If you still doubt the role of one’s age during certain windows of opportunity in the life of a society and the impact that can have on history, you probably do not recollect Malcom Gladwell’s rousing analysis of hidden opportunities in the second chapter of Outliers. He analyzed the 75 richest people in human history, a list that included queens, kings and Pharaohs from centuries past as well as present day billionaires like Warren Buffet, and found that an astonishing fourteen (almost 19%) are Americans born within nine years of each other (1831 – 1840). Those individuals were at the right age when the American economy went through its greatest transformation in history, the railroads and Wall street. He explains that there was a narrow nine-year window for coming of age at a time when you could see the potential that the future held and take advantage of it. His analogy also works for the computer revolution of the 1970s with Bill Joy, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt and the three founders of Sun Microsystem all being born within 3 years of each other in the mid 1950s.

My analysis led me to eight generational cohorts of Nigerians born between 1890 and 1998. Of this eight, six are still quite active. All eight cohorts are listed by their date of births as follows:

Founding Fathers (1890 – 1910):

Founding fathers were born around the time when the British conquered Northern Nigeria and during the decline of the Aro Confederacy leading to the Anglo-Aro war in Eastern Nigeria in 1901 – 1902. They came of age (that is, turned 16 – 25) during the period of indirect rule and the amalgamation of Nigeria. This cohort was middle aged during the rising political consciousness of the 1940s and the dawn of the Nationalist era. After World War 2 ended in 1945, Europe’s economic resources were destroyed by two global wars and an economic depression. Britain was devastated and no longer had the resources to manage their colonies and America, new ruler of the Western world, opposed European imperialism – making self-rule for many African colonies inevitable. It was three members of this cohort, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo & Ahmadu Bello that negotiated independence from the British. History books provide detailed accounts of the role this generation played during the many demonstrations of the 1940s and 1950s that eventually led to Nigerian independence in 1960, by which time – this cohort were elders in their sixties.

Notable members of this cohort include: Nnamdi Azikiwe (‘04), Obafemi Awolowo (‘09) Ahmadu Bello (‘10), Alvan Ikoku (‘00), Professor Eyo Ita (’04); others are Funmi Ransome Kuti (‘00) and the first Nigerian saint, Blessed. Rev. Fr. Iwene Tansi (’03).

Transitionaries (1911 – 1929):

Transitionaries came of age around when the world was entering the great depression as well as the second world war. This cohort probably constituted most of the 50,000 or so Nigerian soldiers that the British deployed to fight the Japanese in South East Asia after 1943 as part of the British Army’s 81st and 82nd (West Africa) Divisions. Recently, the BBC ran a special on ‘Private African Banana’, a veteran of the war in Burma who was conscripted at the age of 16. On their return, the Colonial government gave some veterans land to begin new lives as farmers while Nigerian soldiers who chose to continue their military careers went on to form the core of independent Nigeria’s national army. This cohort was the most difficult to figure out. I initially called this cohort ‘visionaries’ seeing that they coincide with the ‘Greatest generation’, the western cohort prided for its contribution to the victory of the World War II. However, on looking more closely at the facts, transitionaries seems more fitting seeing that though victory may have been won, it was someone else’s battle. I have Bob Marley’s ‘Buffalo Soldier’ playing in my head as I write this line.

Notable members of this cohort include: Dennis Osadebay Udo Udoma (’17), Shehu Shagari (‘25), Aminu Kano (‘20), Private African Banana (’27). Aguiyi Ironsi (’24) Current population: 0.3% or about 140,000.

