21/07/2021
THE IBIBIO STORY AND THE CHALLENGE OF HISTORY
Protocol,
I wish to thank the organisers for inviting me to speak in this special book presentation. I call it special because somehow, it has generated high-decibel polemics rarely heard before in this part of the world. A loud and frontal refutation of a book is not very common in scholarship, and such as this is bound to attract the attention of a historian. As one who was privilege to play a role in the return of History to Nigerian schools curriculum and national consciousness, I can only be fascinated by every effort to bring history to the table. I bring you warm compliments from the Department Of History And Diplomatic Studies Of The University Of Abuja.
When the author sought my consent to be the Guest Speaker I trembled at the offer, scared of the possibility of being caught-up in a controversy that dominated the social media. Reason and nostalgia took the better part of me; I saw the invitation as an opportunity to proselyte history in my alma-matta, the great university of Uyo. It was in this citadel that I learnt my craft, it was on this very spot, then called ‘the pavilion’, that I became a historian. I salute the Vice Chancellor and the entire UNIUYO community for flying the flag of excellence in scholarship.
I`ve been asked to speak on “The Ibibio Story and the Challenge of History”. It is not my intention to dwell on Uwem Akpan`s book; I have not yet read his book or the one he is refuting as such it will be unprofessional for me to comment on them. I am not the book reviewer for today but a Guest Speaker and I understand the contention is on the “cradle of Ibibio nation”. One is not surprised at such tussle when one recalls Fernand Braudel`s declaration that “the fundamental reality of any civilization must be its geographical cradle”.1 But I also want to warn that in history, it is not in all cases that a group of people, though speaking the same language and sharing similar culture, emanate from the same ancestral or geographical stock. I trust Dr Ini Etuk will do justice to that as today`s book reviewer. I will rather chisel my discourse to fit my designation as a guest speaker, by provoking some random thoughts on history and its vagaries using Ibibio as a case study. I want to express my respect to every writer who has taken pains to contribute to Ibibio historiography. In this regard, I salute Uwem Akpan and the authors of the book he is refuting for adding to the Ibibio historiography. It` s not easy to process history in an anti-intellectual country like Nigeria. In this clime one risks being hated and could even be penalised for knowing too much. Nowadays, intellectuals must feign ignorance in order to fit in.
I want to remind us that history is the art of memory2 and since knowledge evolves through memory, it follows that history is the capstone of all knowledge. History teaches us to remember and it is dynamic, that’s why historians often talk about continuity and change. History is important and its centrality as a fulcrum of human development cannot be ignored. Indeed, it is so important that it should be treated with all seriousness because in the words of Obara Ikime , “God is interested in history”.3 I always tell my audience that whenever history encounters intractable debate and controversies, it is a sign that its submissions are yet to be satisfactory, and its conclusions have not provided adequate answers to the queries. It is mostly the gaps in historical submissions that give birth to criticisms. Nevertheless, whether in reconstruction or criticism, it is always safe to remember Gottschalk`s priceless admonition that; “Only a part of what was observed in the past was remembered by those who observed it; only a part of what was remembered was recorded; only a part of what was recorded has survived; only a part of what has survived has come to the historian`s attention; only a part of what has come to their attention is credible; only a part of what is credible has been grasped; and only a part of what has been grasped can be expounded or narrated by the historian”.4 However, every historian or writer has a moral burden to strive to remain objective and factual. Facts and objectivity are what distinguishes history as an academic discipline from other past times that deploys storytelling. “Facts’ according to John Adams, ‘are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence”.5 While it cannot be denied that history promotes recreation, its intention must not be targeted to recreation or any such motive. To do so would render it subjective sometimes with undesirable backlash. History has bonding properties, but it can also tear a people apart if rendered wrongly. Anybody can write a story of the past, but history, just like law, medicine, nursing, etc, has rules which MUST first be learned, before it is practiced. Thus, it is mischievous to claim that anybody can write history. History is too sensitive to be treated as commonsense. Story-tellers must be cautious enough to respect the lines between stories of the past and history. I have researched into a good