15 Years on: A Tribute to a Nigerian Teacher Lynched by her Pupils

If there is any synonym for the word ‘bad’, such must of necessity explicate all the qualities associated with ‘being bad’, like wickedness, cruelty etc. And if an act is to be described as ‘good’, such must equally of necessity be seen to be beneficial to either the speaker or to others. For an act therefore to be judge as ‘being bad’ means such act is an embodiment of dangerous implications. However, if anyone chooses to replace the word ‘bad’ with a synonym that have beneficial import, such persons need to book an appointment with a psychiatrist. 

The above is no attempt at given a lecture in ‘Ethics’ but a brief elucidation on what it might takes to judge an act, both from consequentialist or a deontologist's perspective. Again, the analysis is essential for it aims to water the ground for the conclusion bellied in the essay: That the gruesome killing, lynching, of a teacher in Gombe State, Nigeria by her students/pupils (15 years ago) for ‘desecrating the holy book’, is bad, nay immoral and criminals! And to quickly add: that justice WAS NEVER served show how much lip service our leaders pay to human lives and education!

The teacher, Mrs. Christiana Oluwatoyin Oluseesin, was a teacher a Government Day Secondary School, Gandu in Gombe State, Nigeria before she met her untimely death. Like every other human, without premonition of their appointment with death, Mrs. Olusesin never knew that the students she laboriously study and prepare lesson notes to teach will one day lynch her. Although her case might not be the first among victims of both religious intolerance and jungle justice, hers is a special case because of the circumstance surrounding her death: an effort to curb now commonplace examination malpractices in school examinations! 

As reported in The Daily Trust newspapers of 17 April, 2007:  She was said to have rightly seized a set of books a student had smuggled in (into the examination hall) with the intent of cheating, during the course of writing examination on Islamic Religious Knowledge. Unknown to Mrs. Oluseesin, a copy of the Holy Quran was discreetly hidden among the confiscated books and which she angrily threw away. Soon after the end of the said examination, the affected student played the victim and cried foul. Thereafter, a mob (led by Yan Kalare boys) swooped on the hapless and unsuspecting woman, and killed her for "desecrating" the holy book. 

Well, that is the pathetic scenario that culminated in the mob lynching of the moralist, a disciplinarian that so many of the notoriously religious but morally bankrupt students have begrudged without having the avenue to avenge her ‘disturbances’ before the examination hall incident. The story is no doubt nauseating. No sane human with full capacity to judge or evaluate an act will judge that as good. For that will be an attempt at wishing for such painful mob death. The most disturbing of the aftermath of the event however is that her assassins, the juvenile murderers and their adult accomplices, are still walking freely on the streets of Gandu. It is more annoying to know that the Nigerian Police had, as usual, relaxed investigation into the religiously coloured murder and declared the case COLD!

Two factors have, however, been identified as the likely cause of the dutiful teacher’s death: Religion and Ethnicity. These two factors have solidly remained a disunifying factor among Nigerians. The northerners, most especially the Hausa-Fulanis, have been been accused of using these two factors interchangeably, nay selfishly, to rid southerners domicile in their region. The Igbos, of the south east, and the Yorubas, of the southwest, have been crying foul for a long time over the activities of the northern ethnic jingoists and zealous religious bigots decimating their, Igbos and Yorubas, folks. 

Without endless chronicling, the incidences in Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi, Ilorin, Sagamu and Maiduguri in the recent past are testimonies to this fact. Even if the allegations of the past are untrue, considering the fact that Mrs. Oluseesin is a Yoruba and a Christian will cast doubt over the correctness of such falsity. While condemning religion will not solve the problem, every sane religionist must likewise know that killing in the name of their ‘God’ is bad for the public perception of the true tenets of such religion, most especially the premium such religion placed on the lives of non-adherents in a supposedly secular state like Nigeria. 

Islam is no doubt a religion of peace, as the Quoran and so many respected Islamic scholars opined but some Muslims act otherwise using the religion as a cover. In as much as this act, and also spree killing and wanton properties destruction, supposedly in the name of Allah, are not enough to conclude that Islam is bad, those adherents who claimed to be versed in the teachings of the prophet and the true tenets of the religion must help in curbing the excesses of their ‘fanatic’, opportunistic and criminal minded members. 

As for the ethnic angle to the gruesome murder, the truly Nigerian of the Hausa-Fulani heritage must rise up to the challenge and educate others on the need for peaceful coexistence of Nigerians of diverse ethnic background. And remind this class of myopic Hausa-Fulani populace that Nigeria is one country and one people with shared destiny that must learn to live together in peace to enhance mobility of labour and equal opportunities in any part of the country which are harbingers of all round national development. 

