Saturday, June 10, 2017

Igboness and the Posture of E Me Sị




by

Obododịmma ọha

Very long ago, Simon Ottenberg, an anthropologist, took interest in the nature of the Igbo person, and, in an article titled “Ibo Receptivity to change” which he first presented at the Northwest Anthropological Conference, Eugene, Oregon, held from May 11 to 12, 1956, and later published as a chapter in Continuity and Change in African Cultures edited by William R. Bascom and Melville J. Herskovits (1959), he wrote as follows:

The Ibo (sic) are probably most receptive to culture change, and most willing to accept Western ways, of any large group in Nigeria. Hundreds of thousands of them have migrated to other parts of the country as a result of culture contact following the British conquest of their country between 1800 and 1915. The majority of them have moved to urban centers such as Zaria and Kano in northern Nigeria, Calabar in the southeast, and Lagos in the southwest. Cities, which were nonexistent in the Ibo area previous to European contact, in the last fifty years have developed rapidly around transportation, trade, and administrative headquarters. Many Ibo have migrated to these centers, such as Aba, Port Harcourt, Umuahia, Onitsha, and Enugu. Despite their rural background, the Ibo find urban life stimulating and rewarding. Urban Ibo sometimes speak of their rural counterpart as “bush people,” or “primitives,” in a manner reminiscent of that of some British in Nigeria in the early part of the present century. (1959: 130 – 131)

It is interesting that at the time Ottenberg was doing his research on Igbo receptivity to change, Chinua Achebe was also concerned about changes in both Igbo behaviour and community spirit in the face of Western colonization and cultural influence. Achebe, whose novel Things Fall Apart appeared in 1959, would speak through one of his fictional characters about how Western influence has put a knife in what holds the Igbo community together (and by extension, what ties the Igbo person to his or her sense of self-worth and to his or her culture) and “we have fallen apart.” Ottenberg in his article attributes Igbo receptivity to change to Igbo individualism: “The Ibo are a highly individualistic people. While a man is dependent on his family, lineage, and residential grouping for support and backing, strong emphasis is placed on his ability to make his own way in the world” (1959: 136). The Igbo elder in the colonial period, just like Chinua Achebe’s Ezeulu in Arrow of God, saw that change was inevitable, not just because of the Igbo orientation to making one’s way in life on one’s own, but because the life of the colonized had indeed become like mmanwu performance – no one sensible would want to watch it from only one spot. Thus, it was only appropriate to ask the young ones who would live and act in the unknown future to go and interact with the oyibo people, to worship the gods of the oyibo and learn the magic of the oyibo, with a clear mandate of being the “eyes” and “ears” of their Igbo ancestors and Igbo communities.

Whether the Igbo who have had close interaction with both the oyibo and other groups in Nigeria know or see themselves as cultural ambassadors is another issue altogether. Would their tendency to ask “O nwere onye na-achara m moto?”(Is anyone navigating the way in the traffic for me?), which is a clear sign of their individualistic orientation, allow them to give some serious thought to their being the eyes and ears of their people in a world where no one can still pretend that group identity does not matter? As the Igbo locate themselves here and there in the space of the ethnic or racial other in Nigeria and elsewhere, what is their attitude to their Igboness (or being Igbo), to those with whom they share this identity, and to Igbo ethnic rights? It is my intention to stimulate debate around these important questions. In what follows, I reflect on an aspect of Igbo attitude to Igboness, a negative self-rejection, denial, and self-hate, which could be termed “E Me Sị” (simply translated as, “For the other not to say X” or “For me not to be poorly rated by the other); to define and treat themselves according to the assumptions and prejudices of the other. I must quickly add that “E Me Sị” is not entirely a bad orientation to life. We live and act in the presence of the others and must necessarily present ourselves as acceptable human beings, “acceptable” in this case referring to proper conduct as expected of rational humans. Thus, even though I may have the desire to make love to another woman who is not my wife, I do not have to climb the roof top and tell my neighbours that I want to make love to so-so-and-so woman. I do not even have to announce that I want to make love to my wife. It is taken for granted that I do my sexual duty as her husband! I do not have to announce that, e me sị na isi adịghị m mma. To some extent, we have to pretend in order in order to be approved of in culture and society. Isn’t that what underlies most of the human delineation of proper conduct, refinement, and etiquette in the social drama of our lives? Yet, when our attitude to life, to people, and even ourselves is entirely shaped by pretence and indeed the fear that others might not give their approval, we could be said to live false lives. It is in this zone where “E Me Sị” becomes a kind of phobia that I explore Igbo attitude to Igboness.

With the clarification about how I use the term “E Me Sị” in this talk thus clarified, let me return to the issue of Igbo readiness to embrace change and to take their adaptability into the space of the other. The late Igbo highlife musician, Oliver de Coque, expressed a great liking for his Igboness in one of his songs, “Igbo na-edozi obodo,” asserting that the Igbo build and repair community, even communities in which they are strangers, and proclaimed, “M bịakwa ụwa ọzọ, a ga m abụ onye Igbo” (If I come to this world again, I would still want to be Igbo). More than being mere expression of ethnocentrism or ethnic chauvinism, Oliver de coque’s proclamation of his preference for Igboness raises a whole question about the nature of Igboness, the maintenance and use of Igboness in a plural postcolonial environment and in a changing world. These are large and controversial issues which some Igbo thinkers have dwelt upon and are still debating. Chinua Achebe’s The Trouble with Nigeria and J. Obi Oguejiofor’s The Influence of Igbo Traditional Religion on the Socio-Political Character of the Igbo, for instance, discuss some of the common stereotypes of Igboness such as the Igbo being boisterous, stubborn, clannish, arrogant, and domineering. These are negative stereotypes that other Nigerian groups have about the Igbo. But there are also positive stereotypes that the Igbo have about themselves. They believe and assert, for instance, that they are wise (even wiser than some other Nigerian groups), resourceful, industrious, resilient, and dependable. They also believe, as noted by Oguejiofor, that they are receptive to change, democratic, and community-conscious. As an Igbo person myself, I should like these positive stereotypes, at least as means of encouraging them or working towards achieving them myself, if I find that I really do not possess them. My worry rather is that stereotypes that the Igbo construct about themselves and feel that they possess them innately may become sources of failure for their Igboness. In other words, the Igbo view of their excellence may have suffered defeat in the lives of the Igbo themselves particularly in their attempt at trying to escape from the negative stereotypes other groups have about them, as well as their pursuit of attributes they think would present them to other groups as individuals that could be approved of. I refer to this tendency to escape from an endangered Igbo image as E Me Sị, roughly translated as “So that X may not complain.”