Can-Do Heroes (1930 – 1949):

This cohort currently aged between 63 – 82 has had the most impact on Nigeria till date. Because people in this cohort are elders today in an African culture built on respect for the elderly, they are also the most powerful till date. This cohort are the children of the Founding Fathers cohort and came of age during a period of rising Nationalism that led to Nigeria’s independence in 1960. They grew up witnessing the departure of the British and other signs of the colonial government they had known as children. Most notably, this generation ignited and fought the Civil War of 1967 – 1970 as they were young adults when it started. This cohort is probably more appropriately divided into two with the elder members of the cohort being more senior during the war. ‘Should they not be classified with the transitionaries?’ you might ask. Well, the marked difference between this cohort and the one before them is simply the fact that they were young enough to retain power into the new millennium. All Nigerian military rulers, but the first (Aguiyi Ironsi) belong to this cohort. Also, most of the 200 generals retired by IBB’s government by 1989 belong to this cohort. This cohort also includes the god-father generation of Nigeria’s recent political past (or present?), arguably because they were the generation to benefit the most from Nigeria’s economic prosperity of the 1970s and afterwards.

Notable members of this cohort include: Soldiers: Obasanjo(‘37), Ojukwu (‘33), Gowon (‘34), Ibrahim Babangida (‘41), David Mark (‘48), Murtala Mohammed (‘38), Muhammadu Buhari (‘42), Sani Abacha (’43), Abdulsalami Abubakar (’42), Shehu Musa Yar’adua (’43) Politicians: MKO Abiola (’37), Ernest Shonekan (’36), Bamanga Tukur (’35), Joseph Tarka (’32), Arthur Nzeribe (‘38), David West (‘34), Olusola Saraki (’33) Entertainers: Fela, Oliver de coque, IK Dairo, King Sunny Ade (‘46) Activists: Ken Saro Wiwa(‘41), Gani (‘38), Cardinal Francis Arinze (’32). Current Population: 2.7% or about 5 Million.

Silent Generation (1950 – 1966):

There are three reasons for giving this cohort the nomenclature of ‘silent’. First is that they were children during the Civil War of the 1960s which is a factor that, as I will show later on, significantly affects their outlook on life. Second is that due to the firm grip the preceding cohort had on the body politic, this group only recently has come to power. No example captures this more aptly than that of Nigeria’s former president Umaru Yar’adua and his senior brother Maj. Gen. Shehu Musa Yar’adua, who belonged to the previous cohort. Lastly, is that this group was quite quickly pacified in their young adulthood. They were young adults during a time when Nationalism of industries led to an expanding civil service, therefore, they easily got jobs right out of University. I do not have statistics to back this, but the upper echelons of most civil services across the country today are probably filled with this cohort. In other ways, the designation of ‘silent’ does not accurately describe this cohort being that they are constantly in a running tussle for power with members of the previous cohort, making a few of them rather active and vocal during the time of protracted military rule, though some, who were able, emigrated during the 1980s while the rest simply ‘rolled over’ in fear. Further, this cohort were young adults during the spiritual awakening of the 1970s, therefore, will have the strongest recollections of the early MSS or Scripture Union (SU) while in University. This cohort are largely the children of the transitionaries, a feature which will be the basis of my more wild assumptions when I attempt to describe the characteristic of each cohort, subsequently.

Notable members of this cohort include: Umaru Yar’adua (‘51), Goodluck Jonathan (‘57), Okonjo Iweala (‘54), Sanusi (‘61), Ribadu (’60), El Rufai (’60), Ibori (’58), Patrick Obahiagbon (’60) Activists: Femi Falana (‘58), Femi Fani Kayode (‘60), Ben Murray Bruce (‘56), Asari (‘64), Entertainers: RMD (‘61), Kanayo O Kanayo (‘62), Francis Agu (‘65), Onyeka Onwenu (‘61). Current Population: 9.9% or about 17 Million.

Reactive Generation (1967 – 1975):

This cohort, I have named rather controversially but only because I am convinced that they are probably the most radical cohort in modern day Nigeria. They were born from after the Civil War and grew up during the ‘boom’ of the 1970s but came of age to the shock of a military rule between 1984 and 1992, a period which remains one of the worst in the economic history of Nigeria. Further, this cohort were young adults during the aborted third republic, were in University during the explosion of campus cults in the 1990s and witnessed the crumbling of institutions as they graduated to a most bleak future under the iron rule of Sani Abacha. Also, this cohort was born by the Can-do heroes. Searching for examples of members of this cohort was not easy. However, I did find some that almost seemed to justify the nomenclature further – maybe due to priming effects. I would definitely appreciate feedback on this section.

