05/30/2024
Nigeria’s Clueless Presidency and National Assembly: A Disgrace to History
The term "tribe" has been entrenched in Western discourse for centuries, particularly within scholarly and journalistic realms. Initially, it was utilized as a convenient tool to simplify and categorize the complex social structures found in non-Western societies across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the American plains. However, it's crucial to recognize that the usage of this term has been intertwined with historical contexts, particularly during the 19th century when evolutionary and racist theories were on the rise.
At its core, the concept of a tribe is often associated with a group of people sharing common ancestry, culture, language, and territory, but it's frequently used in a reductive manner. Western scholars and journalists have frequently employed it to depict non-Western societies as inherently primitive or less evolved compared to Western civilizations. This characterization serves to perpetuate notions of superiority and inferiority based on racial or cultural differences.
Moreover, the term "tribe" has been laden with colonial connotations, as it was commonly utilized by colonial powers to classify and govern indigenous populations in their territories. By labeling these communities as tribes, colonial administrations could justify their control and exploitation under the guise of managing 'simpler' or 'less advanced' societies.
However, it's essential to recognize the fallacy in such categorizations. Non-Western societies are diverse and multifaceted, with intricate social, political, and economic structures that defy simplistic classification. By reducing these societies to the label of "tribe," Western observers overlook the complexities and richness of their cultures, histories, and social systems.
Early anthropologists such as Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward Burnett Tylor classified human societies into evolutionary stages, with 'tribes' representing an intermediary phase between 'savage' and 'civilized' societies. This classification was part of an effort to understand human progress through a linear, evolutionary framework. As anthropology evolved, so did the critique of the term 'tribe.' Contemporary anthropologists highlight several key issues. First, the term 'tribe' is seen as overly simplistic, failing to capture the complexity and diversity of human societies. It often groups together nomadic pastoralists, settled agriculturalists, and complex chiefdoms, leading to misrepresentation. Second, 'tribe' is deeply intertwined with colonialism. It was used by colonial powers to impose arbitrary classifications and boundaries on indigenous populations, often disrupting existing social structures. This legacy renders the term problematic, as it carries connotations of domination and control. Lastly, the use of 'tribe' perpetuates stereotypes of primitiveness and backwardness, suggesting that 'tribal' societies are static, isolated, and less developed compared to 'modern' societies. This misrepresentation undermines the agency and contributions of these groups to the broader human story.
In response to these critiques, anthropologists have increasingly abandoned the term 'tribe,' opting for more precise and respectful terminology such as 'ethnic group,' which emphasizes shared cultural, linguistic, and historical traits without the hierarchical connotations. Other terms like 'community' and 'society' offer flexible descriptions without implying a particular stage of development.
On May 29, 2024, President Bola Tinubu of Nigeria signed into law a bill that changed the national anthem back to the old anthem, a colonial creation adopted at the eve of the nation's independence in 1959. This anthem, composed by a British colonial officer, reflected the Eurocentric views of the time and described Nigeria’s different ethnic groups as 'tribes.' The historical baggage and colonial origin of the term 'tribe' seem to have been overlooked by Nigeria's National Assembly and the Presidency. Reverting to a colonial description that likened Nigerians to a group of apes, chimpanzees, and baboons validates the colonial era European classifications and control mechanisms that early Africanist scholars and intellectuals fought to reject.
There has been no satisfactory explanation or justification for Nigeria's reversion to an anthem that demeans its people. Over sixty years after independence, Nigeria's embrace of colonial classifications suggests a profound lack of historical awareness among its leaders. This action by the National Assembly and the Presidency, executed with unprecedented speed, contrasts sharply with the slow responses typically observed for issues like poverty alleviation, road construction, or educational development. By labeling diverse ethnic groups as 'tribes,' the government obscures significant socio-economic and cultural differences, simplifying complex social realities. The classification of people into 'tribes' was a colonial strategy of domination and control, involving arbitrary boundaries and identities that did not exist prior to colonial rule. Early Africanist scholars and intellectuals rejected these constructs and supported efforts to decolonize knowledge and representation.
If President Tinubu and the National Assembly are genuinely interested in unifying Nigerians, they might consider tangible actions such as cutting their salaries and pensions, demonstrating their commitment to the state. The readoption of Nigeria's old national anthem is a disgrace to the nation's history, signaling regression rather than progress. It underscores a troubling lack of awareness among the nation's leaders regarding the historical pathways to greatness and reflects a deeper need for informed and conscious governance.