E me sị features in the lives of the Igbo in contemporary Nigeria in the following ways:
• Pretending not to speak Igbo, or not being fluent in Igbo
• Being reluctant or even unwilling to explore and utilize indigenous Igbo ideas in contemporary academic or public discourses (One must acknowledge the efforts of some Igbo Catholic priests and reverend brothers who have been exploring Igbo ideas as part of their vocation on African spirituality).
• Being ashamed or afraid to be identified as Igbo outside the Igbo cultural environment, for instance through mode of dressing.
• Not wanting to associate with other Igbo.
• Being unwilling to hire other Igbo or to allow other Igbo be part of an activity one is involved in, especially as one of the key figures; in short, not wanting to bring another Igbo in.
• Keeping silent when issues concerning the Igbo are being discussed by non-Igbo persons.
• Teaming up with persons from other Igbo groups to humiliate or destroy another Igbo.
• (Directly or indirectly) endorsing the narration of the Igbo cultural world as an uninhabitable world.
• Championing or supporting the decivilization of indigenous Igbo ways of life and Igbo world-view.
• Accepting the status of “the stranger from nowhere” and submitting to cultural assimilation.

The Igbo desire to rewrite the narrative of iniquity which other Nigerian groups have created about them has led them to begin to distance themselves from their Igboness. They want to be accepted by other ethnic groups, in the belief that when they deny their Igboness and/or disappear in the cultural world of the other, then their problems are over. Unfortunately, other groups can always create new negative stereotypes of the Igbo, which would re-member the “disappearing Igbo” in their midst. Denial of Igboness is simply not enough in the conflictive context of Nigerian ethnic politics.

It is interesting too that some of the stereotypes the Igbo consider positive turn out to be means through which E Me Si is vigorously enacted.

It is as if the Igbo have to be sorry that they are Igbo and repent of their Igboness. They seem to want to show others how sorry they are for being Igbo, and how willing they are to give up their culture, language, and other expressions of their Igbo identity. These days, when one attends a traditional marriage ceremony in Ibadan, Abeokuta, or Oshogbo, with the Igbo as bride and the groom as Yoruba, one does not find any Igbo tradition being observed neither does one hear the events directors addressing the audience in English, not to talk about Igbo language. No, the audience is addressed in Yoruba, sometimes with a little compensation and humorous “Igbo kwenụ”! One would have thought that it is the tradition of the Igbo family whose daughter is being given away in marriage that should have been followed. Listen to the songs too: they are all Yoruba! The anchors of the ceremony do not render any apology to guests for their use of Yoruba or non-use of English (even though many understand English). In one so-called traditional marriage of one of my kinsmen’s daughters in Ibadan, the announcer had the shameless temerity to tell the audience that the reason for the use of Yoruba was that if Igbo was being used, no one in the audience would understand a word of what was being said. And many nodded their consent! He didn’t even consider the fact that the man who was giving away his daughter was an Igbo person and that some of his kinsfolk were present. And come to think of it: did everyone present understand what was being said in Yoruba? As one of those who could not comprehend what was being said in Yoruba and who desired hopelessly for an English translation, I felt terribly offended and had to take my leave. That was not until I had walked up to my kinsman giving his daughter in marriage and had told him, “I reela obi gi!” (You have sold your obi). I wonder how my Yoruba brothers and sisters would have taken it if in the traditional marriage of their daughter, Igbo language and customs had been imposed, with or without any apology. Definitely, no marriage would have taken place!

The same story about selling one’s obi has been re-enacted at reception ceremonies in Christian weddings with Igbo men as grooms and Yoruba as wives. As usual, the Igbo language suffers. And the Igbo hosts accept it, E Me Si! The Igbo are those who have to search for and maintain peace, otherwise they would be reminded about the negative stereotypes they have been working hard to escape from. Add the Christian doctrine of submission to the will of God to it and the picture is complete.

Consider even what the Igbo wear as their “traditional” attires to those traditional marriage ceremonies. It is either babariga or agbada. They are afraid to dress like the Igbo, when their Nigerian neighbours like the Yoruba, the Urhobo, the Bini, etc would dress proudly in their own traditional attires and try as much as possible to observe their traditional marriage customs. Indeed, the efforts made by these Nigerian groups to preserve their cultures are highly admirable. They don’t have to help the Igbo to preserve or respect Igbo culture. As far as culture wars in multicultural environment are concerned, if the other does not complain about an infringement on their own cultural rights, why blame the other that wants to make own culture visible, even dominant? The fault certainly is that of the Igbo who want to show the world that they are so very wise and adaptable to change that they can afford to destroy everything Igbo.

Indeed, “Igbo na-edozi obodo ndi ọzọ” as Oliver de Coque sang! They have accepted that their villages are terrible environments for human survival and that they owe their local communities neither some re-education nor initiatives in physical development. Their hosts in other Nigerian cities encourage them to buy parcels of land and build mansions where they could retire to and live in peace. Some even go into the remotest parts of the towns (indeed villages) where they live in other parts of Nigeria to build mansions, the very mansions that they think their own villages in Igboland do not deserve. They have to build other places in Nigeria so that no one would accuse them of being interested only in Igboland, or accuse them of trying to resuscitate the Republic of Biafra. Why should they rebuild and reinvigorate an environment of defeat? Isn’t that part of the desire to deny their Nigerianness? To reassure other Nigerians that they have repented as secessionists, they have to turn their backs on their local Igbo communities and values and try to show how terribly detribalized they are.
There is nothing wrong with an odozi obodo ideology, but there is everything wrong with an ideology that promotes thatching other people’s huts while the roof of one’s own hut is leaking like a sieve! Let the Igbo build anywhere they like, but let it not be the same narrative of E Me Sị through which they try to escape from themselves.