Notable members of this cohort include: Daniel Kanu – Abacha’s million man march coordinator (‘71), Muhammad Yusuf – Boko Haram Founder (‘70), Tompolo -MEND (’69), Festus Keyamo – social crusader (’70) Entertainers: Tuface (‘75) Activists: Omoyele Sowore – Sahara Reporters (’72). Current Population: 9.6% or about 16.5 Million.

Conflicted Millennials I & II (1976 – 1987):

Being a member of this cohort, I don’t believe I need to justify the adjective ‘conflicted’ being that I have a god-given right to self-adjudicate. However, I call this cohort conflicted because they are the most ‘infected’ by Western culture and ideas being that they came of age during the ‘raving 90s’. This cohort is probably the most responsible for rewriting the rules of Nigerian social culture, laying to rest what traditionalism stayed alive in the previous cohort. You can find this cohort filling the front pews of most pentecostal churches, on the dance floors of euro-styled night clubs and on facebook (at least 35% of total number of Nigerians). They are the market for Nollywood and Hollywood, Afro Hip Hop and Hip Hop, etc. My classification divides this cohort into two, right around the middle of this period. CM-1 are aged 31 – 36 today and they came of age during the last days of the Military rule, between 1993 and 1998. CM-2 are aged 25 – 30 today and came of age during the early years of democracy as well as the 911 terrorism attacks on America. CM-1 were old enough to benefit from the expanding economy in the early 2000s including the growing banking sector and deregulated telecoms market. CM-2 were less fortunate, having missed the first wave, but are entering the work force more actively today. This cohort may also be the first wave of poorly educated Nigerians, being that they came of age during a time of crumbling educational institutions.

Notable members of this cohort include: Asa (82), Da Grin (‘86), Agbani Darego (‘82), Mikel John Obi (‘87). Current Population: 14.3% or about 24.3 Million.

Generation Y (1988 – 1998):

This cohort were children during the ‘raving 90s’ also, an age of relative calm and optimism given Nigeria’s nascent democracy. They are currently coming of age in an atmosphere awash with technology and western style interaction patterns. In my mind, this cohort most closely matches with the millennial cohort of western nations.

Current Population: 19.3% or about 33 Million.

This brings me to the end of the third part and first chapter of this cohort series. The next challenge is to attempt to attach descriptions to each of these cohorts based on their life stories and compare them closely with other cohorts across the world. My thanks go to everyone who has dropped feedback via email, please keep the thoughts coming and lets refine this together.

Taken at Black Birch Vineyard

‘During the night air raids we would run into the bush and hide, sometimes staying there for several days. For people at home, there was no way of knowing if I was dead or alive until I finally returned from school to the village after the war’. This recollection of the Biafran war of the late 1960s was from my mother, who was in college a way away from the village she was born and grew up in. The fighting never got to her school, yet she and hundreds of other students lived with the horror of impending doom as Nigerian and Biafran forces fought viciously for the soul of the country. The story of that war is now reposited in a couple of books and documentaries but mostly in the minds of Nigerians. But which Nigerians in particular? 

Cohorts are groups of individuals who are born during the same time period and journey through life together, experiencing similar external events during their lifetime. For example, Americans now in their late forties to late sixties who were born right after World War II lived through the assassination of JFK, the risk of a draft into the Vietnam war, anti-war protests, the civil rights movement, etc. These events, known as defining moments, shape an individual’s values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors in such a way that differentiate one cohort from another. Defining moments are usually economic changes, wars, political ideologies, technological innovations and social upheavals that lead society to redefine values, attitudes and preferences. These ‘cohort effects’ stay with that cohort and direct its behavior over its entire lifetime. Note that cohort-formed values, attitudes and preferences do not change as a function of age or lifestyle. The United States has the most extensively researched population with regards to this concept. Seven cohorts have been identified in the United States. They are the Depression cohort, the World War II cohort, The Post-War Cohort, the Baby Boomers – split into Boomer I (leading-edge) and Boomer II (trailing-edge), Generation X and most recently Generation Y or millennials. Unlike typical generational groupings, cohorts can be of any length. The World War II cohort in America, for instance, includes only those born between 1922 and 1927.

