January 15, 2014


December 30, 2013


Yoruba cultural nationalism

Written by Diran Apata ⁠ ⁠ Sunday, 22 December 2013
⁠ ⁠ A few days ago, in a leisurely discussion involving many Yoruba men, women and children, I mentioned the movement of Yoruba Cultural Nationalism of about one-hundred years ago. Most of my hearers had no idea what I was talking about. That is what always happens whenever I happen to mention this movement. It is painful that our people, especially our youths, know nothing about it – painful because the story of the Yoruba Cultural Nationalist Movement, spanning the last years of the 19th century and the first years of the 20th,is one of the most glorious stories in the modern history of the Yoruba Nation. It is a story that we should all know inside and out – a story that our children should be told over and over at home and at school.

The following is the background to it. From about 1885, various European countries came scrambling for territorial empires all over Africa. Peoples after peoples of Africa fell to the European forces. The British, the French, the Germans, the Portuguese, the Belgians, the Dutch, all carved out empires for themselves. Most of Yorubaland became British possession (later to be included in Nigeria), and the rest became French and German possessions (later to be included in what are now Benin and Togo Republics).

But the conquest of Africa was not only military and territorial; it was also massively psychological. Usually, small European armies were taking over African territories, because they were armed with better weapons, or because the African nations were not fully aware about what was happening to them, and because they did not unite to defend their homelands. Naturally, the European colonialists became enormously arrogant. Everywhere, they proclaimed the doctrine that Africans were culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans, that Africans were incapable of developing any civilisation, and that it was the duty of Europeans to bring civilisation to Africans.

These attitudes gradually infected all aspects of European relationships with Africans all over tropical Africa. The growing disrespect of Africans even spread into the Christian missions. In the mission churches and schools, it was now being said that, to become a Christian, or to be regarded as educated or civilised, one must give up one’s native culture. One must give up such things as one’s indigenous name, clothing, manners, and language, and take on European ones. Even the Yoruba clergy working in the missions began to experience serious disrespect and discrimination from the mission bodies that they served.

For a start, some Yoruba Christian converts in Lagos did respond by trying to become “black Europeans”. They hoped that doing so would earn them acceptance into the “civilised” British community in Lagos. Many of these changed their names to European names. Some others adopted European dress items such as the stove-pipe hat, the feathered bonnet, high-heeled shoes, and gloves, etc. Some young persons who went to study in Britain returned home in only two or three years and claimed that they could no longer understand or speak the Yoruba language.

However, a powerful Yoruba reaction to all these rapidly brewed, and it soon became a great movement – the movement of Yoruba Cultural Nationalism. As it grew, most of those who had adopted aspects of European culture gave them up and returned to their Yoruba culture. There had been newspapers in Lagos for decades, and these newspapers joined excitedly in the movement. “We are Africans first (or we are Yoruba first) before we are Christians” became popular among Christians in Lagos.

This movement of Yoruba Cultural Nationalism produced very many effects. In popular culture and fashions, Yoruba Cultural Nationalism promoted a great pride in Yoruba clothes and dresses. The Yoruba way of dressing became very popular indeed. It became more attractive as new styles and modifications were added.

Yoruba men and women serving in the Lagos colonial service responded in their own way. Many of them resigned their jobs and started private businesses, schools and churches of their own.

In the Christian missions, the Yoruba clergy responded by introducing Yoruba culture into church services and church life. For instance, they introduced Yoruba music and songs, which the missions had earlier regarded as pagan. Some of the Yoruba clergy even went further than that. They withdrew from the service of the European mission organizations and started an African Church Movement. This created separate African churches in the various denominations – African Anglican churches, African Methodist churches, and African Baptist churches. The African churches brought Yoruba culture into the Christian church in a big way. They also wrote Yoruba hymns and published hymn books. But another movement soon started which went even further than the African Church Movement to integrate Yoruba culture into Christianity. This was the Aladura Movement. The Aladura Movement developed into a number of main branches – the Christ Apostolic Church, the Cherubim and Seraphim Church, and the Celestial Church of Christ.