E Me Sị annoyingly features in the life of the Igbo as a system of self-hate, as a form of tribalism turned against self. The Igbo practitioner of E Me Sị in a position of authority would not want to hire another Igbo person because that amounts to reproducing the undesirable self. We should not have those like unto us, lest the other should notice and complain! One undesirable Igbo is more than enough! And who should ensure that this doctrine is observed? Certainly the E Me Sị Igbo, who is truly Igbo in spite of self.
There is no question of the E Me Si practitioner intervening to save an Igbo person that is being persecuted. It is rather better to become an instrument of such ethnic cleansing. Gbuo onye Igbo ibe gị, e me sị!

Let us attempt to summarize the fears that underlie the posture of E Me Sị:
E me sị na onye Igbo ibe m ka m ka hụ n’anya.
(So that it would not be said that I have greater love for my fellow Igbo)
E me sị na m bụ onye Igbo.
(So that I would not be identified as an Igbo person)
E me sị na onye Igbo m bụ na-atọ m obi ụtọ.
(So that it would not be said that I am happy for being Igbo)
E me sị na onye Igbo m bụ na-emebi m isi.
(So that it would not be said that I am intoxicated with being Igbo)
E me sị na m chọrọ ka ndi Igbo nọchisie n’ọkwa niile.
(So that it would not be said that I want Igbo persons to occupy all positions)
E me sị na m ….
(So that it would not be said that I....)

The posture of E Me Sị seeks the approval of the non-Igbo and the Igbo hater and promotes an anti-Igbo ideology:
Deny your Igboness in order to be welcome to the non-Igbo group.
Deny your Igboness in order to be the acceptable Igbo person.
Work against the interest of the other Igbo person in order to be approved of as a detribalized and progressive Igbo.
Don’t associate with other Igbo people so that you would have friends among those who complain about the Igbo or those that ridicule Igboness.

The posture of E Me Si that seems to have taken hold of the Igbo mind in recent times is a sign that Igbo identity, more than ever before, is greatly endangered. When a group that is highly disliked turns round to display its own discomforts about itself, it is on its way out. One does not need to be a prophet to see clearly that if the Igbo themselves buy into the prejudice that Igboness means everything undesirable, they themselves have become the instruments of their own erasure as a group. Don’t we already have a growing population of Igbo people who cannot speak Igbo? Don’t we already have a large population of Igbo people who cannot remember Igbo cultural practices? Don’t we have a staggering number of Igbo people who tell you that what you call Igbo culture is a set of backward-looking, pagan and devilish ways which took their ancestors to hellfire? The Igbo themselves will keep Igboness and remain usu the bat which is neither a bird of the air nor the beast that walks the earth.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Onwu Egbu Akuko (Death Does not Kill the Story)

A goodwill Message

Sent to

The Department of English, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Purulia,

Hosting


A One-Day Seminar on "Discourses and Representations: Chinua Achebe and the Aftermath,"

on 23rd April, 2014.



*****
I am greatly pleased to know that you are holding a special seminar in India in honour of the late African novelist, Chinua Achebe. I wish I had the opportunity of being physically present at your seminar, to listen to the presentations and draw inspiration from the insights. I would, if I were in attendance, have tried to entertain you with some Igbo folktales and joke lore – the type that Achebe loved so much and used very masterfully in his writings and public presentations. Not just out of fascination with the narrative practices of the late writer, but, as a matter of fact, because I, too, happen to be an Igbo person and someone with a strong attachment to indigenous Igbo performance traditions.

Achebe’s town, Ogidi, is not very far from Uli, my hometown, and both towns are in Anambra State, Nigeria. Uli, which some of you must have read about, featured as an important town in Biafra during the Nigeria-Biafra war that lasted from 1967 to 1970. Thus it inevitably featured in Chinua Achebe’s lifewriting, There Was a Country. But that is not the only place you would encounter Uli in Achebe’s writings: it is also mentioned in his novel, Things Fall Apart, where the novelist narrates the congregation of egwugwu, masked spirits, from various towns, following the alu (abomination) committed by the Christian convert, Enoch. The alu was so terrible that the Mother of Spirits – the night spirit—walked the length and breadth of the land lamenting for her “murdered” son. The spirit wailed in a way never heard by humans before. One of the terrible egwugwu that arrived to confront the Christian iconoclasts was Ekwensu, and Achebe said it came from Uli. When I read about this in my high school days, I went to my hometown and inquired from the elders whether there was a masked spirit in Uli called “Ekwensu.” They confirmed that there was indeed such a masked spirit in the past and that it was the most terrible that ever existed but was no longer featured in their cultural performances. Hmmmm. Maybe the Enoch syndrome in postcolonial Igbo life had caused Ekwensu to really become fiction!

Achebe borrowed immensely from Igbo life and culture in writing his stories, but his craft and commitment will remain exceptionally engaging. As an Igbo person, I am beginning to see greater meaning and significance in Achebe’s stories in contemporary postcolonial Igbo world. I could see Chinua Achebe’s fictional characters taking human form in recent Igbo experiences! No, do not think about Okonkwo; his case is too obvious. Think about Nwoye (whose apparent weakness as a boy makes Okonkwo very sad) and Oduche (who is sent to become Ezeulu’s “eyes” and “ears” in a present-future overrun by Western modernity and Christianity). I tell you, dear friends, that, if Achebe were still alive, he might have considered seriously a continuation of his story, writing about the descendants of Oduche and how they have moved from their father’s imprisoning of the sacred python in a box to using the sacred snake for a weekend barbecue! And who knows whether he would have written about how the new masked spirits of the Nigerian world, armed with AK-47s and general purpose machine guns, abduct village heads and elders and ask relatives of the abductees to buy back their half-dead bodies with millions of Naira!