Each cohort is considered to have a distinct persona. Strauss and Howe argue that each holds attitudes about family life, religion, gender roles, careers, lifestyles and more, and even though there are individual exceptions and the boundaries get a little ‘fuzzy near the edges’, it is clear that history and shared experiences influence each cohort’s persona. Baby boomers, for instance, are known to be more individualistic, free spirited and social cause oriented as a result of growing up in a time of dramatic social change. As if to reaffirm the notion that a cohort can have a persona, Time Magazine named the baby boomer the 1966 man of the year.

There has been a tendency to generalize North American cohorts to other parts of the world. That seems logical considering the important role that America continues to play as a social, economic and political influence world over. Further, the idea of cohorts has been applied within global corporations with the understanding of the traits of each cohort taken into consideration when hiring, etc. However, with time it has become more apparent that the characteristics of generational cohorts in North America do not necessarily address the behavior or traits of people supposedly in similar cohorts in other parts of the world. In 2010, Deloitte published a global generation overview that showed a varied picture of generational cohorts in ten countries. The logic is that if generational differences are shaped by defining moments that have a transformative impact on a society, and such defining moments vary from country to country, then by extension, the definition of cohorts will be variable. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that some countries are more influenced by western cohorts than others, with their own cohorts ‘trailing’ by a couple of years. South African Generation Xers, for instance, trail 5 years behind Generation Xers in the US and last much longer leading to an overlap with the older half of US Millennials.

My first step in trying to figure out the different generational cohorts in Nigeria was to reconstruct a timeline of Nigerian history. “Speak to the past and it shall teach thee” is a quote etched on the wall of the John Carter library at Brown University; speak to the past I did. And I learnt more about Nigerian history within those weeks than I had known in my entire life. The next step was to form a hypothesis of possible cohort groupings and identify their ages during what I perceived to be defining moments in Nigerian history. Based on these preliminary groupings, I developed a survey to find out which events people of particular ages remembered the most with the purpose of singling out the most significant events. I was able to harass a little over 50 Nigerians of different ages into filling out the survey as well as provide suggestions on important events that I had skipped. A timeline of some of these events are shown in the table below.

In a way, this list feels like an oversimplification of what is a very complex country with a web of connections and historical antecedents. There are many other important events which occurred during this period which probably qualify to be considered as among defining moments. Although someone else may come up with a list different from this one, there will definitely be a fair degree of overlap.

Tying these events back into Strauss & Howe’s theory, I failed to see in Nigerian history a clear pattern of societal conditions. Their theory is that, just like there are four seasons in temperate and sub-polar regions, societies evolve through a recurring fourfold cycle of conditions. This cycle is marked by the recurrence of periods of war and periods of politics. Different historians who believe in the periodicity of time have captured these cycles and explained them differently – war and peace, growing and decaying order, yin and yang, love and strife, etc; while also capturing the difference in the time that leads up to these points in historical cycles. An Awakening begins when events trigger a revolution in culture, a Crisis when events trigger an upheaval in public life. A High begins when society perceives that the basic issues of the prior Crisis have been resolved while an Unraveling begins with the perception that the Awakening has been resolved, leaving a new cultural mindset in place. These four turnings comprise a quaternal social cycle of growth, maturation, entropy, and death (and rebirth).