That Mrs. Oluwatoyin Oluseesin, a disciplinarian, was murdered in cold blood, leaving her husband, children and mother, is a reality that we are conditioned to accept. One can only hope that bad acts such as this will cease for it is commonsensically illogical for anyone to kill either in the name of a living, all powerful, God or a superior ethnic group. Besides, there is dire need now, more than ever before, for Nigerians to live secularly together not only for our budding civil rule but also for future Nigerians.

Photos Credit: Twitter.com 

Adeyemi J Ademowo, a sociocultural analyst and development anthropologist, works with Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti

Africa and Africans’ Philosophy of Poverty

Africa, north and south of the sahara, is easily recognized as the region of deprivations where there is acute dearth of the basics that make human truly human: water, food, security, shelter, health and clothing. This pervasive condition of inhumanity thriving amidst supposedly humans leaves one with the question as to the beneficial import of the abundant natural resources within its domain. It is appalling, not pitiful, to know that Africa is stupendously rich while Africans are nauseatingly poor. Bearing in mind that Africans have remained in this condition for almost a century after colonialism ended, one cannot but try to find out why Africans remain perpetually nay hopelessly poor; why they wallop in penury amidst plentiful. Why they have refused to think-out a workable developmental proposal for the betterment of their continent. The result of this finding is that the philosophy of poverty reigns supremely in Africa. 

 Philosophy of Poverty can be described as a situation whereby an individual or group is continuously awash with thoughts or ideas that could lead to an act that would neither benefit him/her nor his/her group or society in the long run. Short-term gain is the focus of this kind of thinking. Technically, Philosophy of Poverty is “a critical, rigorous and systematic thinking of ideas that are capable of inducing deprivations and make worse peoples’ developmental condition”. Examples are ideas of public looting, electoral fraud, etc among leaders at all levels; and vandalism, political thuggery, etc among followers. The underlying goal of the ‘critical, rigorous and systematic thinking...’ is personal gain: How the ‘thinker’ would benefit his/her pockets or bank accounts and that of his/her friends and family members at the expense of the others or the public. 

Both the leaders and the followers are guilty of this negative thinking. While the leaders authoritatively, without lets or hindrances, divert money meant for developmental projects shortsightedly into their account for personal benefit, the followers join the train knowing fully well that to think otherwise may put their jobs in jeopardy. The follower therefore accepts his/her condition of perpetual deprivation and seeks to have a ‘fair’ share of the national cake or simply go for the crumbs of it. Basically, there are two classes of followers involved: the advantaged and the disadvantaged. The advantaged followers, who are mostly middle class, are actively involved in the process, from idea conception, pruning, fine-tuning to execution. They are the leaders sure partners-in-thinking (PIT), working round the clock to lead other followers into the bottomless poverty pit. Their mantra is ‘I’d better cooperate now and make some money than blow open the deal and remain a pauper’. With this seemingly critical but perverted thought, he/she agrees to the ‘deal’. Millions of the national or foreign currencies are then diverted from the developmental activities it was meant for to serve the few individuals involved. 

On the part of the disadvantaged, their condition becomes that of ‘hopelessness’. A total acceptance of their condition as either enemy induced or God wished. They forgot that the greener pastures they sought and pray for their children and wards in foreign countries, mostly America and European, were planted and watered by the dogged and relentless efforts of others like themselves in those societies. The problem here, of their condition, is that the basics of life such as water are often seen as luxury. Sponsors of mere borehole projects, such as assemblymen and the local authorities, are therefore seen as demigods. A messiah! Such persons are then decorated with chieftaincy titles. What balderdash! 

That this negative thinking, philosophy of poverty, reigns in African minds is a fact. A fact glaringly verifiable in the manner we conduct the affairs of our countries at all levels, our myopic approach to responsive democratic governance, selfish management of our abundant human and natural resources, our nonchalant attitude to national growth and development and dearth of some other indices of peoples’ desire for development. In Nigeria for instance, Chopism, a philosophy of poverty concept, is commonplace. 

By the way, Chopism is a school of thought in the philosophy of poverty parlance that posits ‘group sharing of public property and fund even if it is at the 124 detriment of the public good or development’. A direct derivative of Chopism is “chop, I chop” which means ‘steal yours and avail me the opportunity to steal mine’. It means an agreement among a group of people or groups to ensure that parties to the agreement have access preferably equal, to steal limitlessly from a designated coffer. The parties are expected to take their turns in this robbery process and they are to show solidarity when any of them get into trouble. Can someone tell me how state or country could witness meaningful development with this kind of attitude? Sure, Africa is in serious trouble. Having been to some parts of Africa and witnessed similar developmental problems, I cannot but conclude that the only problem we have, that is yet to be addressed, is attitudinal, that of values! Ours is not a dearth of ideas but perverted thinking, myopic and homolooting infested ideas. Indeed, as I opined in another piece, most African leaders are Homolooters not Homosapiens! The way forward to me is that until we succeed in correcting our thinking deficiency, we shall remain subservient to the rest of the world. Visits to countries of Europe and subsequent observations and interactions with their citizens, have further lend credence to the fact that a complete attitudinal re-orientation is essential if Africa will ever attain the greatness it craves for. 

