presents the first test of just how much of these positive approaches they have internalized. Theoretically, graduates are deployed to states outside those of their origin or cultural zones or even their higher institutions, areas they are presumed to be unfamiliar with, to spend a year in. An Ijaw from Bayelsa State who studied in Enugu State may be deployed to serve among the Nupe in Niger State. An Edo who studied in Lagos State may be deployed to live among the Berom in Plateau State. A Tiv from Benue State who studied in Rivers State may be deployed to live among the Yoruba in Ondo State. In these unfamiliar lands, corps members must—and are advised and expected to—interact with the local population. They relate with them through many avenues such as their Places of Primary Assignment (PPA), their religious institutions, the markets, the neighbourhood they live in, as well as through choice. In relating with them, corps members learn to conform to, to respect and appreciate, existing hierarchies and socio-cultural nuances. However, the issue here is not merely about corps members’ interaction with or respect for their hosts, but about the frame of mind, the attitude and perception, with which this social exchange is carried out. Corps members should be—or are expected to be—thinkers, should be—or are expected to be—armed with enough education to rise above viewing their hosts through narrow lenses, to refrain from defining a whole people with only one of their traits.

We must recreate our country and this is how to start: by refurbishing our perception of other ethnicities. For the NYSC to effectively lead this cleansing, our governments—Federal and State—must play their direct parts. It should begin with overhauling our primary and secondary schools’ curricula. Subjects like Social Studies, Cultural Arts, Literature, Fine Arts, Economics, Government, Geography, indigenous languages, and others with such socio-cultural bent should be taught appropriately. Students should no longer be taught that “there are three major ethnicities in Nigeria: Igbo, Hausa and Yoruba”, which implies that the rest are minor and, decisively, barely matter. “Major” should be replaced with “most populous”. Students should be taught that although most Fulani have historically been cattle-rearers, they have also been scribes of the Arabic language and civilization. They should not merely be taught that The North is educationally backward but should be made to understand that it is so because the foreign education they first came in contact with—Arabic education—was effectively sidelined by the colonialists; that had Nigeria been colonized by Arabs, it is the South that would today be backward. Students should no longer be taught that the Igbo are “the most business-minded”, which plants in their minds that association with money, which would eventually flower into stereotyping the Igbo as “greedy” and “money-loving”. They should be taught the full truth which is that every ethnicity on the face of the earth is business-minded. It is when we begin this necessary re-education at the earliest levels that we can fully tap into the potentials of the latter level, the NYSC, as a powerful glue for a Nigerian future.

                                                                         

With such open-mindedness, the corps member is aware that to say that the Yoruba are extremely ethnocentric and jolly-loving would be to imply that there is no Yoruba person who is nationalistic or reclusive, which would deny the existence of a beloved national figure as Wole Soyinka. That to call Warri people thieves would be to deny the existence of honest people in Warri. That to insist that the Igbo are money-loving and arrogant would be to claim that there is no Igbo person who is uninterested in the trappings of wealth, no Igbo person who is humble, which would deny the existence of the Blessed Iwene Tansi. The corps member knows that to imagine Akwa-Ibom women as nymphomaniacs would be to say that all the women in that state would do anything for continuous sex, and that other Nigerian women don’t like sex. That to dismiss the Hausa-Fulani as easily manipulated would be to say that no person from that bloc can think for themselves. That to say that the Tiv are only useful for yam cultivation would be to say that all Tiv people can ever be are farmers and nothing else.

How are the Yoruba alone jolly-loving when there are nightclubs all over the country—in the North and the East? Are those nightclubs all filled with Yoruba people? Could it be that the Igbo are not also jolly-loving and yet they are slowly incorporating Yoruba festive patterns in theirs?

How are the Igbo alone money-loving when none of Nigeria’s current five billionaires—Aliko Dangote who sits atop Africa, Mike Adenuga, Folorunsho Alakija who unseated Oprah Winfrey as the wealthiest black woman alive, Femi Otedola, and Abdulsamad Rabiu—is Igbo? Dangote and Rabiu are Hausa; Adenuga, Alakija and Otedola are Yoruba. Could it be possible that the Hausa and the Yoruba do not love money and yet their people have consciously acquired such remarkable wealth?

How are Northern ethnicities easily manipulated or gullible when, now that Nigeria is in her fifty-fifth year of independence, the country has been ruled by people of Northern origin for a total of thirty-nine years? Could it be that other ethnicities lack the gullibility to lead Nigeria?