In Nigeria, the 1960s should be considered a time of awakening, as independence from the British was achieved and the country seemed set to establish a new order, however events within the country led to a brutal crisis, the Nigerian Civil War. The decade following the Civil War was one of relative peace for most of the country and is also fondly remembered as one of the rosiest periods (read a High) in Nigeria’s economic history – the oil boom. Richard Dowden, in his book Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles, remarks on how Nigeria was so awash with petrodollars in the 1970s that the then President, Yakubu Gowon, said that Nigeria’s only problem was knowing how to spend the money. This period also marks the start of Nigeria’s ‘resource curse’ days as agricultural production declined rapidly due to growing disdain for rural living as people pursued education to fill up white collar roles in the civil service, etc. The Nigerian story seemed set for greatness at the turn of the decade (and start of the second republic) when the country was ravaged by the corruption of the Shehu Shagari led NPN government in the early 1980s. This decade is remembered for the peaceful coup and a brief attempt by Muhammadu Buhari to sanitize the country including the arrest and detention of most political leaders on accusations of indiscipline and corruption. This ‘iron rule’ was promptly deposed in the palace coup of 1985 which ushered in IBB and set the stage for fourteen years of Military rule in Nigeria. Nevertheless, an awakening was going on in the larger society. The 1980s saw the rapid spread of the Scripture Union (SU) across Nigeria as the born-again revival hit campuses and secondary schools all across Nigeria. At the same time, the Muslim Students Society became radical and assumed a new role especially with the Iranian revolution of 1979. By 1980, dissension had risen among many of the society’s members, some decided to reject the secular approach of the 1979 constitution, supported the establishment of an Islamic state and acts to stop the sale of alcohol in some Northern Nigerian universities notable Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. The 1980s were marked by religious motivated riots in Kano, Maiduguri, Kaduna and Yola, notable of which is the Maitatsine uprising of 1982 – an event considered a pre-cursor of the current Boko Haram crisis. The 1990s in Nigeria were clearly a time of unraveling. A protracted military rule led to crumbling of what institutions existed – education, public service, health care, etc. The country faced rapid emigration of qualified professionals under the torment of the post SAP economy with inflation reaching its highest in Nigeria’s history – 72% in 1995. Student unionism was at a peak, leading to the infiltration of student unions by military backed cultists and a rapid increase in campus cults – interesting because campus cults in Port Harcourt were the breeding ground for armed robbers, election touts and militants of the next decade. The end of this decade also marked the start of the Pentecostal explosion in Nigeria, a euphemism for prosperity preaching. The death of Abacha from eating the literal and proverbial poisoned apple averted what many thought would have been a revolution or even greater crisis and Nigeria entered the new millennium a democracy.

Ask a Nigerian about the 2000s and the response you get will depend largely on how old they are or whose side they are on in the ever raging political and cultural debate. The 2000s can be considered part unraveling, part high. It saw, for the first time in decades, the gradual restoration of the Nigerian middle class; self-empowerment of many young Nigerians through a booming banking sector, a deregulated telecommunications industry and not to leave out an important group, a booming advance fee fraud industry. It was also marked by Sharia law being declared in some Northern states and the religious chaos that led to; ethnic disputes and land crises, extra judicial killings in Bayelsa and Benue States as well as the crisis in the Niger Delta.

Compare the sequence of the Strauss-Howe Model (Crisis – High – Awakening – Unravelling spanning 95 – 100 years) with what I believe to be Nigeria’s progression in the table below.

Still, there are useful insights that can be drawn from generally thinking about Nigeria in terms of these cycles and the definition of generational cohorts in Nigeria. But one thing, you’ll have to read about that in this post.

