The following column from the Lagos newspaper, Daily Nation, was seen on http://allafrica.com/stories/200501210059.html DZO
"Language and Nationalism" Daily Champion (Lagos) http://www.champion-newspapers.com/ OPINION January 21, 2005 Posted to the web January 21, 2005 Ifeanyi Ubabukoh Lagos ONE failed attempt to promote national unity in Nigeria of more than 260 different tongues, cultures and varied levels of educational and economic development was the feverish, half-hearted introduction, in 1970, of an indigenous language as a national language. The language, at the time tentatively called WAZOBIA, an admixture of three major vernaculars, died abruptly. It was bound to be so. Yet, as a national conference looms several groups of stakeholders are brushing up the instrument of national language as part of their solution to the country's disunity. Likewise, secessionist groups and prime movers of "ethnic" nationality worldwide, particularly in the dissolved Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia and parts of Africa, insist that a policy of national independence should be determined by language: that people of one tongue must be of one nation. They got it wrong. Similarly erroneous and illusory is an Algerian decree, in 1996, banning the French language and adopting Arabic to promote a brand of nationalism known as Abrabism. Equally, the French President Jacques Chirac has been chasing the shadows, since 1995, by urging domination of the French Language internationally, in the post-cold war world that has given way to more and more ethnic nationalities. In all these examples, language is recognised, one way or the other, as the pillar and propeller of nationalism: which is the strongest force currently at work in most parts of the world. But it will be a serious miscalculation to hold that language makes a nation. It does not. Nationality is not created by language. Not to believe so is to believe that Nigeria, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, China and India are not nations, or that Britain and the United States of America (U.S.) are not different nations. The ethnic minorities fighting for national independence should know also that former Yugoslavia - where all of the warring communities speak the same language - is still a nation. And when Nigerians begin to brandish an indigenous language to cement national unity, they should be promptly reminded that many of the non-Hausa by blood, killed in the 1966 programme in northern Nigeria, were excellent speakers of the Hausa language. Even today, fluency in the Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba, etc. languages is not a protection against all manner of tribal, ethnic discriminations in this country. More than a national language, what guarantees national unity is the evolution of indigenous languages through freedom of association, ensured by freedom of the citizens to reside and do their legitimate businesses in all parts of Nigeria. Even so, "nationality" is a very elusive concept, and "nation" itself is difficult to define. It is generally accepted that a nation is made up of people who have so much in common that they feel themselves to be one. Nigerians, made up of about 300 ethnic nations, accepted this even at the outset of their fight for independence. They do not, to satisfy the definition, have to speak one language or to have everything in common; otherwise, one would never be able to describe any group of people at all as a nation. Besides, in no historical case does one find all members of a particular nation, linguistic or ethnic group, gathered within one state's boundaries. The Ewes are a nation, and so are the Yorubas, although in both cases the people concerned are spread over territories controlled by different national governments. The Poles are, and were, a nation, although for centuries there was no Polish state. The other deception of promoting nationalism by national language is presented by the Algerian decree. In December, 1996, the ruling National Algerian Council decreed that, effective from July 5, 1998, the French language ceased to be the official language of Algeria, a former colony of France. Instead, the decree advocates wide and compulsory use of the Arabic language and gives all universities in Algeria up till July 5,2000, "to switch over from teaching in French to teaching in Arabic." >From that date, "no political statement, speech or conflict correspondence should be written in French and no conference or lecture should be held in French in the country - television programmes as well as other oral communication should be made in Arabic." The aim of the decree is to promote Arabism, a brand of nationalism that will ensure Algerian national unity within the confines of the Arab world. The "Arabisation" policy, first launched on July 5, 1962, the date of the Algerian independence, had been suspended many times as it failed to work in the past "due to the conflict between Arabic and French activists." It will inevitably continue to fail because it remains very difficult for Algeria or any other former colony to blurt out by legislation a language that has endured from colonial times till date. An acquired or learned language cannot be lost in this way, just as a mind stretched by new knowledge cannot regain its original dimension. Much more overriding, the modern world is a cross-cultural world, reduced to a global village through the communication media. In this situation, therefore, Algeria, which has decided to adopt the Arabic language will not be able to do away with the French language. It was not clear what Algerian President Liamine Zeroul, whose government had in a referendum, a month before the promulgation of the decree, approved a new Algerian constitution that bans parties based on religion, language or ethnicity, was up to. Sure, France and Algeria were bitter enemies, drawn in a long, bitter and devastating war of liberation between 1954 and 1962, that left over one million Muslims dead. But France is seen by the guerrillas of the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria as a principal backer of President Zeroul. Ironically, in recognition of language as an imperialist tool of cultural domination, French President Chirac was at the sixth Francophone summit in Cotonou, Benin Republic, in December, 1995, urging French-speaking countries to ensure domination of French language in international communication. He can't be true to himself when, like other prominent French politicians he had, before he became president, shown virulent xenophobia, incited racial hatred and called for nationality based on blood, rather than birth-place or fluency in French language. In sum, language-based nationalism is backward. The world should move towards reviving secular citizenship rather than ethnic nationality. Because nationality is cultural but citizenship has to be secular and unconnected to real or imagined ethnic identity. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright � 2005 Daily Champion. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). Click here to contact the copyright holder directly for corrections -- or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Meet the McDonald�s� Lincoln Fry get free digital souvenirs, Web-only video and bid on the Lincoln Fry prop charity auction. http://us.click.yahoo.com/RUJaMB/fV0JAA/Zx0JAA/TpIolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AfricanLanguages/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