number of social conflicts in Nigeria and can submit that at the base of these conflicts are spurious and sometimes utterly fake histories. People are thrown into wars that could have been avoided just because some persons cook up stories to provoke disaffection. Ibibio itself is not new to conflicts induced by storytelling. A classical reminder is an episode in the 1920s when E.N.Amaku submitted a manuscript “The History Of Efik People” to the Mission Authority for adoption as a resource material for the teaching of literature. In response to the decision of the colonial administration to introduce the teaching of vernacular literature in schools which demanded headmasters of schools to submit materials for consideration. In that controversial publication, Amaku had described the Ibibio as ``knaves, heavily endowed with dynamism, wisdom, industry and cunning but were unworthy of trust``.6 The work which also derided the Ibibio people as domestic slaves in the household of an Efik noble man caused untold disaffection between the Ibibio and the Efik. It was felt that the sensational publication was contrived to downgrade the Ibibio person and expose him to hatred and ridicule. Despite attempts made by the authority to contain the anger of the Ibibio nationalists on this issue, riots were known to have broken out in Akpabuyo and Esit Efut at the instance of the Ibibio Mainlanders Association which mobilized all Ibibio people in the Calabar territory to confront the Amaku publication. It took the interventions of the Mission authorities and some Efik principalities who fear a possible breach of public order in the entire Calabar province, to broker a peaceful settlement on the terms that the offensive materials be withdrawn, destroyed and that the booklet would not be approved for use as a reader in schools.7 Although Amaku was made to tender apologies to the Ibibio people as a condition for an out of court settlement of the heated issue, a stage has already been set for a wave of angst and nationalism as the controversial author was Efik of Enyong extraction. It was the anti-Amaku protests in the Calabar province that triggered (amongst other factors) the amalgamation of Ibibio Mainlanders Association and the Ibibio Welfare Union to form the Ibibio Union in 1928.8
Another case of dissonance induced by a writer was Okon Uya`s work on Oron Origins: Search For A Chimera. In the work Uya had reported that ‘Ibibi(Ibibio) tantamount to beign called a slave.....the oron did not intermarry with the Ibibi for fear of contamination first with the uncircumcised and second with descendants of slaves”.9 Once again the Ibibio intelligentsia went berserk almost to a point of slugging it out with their Oro neighbours. It assumed scary dimensions during the run up to the 2011 General Elections. The insult was a painful reminder of the Amaku episode although the renown professor attributed the categorization to an informant, he regretted the backlash caused by the publication and even blame “misinterpretations and misconceptions by enemies” when yours truly engaged him on the issue during an International conference at 3Js Hotel in Abuja in 2012. Uya was remorseful about the negative impact of that particular assertion but insisted(and I confirmed it) that the offensive assertion was not his, but was made by an informant during his research. I had no qualms believing the sage who never hid his passion for Oro nationalism. He even drew my attention to his role in the creation of Akwa Ibom state during the Babangida era, and his advocacies within the Oro Development Union on a certain anti-Ibibio cultural practice in Oro that was inimical for good neighbourliness.10
Amaku was not a historian but an ambitious elementary teacher with the Presbyterian mission in Calabar. His case was like a butcher who has been killing cows claiming to be a surgeon simply because he`s used to seeing blood. His book was calculated to disparage the Ibibio and weaken their spirited challenge to Efik suzerainty in the colonial system, Uya`s case was informed by minority complex and search for identity. Uya himself dubbed his intellectual attempt to divorce Oro from Ibibio history as a chimera reflecting an effort to rile-up enough sentiments to take control of Oro`s political destiny from perceived Ibibio overbearance. It was a reminder of Monday Noah`s “micro-nationalism flowering into historical revisionism”,12 the same syndrome which gave birth the new quasi-tribes which sprouted the area in the post Ibibio union days.
ladies and gentlemen, today`s gathering is about the presentation of a refutation of a certain book. Uwem Akpan`s effort reminds of the story of the impala, the one we call esoh in Ibibioland. The story goes that it was when the impala overheard the hunters complaining the forest is cursed with no single game after a day’s hunt, the herbivore jumped out of his hiding towards the rampaging hunters and screamed ake ikot ete esoh? The animal act was to disapprove the hunters’ earlier aspersion that the forest is baren. Uwem`s book appear to scream! ake Ibibio ke mbufo ekama etop ekong nke?.