One thing that stood out to me in the midst of all that transpired at the time was the ambiguity surrounding whose responsibility it is to think and plan for Nigeria’s future. By definition, that is part of the responsibility of the institution of government. The word government is derived from the Latin infinitive gubernare, meaning “to govern” or “to manage”. The word can also mean “to steer” or “to pilot”. Visualizing the root word, government is the agency responsible for directing an object through a pathway from a particular state to a (hopefully) pre-determined destination. Desirable in today’s politics is that democratic principles govern the manner in which the agents are selected – “…of the people, by the people, for the people” said Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg. It is often forgotten that the first part of that statement speaks of people who sacrificed their lives to make it possible for those left alive to ‘take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion”. Well, many Nigerians did not forget that part either. A common response from the few people who believed the fuel subsidy removal was a good idea was that in asking common Nigerians to bear the brunt of higher fuel prices towards a better future, the GEJ led government must demonstrate a measure of sacrifice as well – by cutting the size of the executive, reducing foreign travel and allowances. Wasteful figures from the proposed 2012 budget shot to the limelight and status messages and BBM broadcasts swept across the internet expressing deep distrust and disdain for the government of the day. Not even the announced cut of salaries of government officials by 25% was enough to placate the general public. I reckon that the 2012 budget was the most scrutinized budget in the history of Nigeria.

While all of this was going on, I started to notice certain trends in the reactions of Nigerians to the issues of the day. Some people were more easily convinced of the good intentions of the government than others; others took very hard stances in their arguments. Nowhere was this playing out more fluidly than on facebook and twitter. Expletives were piled on expletives; ad hominems were directed at all those perceived to be pro-subsidy and the #occupyNigeria movement gained momentum. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the movement self-corrected by expanding its discourse to focus on larger issues of bad leadership, corruption and the general lack of accountability that has become characteristic of government in Nigeria (and most of Africa). Subsequently, prominent political opposition figures became the faces of the movement and gradually the #occupy buzz fizzled out. Well, at least it fizzled out on the tweetdeck feed which I set up to track mentions for most of January and February.

It all seemed so familiar though. I remember capturing my top ten tweets about the subsidy and the final word was a tweet from Lagos which read “I’m helping grandma sell stuff in her shop. I told her about fuel subsidy, she said in 2 weeks Nigerians would adapt”. Well, grandma was right. Nigerians are renowned for their short memories, right – or are we? This realization – almost dejavu, led me to think a bit more deeply into the Nigerian element and the roles which different groups have naturally assumed. Unscrupulous leaders do what they like, the people face the brunt and run into the waiting arms of the opposition who foment dissatisfaction and dissent, but eventually the people lose interest and simply… adapt! Then it occurred to me why it all seemed so familiar! I had watched that happen in 2007 and again in 2011 while participating/organizing for local elections in my hometown. In each instance, I witnessed with frustration as my local community had failed to turn dissatisfaction into positive results for the good of the area. Was it that dissatisfaction/hardship was a bad motivation for Nigerians? This train of thought only led to more and more questions.

Another pattern that stuck out sorely was the difference in what people of various ages had to say about the happenings of January 2012. Some expressed resignation and deference, almost powerlessness in the face of the realities. Others expressed deep anger and bitterness while others could barely mask their arrogant disinterest. To be honest, I no longer judge people that have given up on Nigeria and never have anything good to say about her. There appears ample reason to be that way. However, peering deeper behind the curtain of these initial reactions, it appeared that even people who had similar reactions had arrived there from different paths. Some had pre-conceived impressions of the state of the nation; others seemed to form impressions from consideration of media reports or facts while others were swayed by less obvious or logically defensible reasons.

I must point out that I don’t believe in stereotypes. Nevertheless, being a student of the world – I totally agree that culture is a powerful thing. Further, I recently learned about Strauss-Howe’s generational theory having had The Fourth Turning recommended to me by a Professor. The Strauss-Howe generational theory postulates that the history of America (and other nations) can be told as a series of generational biographies that occur in a fourfold recurring sequence. Their theory is an extension of the generational cohort theory which explains changes across generations as a function of traits developed during the period of ‘youth’ approximately from 16 – 25 years. These traits are said to be formed during ‘defining moments’. Note that prior to the idea of cohorts, sociologists tended to classify people according to their current ages, i.e it was believed that people changed their behavior as they grew older and moved through life stages. Contrarily, research showed that people held on to values formed at certain ages throughout their lives. Strauss & Howe place more specific bounds on the cohort theory by defining ‘social generations’ as the aggregate of all people born over a span of roughly twenty years, or about the length of one phase of life” childhood, young adulthood, midlife and old age.  Further, they identify a fourfold pattern of societal conditions which different generations experience differently namely: a high, awakening, unraveling and crisis. Generations that come of age as young adults during a Crisis or an Awakening directly absorb the lessons of that defining era, and carry these lessons forward in their attitudes and behaviors later in life. Strauss and Howe label these dominant generations. Generations that grow up as children during a Crisis or Awakening take a dependent role during that defining era, which shapes their later attitudes and behaviors very differently. Strauss and Howe label these recessive generations.