I am inclined to think that Achebe was inviting us to see Africa’s past, present, and future through his stories. There may not be one-to-one correspondence between the stories and real life, but one realises that there is clear, intimate conversation going on between the two. What would a society that has fallen apart give birth to, especially when its citizens have not learned where the rain started beating them?
Chinua Achebe lives in his stories. Those stories will never die. Onwu egbu akuko – death does not (and cannot) kill the story.

In celebrating Achebe in faraway India, you are indeed helping to confirm the philosophical truth in onwu egbu akuko. Incidentally, India has got the enviable reputation of being a society that constantly beckons on the rest of the world to return to contemplation and creative thinking. In celebrating Achebe, you are inviting the world to see greater meaning in his stories and to peep into Africa’s future.
I send my warmest felicitations to Professor Aparajita Hazra and her team of scholars and students for holding this important seminar.
Thank you.

Obododimma Oha
Professor of Cultural Semiotics & Stylistics
University of Ibadan, Nigeria.




Photographs of the event (Courtesy of Prof. Aparajita Hazra, Chief Organiser of the seminar)

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Igbo, Ndiigbo, and Ndi Gboo: Lost Identities and Speculative Loss

By


Obododimma Oha.




Chris Aniedobe, an analyst, in his exposition at World Igbo Forum on 28 February 2017, on the issue of the naming and re-naming of the Igbo, made the startling claim that Igbo people originally identified themselves as Gboo people or Ndi Gboo (which means “Ancient people) but that this name was distorted by the White explorers who found it difficult to articulate the Igbo consonant, “gb” and so articulated the name as “Ibo.” This corruption of the name has been consolidated by Igbo people by simply referring to themselves as “Igbo” or “Ndi Igbo,” instead of “Ndi Gboo.” Indeed, the Europeans who encountered the Igbo simplified the name “Igbo” to “Ibo.” But it is an interesting argument to say that “Ibo” and “Igbo” are both corruptions of “Gboo,” or that Igbo people are “Gboo” people, that the current reference, “Ndiigbo” or “Ndi Igbo” should actually be “Ndi Gboo.” This argument is interesting especially given all the speculations about Igbo Jewish origin and the speculation that “Igbo” was a reconstruction of “Hebrew” (in Olaudah Equiano’s narrative it is rendered as “Heebo.”) Aniedobe’s new perspective of course aligns with the established archaeological fact that humanity and human civilization started in Africa, and from which there was dispersal to other parts of the globe. It has long been established by archaeology that early humans lived first in Africa, precisely the country called Kenya today, and so we could agree that Ndi Gboo lived in Africa. But Aniedobe’s perspective is also partly faulty in representing “Igbo” and “Ibo” as corruptions of “Gboo.” My commitment in this short essay is to show that his perspective is faulty, both lexically and semiotically.

The term “Gboo” in Igbo is a temporal deixis referring to “early” or “ancient” times. Ndi Gboo refers to Early or Ancient People. It could be seen as referring to people of Early Civilization, the ancestors of the people of the present. Ndi Gboo, therefore, applies to Early People, at the universal level, not just a specific ethnic group or race. When it features in Igbo discourse, especially in comparing or contrasting our ways with those who lived in early times, it is not in reference to any ethnic or linguistic identity. Aniedobe’s identification of the Igbo as Ndi Gboo would mean that the Igbo would be located at the base of the tree or phylum from which all other groups have emerged. That is incorrect, for we know that both Igbo and other groups have emerged from a proto-parent.

Gboo has nothing to do phonologically with Igbo. Aniedobe was wrong in thinking that the “gbo” in “Igbo” is a shortening of the diphthong in “Gboo.” He asserts that: “A person from Ndigboo is onye Gboo or a Gboo person … meaning exactly what it says” and that “We are Ndigboo … ancient people … and not Ndigbo …weed smokers or forest people.” Now, that is funny. Aniedobe should have known that Ndiigbo (not “Ndigbo”) cannot mean “weed people” unless the tone on the last syllable changes from Low to High. Igbo is a tone language and tones are used in differentiating meanings of pairs that are graphetically similar. Thus we have the following differences:
1. Ndi Igbo [High tone on the last syllable](Indian Hemp smokers or Indian Hemp people)
2. Ndi Igbo [Low tone on last syllable] (Igbo people)
3. Ndi gboo [High tone on last syllable and diphthong) (Early People)
Aniedobe obviously overlooked this tonal dimension and wrongly confused the second with the third. An argument one had watched out to see him make (which, thank goodness, he did not make) is that there has been a tonal shift which involved a collapsing of High and Low!

Now, that leaves us with the question (which I suspect he would like to ask): What, then, is the meaning of “Igbo” (the name in the second example)? Fine, asking for the meaning of the name is to return us to the difficult issue of the origin of the Igbo. That origin is lost in the recesses of history, reason being that the Igbo, like many African groups, operated on oral traditions. Many things were lost because they were not written down, not even early Nsibisi could document this. Or, even if it did, the documentation is still lost in the sands of time.

Further, language changes over time. The present Igbo people do not have access to the chronolect we could call Early Igbo, the same way it is possible to access Old English and meanings of its words and expressions.

Ndi Gboo is clearly a temporal person deixis differentiating the Early Igbo people from the present Igbo. It does not mean the name for the Igbo people but the temporal description or location of the civilization. Ndi Gboo were Ndi Igbo of old; Ndi Igbo Mgbe Gboo.
From a personal interaction with elderly Igbo people who died decades ago, I gathered that Ndi Gboo are also called “Ndị Mbụ na Ndi Egede.” A brand of Ndi Gboo are called “Nde (Ndi) Nduhie” (People who misled or who followed the wrong ways). Nde nduhie are normally presentedin Igbo discourse as people who (from our current worldview) did foolish things, given that they lacked proper (scientific) knowledge of the world. Such alternative reference is sometimes used in Igbo discourse in suggesting that Early people did not have enlightenment or operated ignorantly in many ways, this lack of enlightenment contributing to their ruin. An example of their wrong ways is always cited and laughed at when Nde Nduhie is mentioned in Igbo legends.