From Intelligence, Anthropological and Colonial Reports, Ibibio has one of the most authentic and noble histories in Africa. Her history is so compelling that it often conjures her people to arguments. Ibibio prides itself as one of the most documented histories available for researchers. The European efforts were followed by Noah, Udo Udoma, Edet Udo, Abassiattai, Otoabasi Akpan who all agreed to some basic conclusions on Ibibio history and migrations. Ibibio history has never been in contention. A few splinter groups who tried to discredit Ibibio history as handed down by the early Europeans, this group of people, for want of alternative facts, are the band who claims that Ibibio migrated from Egypt or any other romantic location in the Middle East without any hard proof. I always remind such people that Ibibios are negroid, while the Egyptians are Caucasians. However, every endeavour to add to the knowledge of Ibibio history should be encouraged. I have argued elsewhere that the historian is fallible and capable of error, his personal biases, political beliefs, economic status, religious persuasion, and idiosyncrasies can subtly and unconsciously influence the way historical sources are interpreted.13 Nevertheless, It is from such forays that a more robust history will emerge.
From every calculation, Nigeria is indeed in the age of historical renaissance. In recent days, the social media has witness increasing recourse to history in almost every conversation courtesy of the renewed vigour of history scholars. Indeed, a British historian, Lord Acton, during his Inaugural Lecture On The Study Of History in 1895 had submitted that different intellectual influences has indeed contributed to “saturating the age with historical ways of thought” in Europe.14 While it can be argued that the advocacies of professional Nigerian historians and the public space opened up by the social media has led to a prodigious interest in history in recent times. There is a temptation for writers to draw attention to their ideas with extremely hyperbolic themes. It is called historical romanticism,...but it threatens objectivity and makes history conflictual and sometimes impossible to guage the importance of the stakes involved.
At this juncture, ladies and gentlemen, permit me to attempt some explanations of certain basic issues in Ibibio history. But how can one best interpret or reconstruct history like the history of Ibibio without turning tables?. I have maintained in other fora that history, and that like any other craft, has rules which must be followed to distinguish it from any other vocation or pastimes. The quality of the historian`s work and its contributions to the society must be judged purely by intellectual standards.15 I have always warned my students to be careful and clear on what they put to paper, to only extract conclusions when best practice has been justified, and should be receptive to criticisms when future researchers emerge with new facts.
In the pre-colonial era, writing wasn’t deployed in documenting history by Africans. What was known were bits of oral traditions from elderly relations to offspring. The only known form of writing in Ibibio area, the nsibidi, was only reserved for Ekpo initiates and the aristocracy. Thus, the early European travellers, anthropologists, missionaries and colonial officers were only able to cobble together Ibibio history by sifting through dominant reports, legends, folktales, and information gathered from the locals they interacted with during pre-colonial and colonial periods. It was a cardinal policy of imperialism to undertake such extensive anthropological studies to understand the strength, weakness and world view of Africans to aid in subjugation and subsequent colonization. While it is correct to say that there is no finality in historical knowledge, those who attempt to discredit those earlier reports as Eurocentric have not been able to produce their original data as those painstakingly sourced by the Europeans during such pristine stage of Ibibio civilisation.
Another is that history enthusiasts must appreciate the fact that just as we have former Sokoto Caliphate and current Sokoto, former Oyo Empire and current Oyo, former Benin kingdom and current Benin city, there is a significant difference between the Ibibioland as we know it today and the Ibibioland recorded in history. The later was bigger and wider in geography and demography than what we have today. Indeed, with the exception Obolo and Ibeno, most of what we accept as ethnic groups in Akwa Ibom state today, were once Ibibio clans.16 Just as we have the shrinking of Sokoto, Oyo, and Benin mentioned above, Ibibio also experienced decomposition over time in history. Thus any attempt at reconstructing Ibibio history must factor in the fundamental complexities and diverse sensibilities.