Yoruba Cultural Nationalism also promoted a lot of interest in the study of Yoruba culture and history. Many books were written in these years on both subjects. And many literate Yoruba people wrote the traditional stories of their towns – some in English, and many in the Yoruba language. Lessons in Yoruba history and culture were introduced into schools, including the mission schools.

Yoruba Cultural Nationalism created a powerful Yoruba national consciousness. It unified the modern Yoruba elite for service to their nation. That unity was to express itself in many productive ways later – in the various Development Associations of the 1920s and 1930s, in the highly influential Egbe Omo Oduduwa from 1945, and in the first-rate government of the Western Region in the 1950s. It also charted great modern ambitions for the Yoruba nation – ambitions to acquire education, and to achieve modern economic progress, prosperity and power in the world. In these many ways, the movement of Yoruba Cultural Nationalism laid some of the foundations for Yoruba achievements and progress in the modern world.

All in all, Yoruba people did not merely challenge European cultural arrogance; they suppressed it quite successfully in their own country. Nowhere else in Black Africa, among no other Black African nation, did the Europeans experience another powerful cultural challenge like this.

A British colonial official who served for years in Nigeria in the 1950s testified to the later-day effects of Yoruba Cultural Nationalism. He wrote in his memoir that, in his experience, the Yoruba were one African people who never treated the British, or any other Europeans, as superiors or “as gods”. He wrote that the Yoruba are a people with “personal dignity and political finesse”. “In my experience” he added, “the Yoruba regarded themselves as superior to the British – – -. The Yoruba were often highly intelligent and they taunted the British with sending inferior people to Nigeria.” He also added that many other Nigerian peoples could usually not look the white man in the eyes, but that even the lowliest Yoruba servant tended to carry himself with confidence and pride.

Read 19 times

Published in⁠ Diran Apata’s Sunday message


December 27, 2013



December 22, 2013

FROM the nation newspaper-Nigeria

Crocodile tears on the grave of Mandela

Posted by: Jide Osuntokun

The death of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (1918-2013) has attracted a lot of emotions, comments and tributes from many current leaders and past leaders of several countries in the world. Some of these comments are genuine, others are insincere and amounts to crocodile tears. About 100 global political players, both current and those who have held positions of power in the world, including President Barrack Obama, current American President and three former Presidents- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W Bush, and the heir apparent to the British throne Prince Charles as well as our own President Goodluck Jonathan and David Cameron, John Major and Gordon Brown, current and former British Prime Ministers respectively attended the official funeral ceremony held at a big stadium in Soweto South Africa. This must have been a security nightmare for the South African authorities. Mandela who initially embraced the non-violent philosophy of Mochandas Ghandhi-Ji later abandoned non-violence and was largely responsible for forming the Umkhonto we Sizwe (the Spear of the Nation), which was the armed youthful wing of the African National Congress (ANC). The young revolutionaries in South Africa by the 1960s were already getting impatient with the conservative and non-violent approach to African liberation espoused by the ANC. Members of the Pan African Congress (PAC) were already critical of the non-violent campaign of the ANC. We can therefore say Nelson Mandela reluctantly took to armed struggle because as he argued nobody can kill a wild beast with bare hands.

In the history of the liberation of South Africa some attention should be paid to the PAC and Azanian People’s Congress’ roles as alternative platforms for the liberation of South Africa. A comparable situation is what happened in the US where the existence of militant youthful groups such as Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) led by Stokely Carmichael and Rap Brown, as well as the Black Panther Movement of Huey Newton and Eldrige Cleaver, and the Black Muslims particularly the faction led by one of its charismatic leaders, Malcom X with their cry burn baby burn made Martin Luther King nonviolent campaign largely acceptable to the white folks. Even though the situation was not exactly the same, white folks saw Mandela as somebody they could ultimately do business with.