Igbo search into their distant history needs to be cautious so as not to impose wrong interpretations. There may appear to be some advantage or pride being coveted in the construction of self as ancient or as the ancient civilization, placing the ethnic self above others. Whereas Igbo people belong to the indigenous (in fact, most African groups do), it is not an entirely positive thing when the West lauds a group as ancient, or presents the archaeological narrative that Africans are at the lower point or origin of human civilization, subtly telling us that Black Africans have remained in that state of ancientness, not making much progress in civilisation. They would encourage us to celebrate our ancientness, in line with that construction of the Gboo identity for Ndi Igbo by Aniedobe. Who celebrates ancientness? Who celebrates backwardness, even in naming? It is the unpleasant aspect of the archaeological proof we present when Ndi Igbo are constructed as part of the misled and misleading Ndi Gboo. Ndi Igbo like all human race have moved away from that Mgbe Gboo of human history. We can only talk of Ndi Gboo as comprising many groups in distant time, not just the Igbo. It was also not Igbo people’s specific name at any given time.

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

A Folkloric Navigation around the Weaverbird’s Skilfulness in Nest-making

By

Obododimma Oha

Folklore continues to challenge humanity with interesting connexions and interpretations of experience. Indeed, it constantly invites us to look at life and its situations more closely to see how one aspect could be an interesting paradigm for the other. Is it what the folksongs convey in simple but profound philosophical statements or what the proverbs seem to legislate? Is it even in the silent speech of the wall mural in the shrine or the full concentration of the dibia afa the diviner while reading the signs of the seeds of insight on the divination tray? And what about new media folklore, both the tech-mediated and that which develops from the interaction among virtual lives? These open up interesting trajectories, but I am particularly interested in the present essay about how traditional Igbo folkstory offers insight on skill acquisition values in the context of training, addressing the need for patience, humility, concentration, and foresight -- this time from the mythical angle on how two birds attended a training programme on nest-making and why one produces a nest that shows amazing skilfulness, while the other produces something that is terribly disappointing.

I initially meant to write a blog article featuring only a folkstory my late father once told me about how Ahịa the weaverbird and ọkịrị the talkative bird went to Udude the spider to learn the art of weaving. I principally intended to explore the use of folkloric forms in teaching the ethics of skill acquisition in postcolonial Africa. Other things, unfortunately, took away my attention, after the initial brainstorming. But on Sunday 3rd July, 2016, my interest in Facebook folklore (I like that concept!) reconnected me with the desire to write about the story of Ahịa and ọkịrị in a more relaxed, less academic style, offering a suitable response to the discourse initiated by the Facebook update shared by Egbe Henry (as matter of fact, the photograph has been shared by thousands of people on Facebook, the last after Egbe's being a sharing by Chukwuemekalum Francis Nwosuh, which contained Egbe's assertion). The interesting update featured a photograph of my friend, Ahịa, saying “MEET THE ARCHITECT THAT DID NOT ATTEND ANY SCHOOL.” Obviously, as typical of Facebook updates, Egbe’s post would like the Facebook public, especially his friends, to reflect on Ahịa’s nest-making skills, appreciate the amazing creativity, and consider the nest-making in relation to human schooling as a means of gaining knowledge and skills to do things. For one thing, the post has timeliness as public discourse, considering the fact that there is a current global concern about the application of knowledge gained at school in accomplishing tasks in the workplace. In Nigeria, particularly, there is great worry about school graduates not possessing the skills needed for assignments in the workplace. Egbe’s statement anchoring and complementing the photograph of the bird as visual communication immediately brought back what I had heard from my father about Ahịa my friend, and fired my interest about the bird’s training and folk certification! I am, indeed, trying to issue a certificate to Ahia on behalf of Igbo folklore that collected it from Udude and has been holding it in trust!

It is important at this outset to point out that I am not necessarily trying to prove Egbe Henry wrong in respect of the update on Facebook; in fact, I owe him a debt of gratitude for re-igniting my interest on the need for the discovery and activation of mental facilities while learning something. Indeed, Egbe, by that post, emerges as a very contemplative person that looks at things and considers their ramifications and how they connect to other things; someone particularly interested in the idea that we as individuals possess a number of mental resources which we can utilise to make our existence worthwhile. Chineke the Creator has endowed each person with enormous mental ability which some people in this world are utilising positively while some others either refuse to discover and use them or discover them and use them for wrong ends. It brings up the issue of the Parable of Talents told by Jesus the Christ in his teachings. Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 25:14-30:

... it will be like a going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. To one he gave five bags, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. So also, the one with two bags gained two more. But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received five bags brought the other five. “Master,” he said, “you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.”
His master replied, “Well done good and faithfull servant. You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness.”
...
Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. “Master,” he said, “I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.”
His master replied, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scatterd seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
“So take the back of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (New International Version)

As it is with individuals, so it is with communities of people: each has resources, especially the mental, which could be used in creating miracles of progress. It is important to note that, even though the resources may not be the same in every case or equal in distribution among these entities (the servants received different amounts of gold), this is not a discriminatory practice, not an attempt to disadvantage or cheat an entity. That narrative says: “each according to his ability”! The money was not given to them to spend on their pleasures, to squander! It was given to them to grow the wealth! It was indeed a test of the readiness to grow resources given them! Anyone that is unwise in managing the little, cannot be wise in managing the much. It is true that meagre resources could hinder projects, but the attitude to the resources matters. Should the entity not begin by designing projects that could be executed with the available resources?

