by Nnaoke Ufere
They are not a monolith. They are not one people, except by language. They have different political, economic and social aspirations and diverse needs.
But the attitudes, behaviors and actions of some of them have created a narrative which conflates everyone, inexplicably, into one cesspool of malfeasance, reinforcing the prejudices against them and misrepresentations of the entire group.
In reality, they can be grouped in two broad typologies: the good and the bad.
The Good
The good among them represent the best qualities in humans. They are deeply faithful to God. Their faith is grounded in good behaviors and deeds.
They are genuine and reliable, humble and trustworthy, and always the same person day and night, and every day. They are industrious, hardworking and extremely innovative and creative in the arts, sciences, academe, business and community development. They are ethical and honest in their interactions and transactions. Others trust them. They are patriotic. They see their country as a “work-in-progress” and devote energy and time, in any way they can, to perfect it. They are simply good people. But in the minority.
Now to the bad group which is the focus of this essay.
The Bad
The bad are a different cast. And are disproportionately larger than the good. Unfortunately, their bad virtues and actions represent how others perceive their entire group and give support to the prejudices against them.
The bad exhibit commonalities in despicable behavioral norms and scummy personality traits. They hardly trust each other. They never agree on anything. The interest of the individual is placed above the interest of the group. They abhor and disdain leadership as they do consensus and collectivity. They are free radicals in a deleterious way.
In molecular and evolutionary biology, free radicals are associated with disease, decline, and eventual death. So, it is with a society of free radicals.
A group of one is no group at all. Ultimately, a group composed of free radicals will self-destruct and become irrelevant.
Their extreme, self-centered individuality and win-at-all-cost culture makes collaboration within and with others impossible.
They are intellectually, culturally, socially, religiously, and politically arrogant. They are self-absorbed otherists (they versus others), and above all, just obnoxious and toxic. Their ethos is winner-take-all in their divisive zero-sum mentality. There is no opportunity to make a penny for which they are not aggressively present.
They are status addicts, willing and able to do anything, no matter how abhorrent, illegal and immoral, to achieve and display status advantage in the most nauseating manner. Their disgusting display of unearned wealth during birthdays, weddings and burials is a perverse cultural identity. It’s unsurprising that no one likes them.
They don’t even like themselves even when they are on top. They are a miserable bunch, self-inflictedly. Yet habitually, they blame others for their misery.
Try to get their leaders to agree on a common policy commitment to address a shared problem faced by their own people. Try harder to name a single legitimate national or state organization fostered by them that has been able to agree on any major decision to sustain its mission. Take another look into the disfunction of their local community organizations and political activities, what do you see?
Well, chaos and antagonism. You see infighting, distrust, status competition, arrogance and self-importance of the so-called “cultural elders”, among other dysfunctions.
They keep crying about enemies who malign them. Well, look in the mirror. Standing in front of you is the enemy you’ve been accusing.
The bottom line is that they must change their ways or become irrelevant in their own country. Their country is here to stay. And will move forward without them. They must find a way to build consensus and cooperation within themselves and among others, if they are to survive.
They must accept that they are a part of a whole, not the whole. They must treat their neighbors as they want to be treated by them. Respect, genuine respect for others and accommodation of different views is a common human decency they must adopt.
They have a lot of baggage to offload and free ourselves to partake in a meaningful way in their country. The earlier they offload them, the better for them.
Who are the “they”?
NB: this social criticism is not meant to castigate or judge, but to drag readers out of their comfort zones to self-reflect and change.