This does not diminish the achievements of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela but it is important to put the two global icons within their historical context. The two share many things in common especially their ability to forgive their oppressors. Martin Luther King’s tolerance is firmly rooted in Christian religion while Mandela’s ability to forgive is rooted in political reality. He wanted to build a non-racial majoritarian democracy in South Africa and he came to the conclusion that the only way to do this was by forgiving his racist oppressors who had built in South Africa a first world infrastructure and economy albeit on the backs of the blacks. If he had adopted the Mugabe approach of land expropriation, he would have destroyed his much loved country of South Africa for which he paid huge price of 27 years imprisonment. Since 1994 when he became president and now after having been succeeded by Thabo Mbeki and the current President Jacob Zuma, the vast majority of black South Africans have remained largely poor. Of course centuries of Black marginalization cannot be removed within a few years but young black South Africans are not prepared to wait indefinitely for the fruit of majority rule. This is the challenge facing South Africa today. And some of the militant youths have been known to issue militant statements about the conniving and apologetic leadership of the ANC who are only ready to tinker with the white economic structure of South Africa without radically changing it. This is why incredibly as it may sound, Robert Mugabe is perhaps the most popular political figure in Southern Africa today. This also accounts for the tumultuous ovation he attracted when he entered the stadium during the funeral mass for Mandela.

I had the opportunity to meet Mandela in May 1990, when he came to Nigeria, and the University of Lagos conferred on him an Honorary Doctorate degree after leaving prison and before becoming president of South Africa. Professor Nurudeen Alao who was Vice Chancellor asked me and Dr. Tunji Dare to prepare a citation for the great man. We independently wrote this and after comparing notes, Dare said my citation captured totally the essence of the man, and he subsequently published his own draft, I believe in The Guardian. I remember that one of the things the great man asked us was that he wanted to learn how Nigeria has been able to create a forum like the House of Chiefs in the old regions for traditional leaders to participate in governance so that he could do the same in South Africa. I do not know what became of his interest in this regard.

After Mandela’s death, I have been thoroughly amused by the comments of our leaders. Some of these leaders have hailed him as a great man, a great African icon and a great world leader that is worthy of emulation. Yet some of these so-called African leaders held power for years without leaving any remarkable or worthwhile imprint on the society. It is surprising that those who overstayed their welcome in office are now acclaiming Mandela as their friend and as someone from whom they learnt something. One only hopes that our current leaders and those after them will learn from this great man’s example, that it is not the amount of money that one has that matters, but that it is the enduring and unforgettable legacies that one leaves behind that really matter.

The former American President George W Bush also went to South Africa to pay his last tribute to Mandela; I believe his sincerity. But we should not forget that his Vice President Dick Cheney regarded Mandela as a terrorist. And according to General Colin Powel, a former American Secretary of State and his successor Condoleezza Rice both of whom are blacks claimed that they were hugely embarrassed to find Mandela’s name on America’s terrorist list. It is surprising that the Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and the Chinese President Xi Jinping were conspicuously absent in South Africa to pay their last respects to Mandela; they will not be missed of course. And the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu found a lame reason about security and the cost of the trip not to go to South Africa. Of course, the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was there because Mandela was a supporter of the Palestinian cause and liberation. Let it be remembered that Israel and the United States under President Ronald Reagan assisted South Africa to acquire nuclear weapons in the late 1970s.

President Jonathan in some kind of homily during a funeral service for Mandela said that Nigeria is not likely to have a man of Mandela’s stature. I disagree and I say General Yakubu Gowon remains the greatest Head of State of Nigeria with high moral stature on a comparable level with Mandela. Gowon’s case is that of a prophet that is with no honour in his own country. Here was a man who governed this country for nine years and ended up not having a single house or billions of naira, and oil blocs in his name but was responsible for most of the enduring physical infrastructure in the country. Here is a war leader who fought a civil war and ended it without show trials and executions of those on the other side of the conflict. Gowon represents our own Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela rolled into one. Since leaving office, he went back to the university and earned himself a doctorate degree in Political Science and has never soiled his hands with filthy lucre. He has used his moral currency and goodwill to attract funds for good cause such as guinea-worm eradication and has spent along with others, years in praying for the peace of Nigeria. When he was in power, Gowon was a pan-Africanist and extended the reach of Nigeria’s foreign policy to the black Diaspora in the Caribbean. History will be fair to Gowon, he may not have had the press and publicity and international acclaim that Mandela has but Gowon among our leaders certainly made a difference. And he deserves to be celebrated now and in the future.