So, Egbe Henry was (indirectly) right. What we need in accomplishing great things could come from what we hardly consider. It is important for us to read the Ahịa narrative beyond what Egbe’s statement suggests. If anything, as I try to show, Egbe’s statement challenges us to find out if Ahịa indeed had some training and what kind of training that was. Of course, a close observation of the life of Ahịa shows that the bird, once it hatches from the egg, begins to learn many things – from the communication codes through feeding to the flying lessons. (Ah, the flying lessons! I used to enjoy watching the baby weaverbird fly and fall, encouraged by the mother Ahịa. And within few days they had become experts avaitors!) From the flying lessons to navigation and mastering of the trees and other creatures’ ways, and to nest making. Essentially, like all animals, it learns by observing (others of its kind), especially the mother bird. It is from the mother that it learns to encode and decode signals, feed, fly, etc. Yes, there are also the innate knowledge and physiological adaptations that facilitate the nest making.

Igbo folklore supplies the following myth (which, of course, indirectly asks us to learn from the fictional weaverbird). Ahịa the weaverbird once went with its friend, ọkịrị the talkative bird, to Udude the Master creative artist, to learn the art of weaving. Ahịa paid full attention as Udude explained in great detail the priniciples and techniques of weaving. ọkịrị, on the other hand, demonstrated the most annoying form of attention disorder; it was restless and impatient. Midway into the training programme, it announced that it had grasped the art fully and could figure out how the rest of the teaching would go. Ignoring all entreaties to stay on (even from Udude), it flew off to celebrate noisily its mastery of the art of weaving, while Ahịa stayed on, gaining from udude the full system of knowledge on design and fortification. When ahịa had learnt the art satisfactorily, Udude the Master certified it ready, and gave it leave to go and weave wisdoms in order to survive in a world of terrors. And so Ahịa left, rejoicing and richer in the head.

The joy of a training is in the practical display of skills. No training is worthwhile if the so-called trained person cannot practicalise the knowledge. So, Ahịa set to work and produced a wonderful architectural form that protected it and its young ones in rainy and hot weathers. The beautiful nest also provided adequate security in its location in the trees. Indeed, the technology of Ahịa’s making of its home became a source of admiration to other flying birds. Even the hunter and the farmer saw it and were greatly inspired on how to make their thatch houses better. (Humans learn from animals all the times!). Ahịa simply became a mode in building technology.


Ahịa the Master Nest Maker (Photo credit: Egbe Henry, Facebook Update)
Now, what about ọkịrị? When it flew off from the learning centre bragging, it did not even bother to start building, to see if what it boasted that it knew was what it actually knew. It said that it was all in its head and would be dsiplayed when necessary. And soon it became necessary when the rains came with the merciless windstorm. ọkịrị hastilty got some twigs and sticks and tried to build a nest. It dawned on the bird that it had forgotten even the little it knew, which it had magnified! So, it arranged the twigs and sticks and squatted on it. The windstorm came shortly and scattered both twigs and the squatters. ọkịrị just narraowly missed being killed! It looked with envy as Ahịa’s home withstood the storm. The Ahịa family did not even get wet or catch cold. Then, after the rain it went to Ahịa to beg to be given a make-up tutorial, but Ahịa said it was too busy with things, that it should go back to Udude and relearn the art. But ọkịrị did have the courage to go and beg Udude, after all its annoying bragging and premature exit from training.

The story ends by saying that till date, ọkịrị follows the Ahịa community around, trying to convince them to teach it the art of nest making. So, from the angle of Igbo mythology (indeed, the story is a myth, because it tries to explain why something is as it is – why ọkịrị follows the Ahịa community around), Ahia had sound architectural education (on nest making), which, as expected, it has continued to pass on to other Ahịa through peer education. They do not have to return to Udude; they are busy teaching other Ahịa!

There is something about the trainer in the story, too. Udude the Master artist (also called Ududo or Udide in some other Igbo dialects) is featured as a model mentor and trainer: it is really interested in getting its pupils to know the art, really interested in having them know every bit of it and more. Udude’s joy as a trainer was that it had succeeded in getting someone to know the art. Its pupils were its success as a trainer. It would continue to reign as a Master in the success story of its pupils in the future! One is not surprised then that Udude features prominently in Igbo folklore in discourses on skilfulness as the symbol of the highest values in creativity. The Igbo would identity someone’s skilfulness analogically as Nka Udude or Ikpa Nka Udude (demonstrating the creativity of the spider). Although literally referring to the spider that is known for making the intricate web (which, again, is analogised in the term “Web” referring to the complex World Wide Web), Udude is further imagined in Igbo folklore as a creative spirit that designs and animates the mmonwu (masked spirit). Udude, in a sense, rises to the rank of a divinity associated creativity, and could be seen as a mystical manifestation of the awesome nature of Chineke the creator in weaving diverse forms of living and non-living entities. That power to create is therefore transmitted by Udude through the mentoring of another creature, the Ahịa, that is patient to learn, ready to deploy its mental resources to continue the work of creating amazing and useful things.

ọkịrị emerges in the story as a symbol of the bad pupil that tries to make training a frustrating experience, that tries to make the transmission and continuation of knowledge in others difficult. Like the lazy servant in the Parable of Talents, ọkịrị has not used its mental resources well but has buried it in sands of pride. What has stood between it and the mastery of nest making is not only pride but mental laziness. Yes, mental laziness could manifest as impatience and an unwillingness to think critically or even to question one’s assumptions about one’s abilities or what one asumes to know. Pride prevents one from questioning one’s abilities – not necessarily doubting that one could do great things but honestly examining how well one could do it.

