By Moses E. Ochonu
The Minister
of Education, Malam Adamu Adamu, said recently that the Nigerian government
will restore history to the secondary school curriculum. For inexplicable
reasons, history was excised from the curriculum some eight years ago. They
better get started on the implementation because historical illiteracy and
amnesia is slowly killing the country. We are a country afflicted by an
epidemic of forgetting and "moving forward."
The absence of historical consciousness in Nigeria hurts the country in
multiple ways. Take corruption. Many Nigerians believe that corruption only
entered the Nigerian political lexicon during our latest flirtation with
democracy, that is, post-1999.
A few may cite the military era that preceded the fourth
republic. Very few remember or are familiar with the corruption of the second
republic, let alone the fact that the first republic was rocked by multiple
corruption scandals.
The absence of historical memory in this domain of corruption is
the reason many Nigerians say Nigeria
should “move forward” instead of investigating past crimes. Grappling with the
past and addressing its tragedies and residual pains is seen as moving
backwards. It is the reason many are willing, even eager, to forgive past
political crimes against the Nigerian people. It is the reason we are too quick
to move on to new scandals, get bored with old ones, and fail to see a
trans-regime tapestry of corruption and abuse of power. It is the reason we see
political malfeasance and misbehavior in isolated blocks rather than as
continuities.
This dearth of history in our public discourse is the reason old
criminals are quickly ignored and manage to sneak back, unnoticed, into the
orbit of power, their crimes forgotten. It is the reason that politicians delay
their corruption trials, knowing that our legendary short memory and
disconnection from history will buy them time, enabling their troubles to
fizzle out.
It is as though our baseline of remembering is yesterday. It was
Chinua Achebe who said perspicaciously that, if we are going to fix Nigeria , we
should go back to when the rain started beating us. This was a compelling
statement on the value of retrospective reflection, of history, in our search
for diagnostic and ameliorative ideas. The irony and problem is that many
Nigerians believe that the proverbial rain started beating us in 2010, 1999, or
with the annulment of the June 12 presidential election in 1993.
*Chinua Achebe |
There are Nigerians who believe that election rigging, political
opportunism, incompetence, and leadership indifference are phenomena associated
with the post-1999 period, or that, at worst, they go back to the second
republic. The First
Republic is often
understood in simplistic terms of the “good old days.” But those days weren’t
so good, at least not politically. I will return to this theme in a subsequent
update. There are Nigerians for whom even the Obasanjo administration is a
distant and irrelevant past.
Some people say Nigerian history is too contentious and that
teaching it would create more problems that it would solve. All histories are
contentious — and contested. This argument against the teaching of Nigerian
history is founded on a naively simplistic notion of history. History is not a
single, consensual story about an event, nation, or people, or an attempt to
produce such a monolithic narrative. History is the sum of many stories, all
purporting to explain the same thing. Every historical work tells just one out
of many possible stories. The notion of narrating the past "as it
happened" is passe, a futile quest that no historian I know subscribes to.
This complexity does not, however, take away from history’s
importance to nation building. It enhances it. The idea that it would be
dangerous to teach Nigerian secondary school students and university undergraduates
about the Nigerian civil war is responsible for the unforgivable ignorance of
Nigerians about this recent war that continues to haunt and plague the nation.
This idea, too, rests on the erroneous notion that we must find a consensus on
how to teach history or that we must teach it uniformly across the country or
we shouldn’t teach it at all. We have boxed ourselves into the corner of
self-annihilating historical ignorance with this all-or-nothing thinking.
We are now producing secondary school and university graduates
who cannot make sense of Nigeria beyond 1999 or 1993, graduates whose only
knowledge of the troubles of the second republic and the civil war is filtered
through contemporary ethno-religious politics detached from a history of British
conquest, amalgamation, colonization, and the troubled, colonially
stage-managed march to independence.
How can we build a nation with generations buried in a depth of
historical ignorance?
Speaking of nation building, no nation is to be taken for granted,
and the imperative of building and rebuilding the nation is precisely why
serious countries invest in the study of history, including the United States,
where some American history is taught in middle school, is compulsory in
secondary school, and is among a set of humanities and social science courses
university students, regardless of their Majors, must take.
Nigerian history is no more dangerous than other histories. The
disruptive crises and events that seem to proliferate in Nigerian history are offset
and positively negated by a long history of associational, marital, mercantile,
cultural, political, linguistic, and genetic comingling by Nigeria ’s many ethnic groups and
kingdoms.
We seem to perpetually grope for symbols and histories upon
which to posit and defend the basis for Nigeria ’s
oneness, but we prohibit the teaching of a history that demonstrates a long,
pre-colonial period of intertwinements between Nigeria ’s many constituencies.
*Ochonu, a
professor of history, shared this on his facebook page
No comments:
Post a Comment