This theory is not without its criticisms, but not as much for the rigor of their thesis, which retells American history as a series of generational biographies going back to 1584 and is in sync with other theories of the rise and fall of civilizations dating back to Chinese and Hellenistic history as well as teaching of scholars dating back to 9^th century BC Rome, as for their descriptions of the millennial generation in America. Suffice it to say that the millennial generation world over is considered increasingly difficult to figure out.

Therefore, I decided to combine what I was learning about Nigerian history with this theory, like any scholarly minded fellow would do, in order to see whether any useful insights could be gained. Like Emanuel Derman said in ‘Models behaving badly’, his expose of the 2008 financial crisis, ‘deep inside, everyone recognizes that the purpose of building models and creating theories is divination: foretelling the future and controlling it’. That is really not the purpose of this exercise – to divine. I’ll leave that to Nollywood movies. The purpose of the next couple of posts is to identify, for the first time, some uniquely Nigerian cohorts starting from 1911 till the early 1990s, to draw out defining moments in the life of each of these groups and then to suggest some characteristics or values that they share – all with an aim of stimulating discourse about a shared Nigerian past. My hope is that maybe by putting faces to the various moments of Nigeria’s nationhood it will make it less easy for me to forget history and therefore from being doomed to repeat it.

Continue to Part Two

Eight years later, I watch the movie again and it stirs up in me a whole different batch of emotions. For one, I am less drawn to Tom Cruise’s character for the high points which impressed me years ago – quick learning of the samurai fighting style, the japanese language or even the willingness to fight against the American trained Japanese army. My deep cynicism has gotten the better of me in this regard, making it seem totally logical that a man with a deep and troubled past will take up the fight of a minority on the verge of extinction and go against his own people. It feels more like a manifestation of a death wish than a turn around on ‘the way to Damascus’, I’m just saying.

It is the Japanese characters that speak to me much more deeply this time around. First of all, Katsumoto, the leader of the samurai who led his band of samurai warriors against the onslaught of cannons and automatic guns to a certain death. Talk about a death wish coming true, right? And also Taka, a soft spoken and pretty Japanese woman that is made to play host to the killer of her husband, and who eventually gives that same killer her husband’s armor to wear into the final battle. That was just too much for me.

In between the idealistic picture painted of the samurai way of life in 18th century Japan and the seemingly anti-western storyline of the successful flick, it has left me thinking about the simple fact that although man has made advances in every field conceivable and we are closer than we have ever been to solving most known problems, we are still hopeless with answering the more important questions of who we are as individuals (and as Nations, by extension) and how people different from us should be treated or even reacted to.

Jason Chun of University of Hawai’i – West O’ahu published an interesting paper on the Japanese reactions to the movie. You can read it here.

“Well, I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could.
I make a C+ feel like the Congressional Medal of Honor winner.
I make kids sit through 40 minutes of class time when their parents can’t
make them sit for 5 min. without an I Pod, Game Cube or movie rental.
You want to know what I make?
(She paused again and looked at each and every person at the table)

I make kids wonder.
I make them question.
I make them apologize and mean it.
I make them have respect and take responsibility for their actions.
I teach them how to write and then I make them write.
Keyboarding isn’t everything.
I make them read, read, read.
I make them show all their work in math.
They use their God given brain, not the man-made calculator.
I make my students from other countries learn everything they need
to know about English while preserving their unique cultural identity.
I make my classroom a place where all my students feel safe.
Finally, I make them understand that if they use the gifts they
were given, work hard, and follow their hearts, they can succeed in life
( Bonnie paused one last time and then continued.)