Chineke the Creator has endowed all human groups with adequate mental and natural resources, to make the world more livable and advance humanity further. In a sense, we, as humans, are participants in the work of creation through our efforts in civilization. Lazy individuals and societies bury their gold or misuse it and turn around to accuse their creator of selfishness and wickedness. They probably do not understand that the master’s business is their business, that they are they ones to inherit and enjoy the gains they make, not their master. To their shame, they would continue to follow others around to provide them with guidance or put the blame on another. I pity ọkịrị the noisemaker. It tries to borrow technology but forgets that it boasted that it had it captured magically and stored in its head. Yes, creative skill is in the head and being properly guided, with humility, helps to bring it out. It is when it is brought out of the head and made part of life that it thrives well and lasts, not when it is a borrowed technology.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Wrestling with Chukwu

By

Obododimma Oha

And Chukwu the Most High presents a stone to Tortoise His visitor, saying: “This is kolanut. Break it for us to eat.” Tortoise ponders over this and, realising Chukwu’s game, decides to play it. He goes outside, rolls a pad and puts it on his head. Approaching Chukwu-abịa-amụma his host, he says: “Help me to lift the earth and place it on my head.” “How can you carry the earth on your head? Is it a piece of luggage?” Chukwu queries. So, Tortoise looks Him in the eye and asks in return: “How could you present a stone to me your visitor and ask me to treat it as a kolanut? Is a stone a kolanut?”

And Chukwu smiles and gives Tortoise a warm handshake. “You are really welcome, my friend,” he says.

There is something in the narrative above that excites me: Tortoise (a trickster figure in Igbo folklore) engages his Maker in a game of wits and succeeds in proving to the Supreme Being (who is supposed to have an upper hand as the source of wisdom itself) that he could match wisdom with wisdom. Thus levelled, both shift from the cultural tenor of superior-versus-inferior to a situational equality (friend-visiting-friend, buddies with mutual respect for each other), indeed a marvellous shift in power difference. An interesting part of the narrative is that it is Chukwu the Most High that initiates this game of wits, apparently to test Tortoise and not necessarily to humiliate him (as a visitor). Of course, Chukwu knows that he is superior in intelligence, having created Tortoise himself. Perhaps testing Tortoise is like testing an object one has invented to see if it works well enough. One cannot push a poorly functioning product into the market. Such a product would speak badly about its producer!

Chukwu must be happy to have a visitor to play with, the kind of visitor that inspires him, not a dumb and depressing type. I believe that this is the kind of visitor he would want to have again and again, across time and space, a kind of visitor he would want to listen to. Igbo folklore partly humanises Chukwu, the Most High God, providing anthropomorphic representations that indicate the tendency to draw closer and understand Him, instead of distancing acts of a terrifying and indescribable being that speaks through earthquakes, pillars of fire, and thunder. The Igbo folk imagination presents our human affinity with Chukwu and, in fact, celebrates our contact with Him, especially when we are shown as mobilizing the wisdom that the Maker installed in us. This folklore often draws attention to human courage to accept the test of wrestling over wisdom with Chukwu. The fact that one Igbo proverb says that one does not challenge one’s chi to a wrestling bout (Mmadụ anaghị echere chi ya aka mgba) does not mean that one cannot accept to wrestle with one’s chi, if this chi wants to find out whether a weakling says it is associated with it. To refuse to accept because one is afraid could even constitute a disgrace (for the chi before other chi). Imagine what it means for a spirit to be laughed at by other spirits because his human copy has proved to be spineless!

Igbo folklore is ambivalent in its attitude to Tortoise as an archetypal trickster. Although in many cases, the deeds of the trickster are presented as bad, indeed as ịrụ arụrụ ala (being inclined to mischievous and scandalous acts), the trickster’s cleverness is nevertheless admired. One is discouraged therefore from using this gift of cleverness as arụrụ ala and pursuing selfishness, but one is subtly advised to be clever enough to escape falling victim to others in the politics of daily living. Tortoise therefore represents those dark and bright sides of humanity that people have to be aware of in themselves and others, and to manage these attributes effectively. Tortoise is featured as a common criminal in cheating other animals, ensnaring others and even feeding on them. But he is also featured as one whose wisdom and cleverness could destroy another larger creature like the lion who terrorises the kingdom, the Obodo Iduu na ọba. Isn’t he a wonderful invention of Chukwu, an invention that suggests that even the bad guy still has his usefulness in the community?

To return to our narrative: Chukwu himself displays the attributes of a trickster in offering a stone to Tortoise as kolanut! Does He take Tortoise to be a dumb fool? Ordinarily, this gesture would be considered by Tortoise as Chukwu’s visitor to be insulting and annoying. Framed from the Igbo context of visitor-host relationship, Chukwu has violated the cultural value of signifying welcome to a visitor by offering the wrong thing as kolanut. We know He does not really mean it to be an offence, but a shared or common ground requires Him to offer real kolanuts (or their acceptable substitute) and not a stone. Onye wetara ọjị, wetara ndụ (The person that presents kolanut to the other has presented life). The interesting cultural semiotic in that gesture is that the presenter of the kolanut (who is normally the host) is signifying goodwill to the other, and is inviting the other to a mutual prayer for life to be preserved. How could a stone in that context therefore suggest goodwill, if not merely to taunt the other about the desire for goodwill? In the framework of H.P. Grice’s theorising of conversational maxims, Chukwu has violated the maxim of Truth (a stone as kolanut!). But Tortoise appears to manage his emotional intelligence well but suppressing his anger and approaching Chukwu with a request that countervails and ruptures the other’s position of superior wisdom. If Tortoise responds in outbursts of verbal rage, Chukwu would have won the game. It is Chukwu in His query (about the possibility of carrying the earth on the head) that rather exposes himself to ridicule, opens the space of the chessboard for a devastating move from the other, for Tortoise’s question-as-response suggests that if Chukwu is wise enough to know that one cannot carry the earth upon which one stands on one’s head, He should have known that one cannot offer a guest a stone as kolanut or break and eat a stone as kolanut. Tortoise through this question threatens Chukwu’s competence face, that desire that His ability to reason well be acknowledged. Tortoise is asking Chukwu to come clean and ready if He is suggesting Himself as belonging to the realm of reason. So, one could say that Tortoise is actually the winner in this game of wits. But in Tortoise winning, Chukwu his creator and host also wins, for He has not made a brainless Tortoise. Tortoise’s wisdom is not Chukwu’s lack of wisdom; it is its affirmation. Tortoise, therefore, is warmly acknowledged as His friend.