The conclusion is that we must re-work our thoughts essentially if we must ever get out of our present bottomless pit of deprivation. I suggest we start with the youths and teens; let’s re-orientate and make them believe in the African project that will celebrate hard work, transparency and accountability with due respect to social justice.

Photo Credit: https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2010

Adeyemi J Ademowo, a sociocultural analyst and development anthropologist, works with Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti

This Thing Called Culture

Culture as observed by Williams (1983) is one of the two or three most complicated words in English Language. The word ‘culture’ has its root in the Latin word colere which means ‘to cultivate’. The word ‘culture’ can also be used to describe ‘the cultivation of or the constant exhibition of certain traits, acts, etc’. It can also be likened to the “idea of cultivating one’s self in an effort to attain the ideal of wisdom which was found in Greek thought: the idea through which human beings become themselves.” Culture can also be described as the “way of life of a group of people”. This is the commonest and most simplistic definition of culture.

Anthropologists are diverse in their views of what culture is or should be. However, the first known scholar that put forth a scholarly definition considered to be holistic enough to capture what culture represents is Sir Edward Burnett Tylor. Culture to Tylor (1871), in his seminal work The Primitives, is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society".  To Kluckhohn (1945), culture is the "historically-created design for living, explicit and implicit, rational, irrational and non-rational, which may exist at any given time as a potential guide for the behaviour of men".  The two definitions highlighted two key points without which culture would not be meaningful: membership of a society and guide of behaviours. It is inconceivable to think of a society without a culture and to imagine that the culture of a society does not influences or guide their affairs.

Culture encompasses languages, means of making a living, arrangement of family life, the focus of group loyalties and ways of perceiving the world, both the physical world and the world beyond (Oke, 2002). Culture influences man's attitudes, its dealings with fellow man as well as the environment. What this means is that culture puts a form of control on and influences man's drives and interactions including display of emotion and sexual behaviour, eating habits, kind of work, political life, hours of sleep, among others. It becomes part of man's survival as it provides for reproduction, care for new family members and patterns of child rearing. One can then agree with Hodge, Struckmann, and Trost (1975) that culture is  "the sum total of life patterns passed on from generation to generation within a group of people and includes institutions, language, religious ideals, habits of thinking, artistic expressions, and patterns of social and interpersonal relationships.”

Culture can also be used to refer to the organised system of knowledge and belief whereby people structure their experience and perceptions, formulate acts and choose between alternatives. The alternatives, we must note, can be confusing and sometimes difficult to choose from, live with or adapt to. Hence there are two major patterns within which culture is meaningful: ideals patterns and behavioural patterns.

The ideal pattern describes what people of a society would do or say in a defined situation if they conformed completely to ideals accepted in the society. There are two sides to the ideal patterns conformity: imperative and the obligatory. The imperative promotes a mandatory conformity to the ideals of a culture. It is a must position regardless of what those that found themselves within such culture thinks. The obligatory on the other hand is prescriptive hence promotes such ideals as the best of alternatives with little or no option for deterrence. The behavioural pattern as opposed to the ideal patterns, are products of observations of how people actually behave in particular situations. It is actual. The reality of the dichotomy between the ideal and the behavioural patterns is that the ideals are what becomes observable in the 'behavioural'. For instance, if one observed and described marriage patterns among the Yoruba people of southern Nigeria, the truth is that what we often observed were ideals that the society prescribes.

There are five categories of ideal patterns:

1. Compulsory: what culture provides for and considered acceptable

2. Preferred: the highly valued among the prescribed

3. Alternatives: where all acceptable ways of behaving have equal value

4. Typical: when a particular ideal is the most frequently expressed

5. Restricted: when certain ways of behaving are acceptable only for members of a particular group, family or society.

 

When the above ideals are undertaken, or adhere to, by members of the society and an outsider can comfortably describe them, such patterns are said to be explicit. They are explicit because they are readily abstracted from behaviour and verbalised by the participants.  The implicit patterns are difficult for participants to verbalise because they operate mostly at the unconscious level; hence the outsider cannot observe that but had to enquire into its nature.

Ogburn (1922) made a vital contribution to the discourse on the dichotomy between several cultural constituents when he opined that there are two aspects which are vital to all cultures, namely, material and non-material.