December 22, 2013


December 21, 2013

Joshua P. Olatunde
“Ohun tán bá ñ je l’órun ni kóo máa báwon je o”

Adeleye Olujide


December 21, 2013



December 21, 2013


December 21, 2013


Mandela: A lesson in political greatness

December 11, 2013 by Anthony Akinola





By virtue of their exalted positions, political leaders are invariably famous!  We see their faces on television and in newspapers and we also listen to their voices on radio.  The notorious ones among them intimidate us with their posters or statues, palaces and the exclusive streets they name after themselves.  They would rather celebrate their own lives than be patient with history!

However, these fellows in positions of power are reduced to ordinariness as soon as they are relieved of political power.  The most mischievous of them (the Samuel Does, the Nicolae Ceausescus, the Saddam Husseins and the Muammar Gaddafis) get consumed by the anger of the oppressed, begging in vain for their lives to be spared!

Fame or notoriety is transient, while greatness endures. Political greatness is about doing deeds whose consequences endure in history.  Great political leaders do not come in rapid succession; they come once in a while.

The magnitude of political greatness is determined by the magnitude of crises or challenges a political leader is confronted with. It is not by choice that the political leaders whose names ring through history and in our subconscious memories have been those who were great nation builders, or great managers of wars, or great heralds of economic prosperity.  The great nations of the world have their Abraham Lincolns, Winston Churchills, Mao Tse-tungs, Mahatma Gandhis and Otto von Bismarks, to mention just a few.  Even in death, great political leaders inspire generations of would-be leaders.

The Black world, in the modern era, has donated two great names to the world of political  mythology.  Both Martin Luther King Jnr and Nelson Mandela were products of similar as well as contrasting historical circumstances.  They were members of multi-racial societies in which their own peoples were at the receiving end of injustice and degradation.  The majority white group meted out injustice to the minority black in one instance, while the minority white also meted out injustice to the majority black in another.  Both King Jnr and Mandela were historical characters in the crusade to bring sanity to what was a hopeless situation.

They were men of exceptional courage, intelligence, eloquence, vision and character.  King Jnr paid the ultimate price in his crusade for racial equality and justice, while Mandela had his freedom curtailed in an incredible 27 years of imprisonment.  Today, we celebrate the fact that both men and their apostles have been vindicated.

The world mourns Mandela who died on Thursday, December 5, at the ripe old age of 95.  His death has captured the imagination of the entire world.  Of course, the role he played in ending the obnoxious apartheid system in South Africa is monumental; what, however, the rest of the world is celebrating today is the exceptional character of one individual. One doubts if he would have been that revered if he were vengeful, or had exhibited political greed by wanting to die in office.  Neither was he obsessed with personal wealth and the perquisites that appeal to ordinary human beings.  In suffering and forgiving his tormentors, Mandela, according to Prof. Ladipo Adamolekun, is the nearest we have to Jesus Christ in Christian mythology.

It is noteworthy that President Goodluck Jonathan declared three days of mourning in memory of Africa’s most illustrious son.  This gesture is not enough.  What can we learn from Mandela in terms of personal contentment and spirit of reconciliation?  What can Jonathan himself learn from this global icon as he ponders his own political future amidst fierce disagreements and possible chaos?  When one’s political right  conflicts with the national interest, which one should prevail over the other?

  For our nation, one urges that we reflect on the struggles of our racial compatriots in the United States of America and South Africa.  They had more vicious experiences to contend with  than many of us could imagine.  With purposeful leadership, we should prevail and ours be counted among the most important nations of the world.  Great leaders like Mandela and King Jnr re-write history because their dreams transcend big mansions and private jets!  Great leaders live their lives for the sake of others.

– Akinola wrote in from Oxford, United Kingdom.



December 15, 2013
Why would Emperor Menelik of Ethiopia ride into battle against the Italians with his Queen? A soldier of the Ethiopian army asked "Emperor, Your Majesty why do you ride into battle with your Queen?" Emperor Menelik explained, "I would rather die in battle with my Queen, then leave her home to be raped by a bunch of devils and beasts."

Why would Emperor Menelik of Ethiopia ride into battle against the Italians with his Queen? A soldier of the Ethiopian army asked “Emperor, Your Majesty why do you ride into battle with your Queen?” Emperor Menelik explained, “I would rather die in battle with my Queen, then leave her home to be raped by a bunch of devils and beasts.”