Whenever I think of my relationship with Chukwu who has authored me, one thing that dominates my mind is what I share with this Great Source. Is it my physical appearance? Is it in my wisdom or in my foolishness, or both? Indigenous Igbo thought (at least, from the way my late father rendered it), tells me that: “Oyiyi anyị yiri onye kere mmadụ bụ n’uche anyị” (Our resemblance with the creator of human beings is in our minds or our ability to think). And I have been wondering: What is there in thinking that makes it a special divine attribute? Perhaps it is in the fact that it searches for ways of making things possible; it makes things possible or creates possibilities. In opening up possibilities, it ensures continuity. A thinking being has a future. A thinking creature is also a creator. Creation, as an act or process, is based on thinking. In fact, it is about thinking, both in terms of thinking as tool and as thinking-about-thinking. In thinking, the creator and the created abolish polarity and are reunited.

The life of the creature begins to have meaning when this creature begins to recuperate the powers of thought mobilised by the creator – something like what the replicator does in science fiction narratives. The replicator learns to reproduce itself, no longer dependent on the creator but becoming like the creator. Science fiction narratives present frightening consequences of this independent and reproductive life of the replicator, often indicating that it might turn around to kill its human creator (a typical fear associated with the Frankenstein Monster). But this is only one side of the imagination. The human being may be afraid of pursuing goals similar to those of the replicator, especially with their representation that suggests the latter as a “mistake” or a “virus” that is so powerful enough that it kills or substitutes its maker with itself. However, it seems to be that the primal source – which various cultural narratives and languages have come to represent in various onomastic forms – is really the scientist whose experiments (call it “creative acts”) have produced beings that share attributes of creativity and thinking with Him. It is good that this Almighty Creator has shown tremendous wisdom in locating some essential elements of his creative essence in various forms of his creation. I call it superior wisdom because I see that singular act as part of the very life of the endlessness of the Maker and his abilities. Of course, one could imagine that not all the powers of the Maker are located in certain things created. I assume that at various levels, in many universes, in many worlds or realms of existence, the powers of the Maker may be manifested in higher and lower degrees. But in all, the Maker is in contact, friendly contact, with what that supreme intelligence put into motion, revising, recycling, extending, reinvigorating, remodelling, et cetera. Intelligence continues to birth intelligence; universe continues to birth universe; thought continues to extend the powers of thought.

I like the idea of resembling my Maker, even if it is in an insignificant degree. In the little that I resemble the Maker, I celebrate with pride His joy that He shares with me, His joy in befriending me, in welcoming me to share more with me, to converse with me, to argue with me, to wrestle with me. When the Maker identifies with me, or shows me that in Him I live and move and have my being, it is foolish for me to reject this good news and shrink away in fear. Of course, the fact that I am part of the Whole is enough to inspire awe and fear. But this fear is not to be understood as a denial of presence – the fact that I am an important part of that thing that is in action and is also deserving of awe and fear.

It is good that the Maker allows me to play some hide-and-seek with him (in good faith), as bosom friends would. In playing such games with me in my life, he reveals himself to me; also reveals myself to me. It is reassuring to know that my chi is pleased with me when I accept to wrestle with Him, as He teaches me how to wrestle with the challenges of life and succeed.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Chinualumogu nwa Achebe: A Tribute


by

Obododimma Oha


Onwu egbula okaelo: our wish, our prayer, our message. Yes, for if Death takes okaelo the sage away from our age, his people are in danger of walking an endless night from which no agbala can deliver them. But Death has his eyes on your choicest fruit. Ripe or unripe, he must harvest it. Does that not also grow some amamihe in the land? For the cow never fully appreciates the value of its tail until it is cut off. We hear that the okeosisi has fallen in Ogidi. It is news, shocking news, dreadful news, crippling news. News too heavy to be carried on the lips. Listen and you would hear the entire egwugwu of this trembling land gnashing their teeth and looking for an appropriate language to tell it to the world.... 

Ogbuefi Chinualumogu nwa Achebe has taken hold of his regal oji and now walks majestically into the Sacred Light of the Ancestral Circle at Eke mmuo! 

Onwu melu dike alu. We fear that even if we send a letter to him, he would not hasten and return. Onwu melu dike alu. Yes, Death has dealt a terrible blow to the gallant one. And Death has dealt a devastating blow to the community. And death has told the people of the ilo that ukwa the breadfruit must fall when its time is due. And Death tells the living: "You the termite, keep flying but you'll surely fall for the waiting, hungry toad!" 

Whether there was a country or there wasn't, the undying eziokwu is that all bicycles must visit the repairman. The trouble with many in this uncomfortable gathering of the tribes is that they cannot listen, and even when they listen, they cannot hear the lament of the ants. 

No, it wasn't the past of a people that fell apart; it is its future. 
No, it isn't the strong-willed priest-king that has become the arrow of a god; it is the people's unwillingness to die trying. 
No, it isn't the land that is no longer at ease; it is its pen-wielding ambassadors who no longer understand what it means to be the "eyes" and "ears" of their disturbed communities. 

When a man becomes a man, he begins to live as an idea. Ogbuefi Achebe, you now live as an idea, having refused to be made in the image of the alu that reigns in the storyland. Onye kwe, chi ya e kwelu! And Ogbuefi, in asking your chi to fight for you, to fight for your people, you became the affirmation. For those that fight for themselves without submitting to alu, fight for their chi, and their chi readily answers YES to the submissions of their hearts. They hold the ofo and the ogu as they approach the umunnadi of the storied land.

Onwu egbula okaelo! Indeed, you live on, storyteller and sage. You are here and there in the Chinua Achebe idea, forever. How can death actually kill you when it has lifted you to the glory of one of the finest nwoke that the land knows or will ever produce? Death only kills the okaelo when we search the hearts of his people and cannot find the idea, his idea! And Death that kills a people is the one that takes away their memory of the idea. 

Ochie dike Achebe! What ekwe calls you is what uhie calls you:
Nwoke teghete! 
Nwoke mgbe gboo! 

Chinualumogu nwa Achebe, naa gboo, for you will return to live in the hearts of your people forever!