Material culture refers to the physical or technological aspects of our daily lives, including food items, houses, factories and raw materials. Prown (2001defines material culture as, the study through artifacts of the beliefs – values, ideas, attitudes, and assumptions – of a particular community or society at a given time…

Material culture as a study is based upon the obvious fact that the existence of a man-made object is concrete evidence of the presence of a human intelligence operating at the time of fabrication. The underlying premise is that objects made or modified by man reflect, consciously, directly or indirectly, the beliefs of the individuals who made, commissioned, purchased, or used them and, by extension, the beliefs of the larger society to which they belonged. Every man-made object required the operation of some thought and design. It is the assumption of material culture studies that this thought is a reflection of the culture that produced the man-made objects.

By studying material culture one is able to gain insights into things that are not fully articulated or into cultures that have not left written records. For social historians in particular material culture is a useful tool to gather information on the groups other than the elites. The life stories of the working class were not often recorded, and very rarely in their own words. By looking at the material objects left behind, we can extrapolate some of their stories.

Non-material culture, on the other hand, covers all other aspects of culture that cannot be found under material culture. In other words, it refers to ways of using material culture. To put it differently, it refers to ways of using material objects and customs, beliefs, philosophies, governments and patterns of communication. This aspect of culture has been found to be more resistant to change than the material culture. In fact, some African philosophers such as Kwasi Wiredu, Oladipo, Sogolo etc opined that it is important that the non-material aspects of culture that give meaning to it ought to be jealously guarded from undue infiltration so as to retain a groups’ identity. To them, these are the contingent aspect of culture that must be preserved for the sake of future generations.

Avruch and Black (1996) identified two orders of culture: generic and local culture. Generic culture is a species-specific attribute of homosapiens, an adaptive feature of our kind on this planet for at least a million years or so. Local cultures are those complex systems of meanings created, shared and transmitted (socially inherited) by individuals in particular social groups. Generic culture direct our attention to Universal attributes of human behaviour (of human nature); local culture on the other hand calls our attention to diversity and differences.

Regardless of the diversities of cultures in societies, there are certain common practices and beliefs which are common to all. These are referred to as the cultural universals. According to George Murdock (1945) such universals include: bodily adornment, courtship, dancing, decorative art, family, gestures, housing, language, laws, marriages, myths, etc

No matter how distinct a culture is, it must definitely have a relativistic view on the above outlined universals which are enamored further by other elements of cultures. These elements are: language, norms, sanctions and values.

Language is an abstract system of word meanings and symbols for all aspects of culture. It include speech, written characters, numerals, symbols, gestures and expression of non-verbal communication.

Norms, the second element, can be described as established standards of behaviour maintained by a society. It includes such standards or rule as ‘respect your elders’, etc

Next to norms are Sanctions which are penalties and rewards for conduct concerning societal norms. While positive sanctions can lead to appreciation, a medal or chieftaincy title etc, a negative sanction can include banishment, a fine, etc

Values, the last, are regarded as the collective conceptions of what is considered good, desirable and proper – or bad, undesirable and improper in a culture. They indicate what people in a culture prefer as well as what they find important and morally right (o wrong).

It is pertinent, at this juncture, to briefly discuss qualities underlying cultures:

a. That everyone has a culture. It is core to their identity, behaviour and perspectives on the way the world works and should be. In fact, everyone lives as part of multiple cultural spheres: ethnic, religious, class, gender, race, language, and others. Culture is not just the group a person is born into. It is possible to acquire a new culture by moving to a new country or region, for example, or by a change in economic status, or by becoming disabled.

b. That there is diversity within cultures. While two people may both be Britons with parents from Nigeria, for instance, a religious Catholic daughter of professionals who lived in Onitsha will have very different cultural norms and perspectives from the son of an indigenous farmer who spent early years in a very poor rural area in Ijebu-Igbo.

c. Cultures are not static. They grow and evolve in response to new circumstances, challenges and opportunities. The ways of being female learned by young girls in South Asian culture, for example, have changed from one generation to another, and as people have moved from place to place.

d. Culture is not determinative. Different people take on and respond to the same cultural expectations in different ways. Assumptions therefore cannot be made about individuals based on a specific aspect of their cultural experience and identity.

e. Cultural “differences” are complicated by differences in status and power between cultures. When one cultural group has more power and status, the norms of that culture permeate the institutions of society as the “right” way. Cultures of less status and power become seen as “other,” or even deviant and deficient. In addition to understanding cultural norms and experiences, service providers and professionals in agencies that work with diverse populations need to be aware of these kinds of cultural biases, both as they play out in the lives of communities, and as they affect the practices and policies of organizations.

Pix Credit: differencebetween.net 

Culled from: Ademowo, A.J (2017) The Culture-Health Nexus: An Introduction to Cultural Competency Issues in Healthcare Provision. Ibadan: TicTacToe Consulting