Then, when people try to judge me by what I make, with me knowing money isn’t everything, I can hold my head up high and pay no attention because they are ignorant. You want to know what I make?

I MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN ALL YOUR LIVES, EDUCATING KIDS AND PREPARING THEM TO BECOME CEO’s, AND DOCTORS AND ENGINEERS……….

What do you make Mr. CEO?
His jaw dropped; he went silent.

Is that right? I’ve always wondered about this quote since I first heard it in Nas’ ‘Hate me now‘. While I remembered the quote because it seemed rather clever, it never really struck a chord in my mind. That may be as much from lack of adequate context of the original quote as from any other reason, nevertheless, I think I’ve found a re-work of the quote that works for me.

“People fear what they can’t control, and what they can’t understand, they call it crazy” 

I have MHP to thank for the epiphany. In her own words (paraphrased and rid of its specific political coloring):
“Using crazy as a stand in for something you do not agree with simply shuts down the debate, ‘cos there is no reasoning with crazy. As much as you might feel about differing opinions on topical issues, this is reality, it is not temporary insanity. (And) realising that you are engaging with these (political) realities, I think, is a key to (political) change.”

- Melissa Harris-Perry

Now, back to the topic at hand, how people react in the absence of understanding and control! When it comes to some issues, both aspects of this re-worked quote are pretty much different sides of the same coin. This realisation forces me to think about all the times that a fear of something I perceived to be beyond my control combined with a lack of understanding have led to either labeling it as ‘crazy’ (passive response) or any of the 3-F responses: fear, flight or fight (active response).

I decided to whip out this simple 2 by 2  matrix to represent these tendencies. Note that by default, human beings try to exist in the top right quadrant, therefore will carry out any of those actions (passive or active) to restore ourselves to that state of ‘understanding and control’.

The analysis got me kind of excited and its saturday night and I am bored, therefore, I made an attempt to flesh out a more detailed 3 by 3 matrix to include the illusion of control and understanding. The basic premise is that the two states of knowing and not knowing can morph into a third state – ‘not knowing that you do not know‘, which is a double negative, but is clearly different from a positive i.e the state of ‘actually knowing’.

The concept can be stretched into saying that calling others’ ideas which we do not agree with and are unable to influence ‘crazy’ may be a result of the ‘illusion of understanding’. Why do people think they understand when they actually don’t? Is it arrogance, ignorance, intellectual laziness? That is a whole other investigation.

 If this model is anything to go by, the most disconcerting thing to me is that there does not seem to be a way to funnel an individual who is clueless, for instance, into the smiley face box. Any such prescription for switching between boxes is not captured by this model. However, there seems to be a ready application. Because it is descriptive, it may help an individual determine the source of a particular reaction that has been observed. Therefore, if you were to find yourself ‘disappointed’, it may be a manifestation of an illusion of control as well as a lack of understanding of a particular issue. I guess that may be a good starting point towards digging at the issues.

Critiques + Further Thoughts:

• There needs to be a clearer distinction and defense for differentiating between ‘understanding’ something and ‘the illusion of understanding’ something, especially since in empirical terms they are the same and also this model suggests that there should always be a difference in outcomes.
• Also, what is the difference between ‘not understanding’ something and the ‘illusion of understanding’?
• I admit to be referring to the lay meanings of words such as disappointment, clueless, etc. They will need to be properly qualified and made consistent with their meanings in psychological terms.
• There is an inherent negativity in all the outcomes illustrated in these matrices. While that may be deemed extremely pessimistic, I’d say it is a more conservative ‘long range’ view, rather than capturing any short term positive outcomes.
• Is there a particular sequence in the way people deal with issues?