This conversation would be dishonest if we deny that there are, as Adichie points out, elements of truth in stereotypes. It is possible that a corps member or any other person would meet or has already met many arrogant and money-loving Igbos, and so is pushed to believe that all Igbos are arrogant and money-loving. It is possible that they would meet or have already met many jolly-loving and extremely ethnocentric Yorubas, and so is convinced that all Yorubas are jolly-loving and extremely ethnocentric. It is possible that they would meet or have already met many gullible and pre-literate people of Northern origin, and so comes to think that all people of Northern origin are gullible and pre-literate. But being ethnocentric and jolly-loving, being greedy and money-loving, being gullible and pre-literate, being stupid even, are human, rather than ethnic, traits shaped by the society, and we must tell ourselves this truth. It must be noted at this point that the idea of “The North” as a single homogenous section of Nigeria—our seeing that part of the country as only one group when there are in fact hundreds of ethnicities there—is a crude stereotype. Most often when people refer to “The North”, they mean “The Hausa-Fulani and The Rest”. We must cease treating other Northern ethnicities as though they are nameless: the Jukun, the Nupe, the Berom, the Bachama, the Kagoro, the Bassa, the Kwanka, the Migili, the Ningi, the Rurnada, the Waja, the Yergarn, and so many others. That they are sandwiched in the dominant Hausa-Fulani culture, and even speak their language, does not make them Hausa or Fulani. It is in the same way that our use of English does not make us English people, the same manner that the intrusion of American culture into virtually all parts of the globe does not make the rest of the world American. We only understand global situations better and fully because we have seen global situations in all their ramifications. We would not honestly refer to the United States as a country of sporadic shooters alone because we also know that that country is one of great scientific and artistic inventors. What then prevents us from seeing each other in all our ramifications? What if, rather than being perpetually fixated on these negative strands of character, we saw ourselves in full—all the positives helping us understand the negatives?

What if, rather than emphasizing the single story of their perceived greed, we understood the Igbo in their rounded humanity as an extremely hardworking people? What if the rest of Nigeria saw them for what they are: a society in which relevance rests on what Chinua Achebe describes as “solid personal achievements”, something which then drives every one of them to try and achieve? What if we understood that, as a human being, an Igbo may be prone to greed but that as an Igbo he is always working hard? What if we admitted that, in the pursuit of achievements, one can easily be lured into vanities such as the love of money or greed or arrogance? What if we simply admitted the Federal Government’s infamous economic policies designed to rob the Igbo after the war—what if we admitted that, if we ourselves faced this, we would give our all to reclaim what belonged to us? What if, rather than emphasizing the single story of their perceived extreme ethnocentrism, we saw the Yoruba in their fullness as a people who love and look out for each other to extents that other ethnicities do not? What if we asked ourselves why it is they, out of other ethnic groups, who have always had recognised national leaders? What if, rather than carrying the single story of Akwa-Ibom people as fit for servitude and too demanding of sex, we understood that Akwa-Ibom people are, in fact, people who have mastered—who are blessed with—the art of handling strangers? What if we saw them as an efficient people whose men could be trusted to keep homes intact? A historian has argued that Akwa-Ibom women are talented in understanding men, seeing to their comforts and keeping relationships, and that satisfying sex is merely one aspect of the many rarities their women offer. This, undoubtedly, is the full truth. And here is a related truth: all adult women of all ethnicities worldwide want to have stable homes and relationships and satisfying sex. Why have we turned it into something degrading that a group of people have perfected what the rest of us dream of?

What if, rather than stressing that Warri people are thieves and cheats, we understood that the city of Warri, like every other metropolis on earth—Lagos, New York City, London, Tokyo, Port-Harcourt—naturally attracts criminals in the same way that it attracts honest people, that anywhere there is money, there must be covert or overt crime? What if, rather than insisting that Northern ethnicities are easily manipulated, we understood the intersection of the religious and the cultural in their lives, how—for their Muslims—being a true Muslim demands that one be obedient to their religious-cum-political leaders? What if, rather than randomly teach that they are backward, we taught instead that their “backwardness” is relative to only Western education, that, for centuries, Northern cities like Kano and Zaria were thriving centres of Islamic and Arabic learning? What if, rather than looking down on the Fulani as cattle-rearers, we understood that we all eat beef and that we all, in fact, need people to rear cattle which offers us that beef we so intensely desire? What if, rather than taunt the Tiv as yam-planters, we understood that we all eat yam and that we should in fact be grateful that, in this era of white-collar jobs and petro-money, there are people who have continued in agriculture, which, sooner or later, Nigeria must go back to if we must survive?

The corps member who has been posted to Tivland or Yorubaland or Hausaland or Akwa-Ibom or Igboland or Warri would—must—if open-minded, realise these. By eschewing prejudices, by flattening ethnic stereotypes into what they are—half-truths and blatant lies—the corps member would have contributed decisively to higher ideals of national achievement and the promotion of national unity, the two loudest objectives of the NYSC. With hundreds of thousands of corps members aspiring this high, the Nigeria of the future would have been created. But for now, the NYSC must include this particular mission in its Orientation lectures: serving and fresh corps members must understand that it is not about interacting with the locals, it is about doing so with the right frame of mind, the right tinge of vision.