It can be observed that in all European reports and subsequent submissions by African historians, no set of people or ethnicity is biologically homogenous. To assume that a progenitor gave birth to an entire nation is as superfluous as it is ahistorical. There was no single progenitor named Ibom or Ibibio who procreated the people who belong to this geographical area. At least, no DNA examination or any other medical investigation can support such claim. If I may respond to Edet Udo`s teaser “who are the Ibibio?”, I would say, with a hindsight of history, that Ibibio people had occupied the almost entirely, the area now called Akwa ibom state. Their influence had span from a location in Southern Cameroun, parts of cross river and parts of Abia states, a stretch Amaury Talbot described as “The Land Of The Ibibios”.17 They speak a cluster of mutually intelligible languages clasified as ibibiod/ibom languages by linguists.18 and crisscrossed the area in search of food and safety for centuries long before the coming of the Europeans. Migration is a cardinal part of the evolution of human societies, but it must be emphasized that while history recognises migrations for its force in state formations, it has never denied the factor of aboriginals. It cannot be denied that migrations occurred, but historians must avoid the temptation of presenting it as if it was a march- pass by some school children on Independence Day parade. Ibibioland has never been a barren forest from creation. The area spanning from the river cross to the foot of the Cameroun Mountains has been inhabited and crisscrossed by Ibibio people in search of food, fishing and safety from wars for ages. The movements from Usakedet and later from Arochukwu were but some of such episodes that involved different batches of Ibibio at different times. Historians must understand that during these episodes, the migrants always met other Ibibio, live with and sometimes fought with them, and then moved on. The people whom they met while migrating, and from whom they got their different names.19 Thus, identifying possible stopovers of migration is a worthwhile enterprise, but to argue that there was a cradle or place an exact time for the “emanation” of entire Ibibio (be it Usakedet, Arochukwu, Ikono Or Ikono Uyo) amounts to missing the point. These locations were, no doubt, some of the possible stopovers by different Ibibio groups who roam the entire area of the lower cross river region at different times.
But is history meant to cause conflict or disaffection among people?. I would say no. Rather History, when casted objectively and professionally, can eliminate conflicts. Loud presumptions and hasty generalisation must be kept at bay else the historian risk falling into the same category of village chiefs who mutilate family histories to convert others` farmlands and inheritance. I’m aware there`s a previous work on the same title in which Dr Uwem Akpan`s own seeks to refute. My advice is two-pronged; etang eno nnyin unen etang eno nbukpo. We must accept criticism as a cardinal ingredient of scholarship. While criticising we must do so with studied decorum as scholars. I do not want the conversation on Ibibio to stop with Uwem Akpan or the author he is refuting. No historical research can claim finality. Perfection is an elixir as knowledge processing is a constantly expanding exercise. Instead of hurling insults and sarcasms in the social media, I encourage other researchers to equally review Uwem Akpan`s work and dig even deeper into the recesses of Ibibio history. It is my belief that continuous intellectual conversations as this will bring Ibibio history closer to the people. Beyond cradle and migrations, Ibibio researchers should interrogate subsequent events and iconic actors that define our era. I challenge historians and other scholars to extend their research efforts to pan-Ibibio institutions and biographies of prominent men and women who shape Ibibio history since independence.
Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I want to conclude by warning historians against hasty generalisations. Perhaps a quote from Paul Jonson will make more sense here. Jonson had warned that; “the study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seems to us novel and plausible, have been tasted before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false”. 20 To avoid above scenario, Gottschalk had admonished that “ the historian must be sure that his records really came from the past and are in fact what they seem to be and that his imagination is directed towards re-creation and not creation.”21 My final take is that lets all take the challenge to research and promote Ibibio through constant intellectual dialogue as this. I would suggest that Ibibio scholars should come together to float an academic society – something like Ibibio Studies Association, to constantly ruminate the historical and cultural particulars of Ibibioland. It is not enough to insult or condemn what Uwem Akpan has just done. If you doubt any of his submissions, please write your own!, and in satisfying that spasm, let`s stick to the basic rules of historical writing lest we destroy our identity. Yak isong odoro ukana!.
Thank you.
*A Keynote By Dr Philip Afaha During The Public Presentation Of Ikono: The Cradle Of Ibibio: A Refutation At The Onyema Ugochukwu Hall, University Of Uyo On The 9th December, 2019.
*Philip Afaha Is An Associate Professor Of Intergroup Relations / Head Of The Department Of History And Diplomatic Studies, University Of Abuja.
19/02/2024
13/01/2024
25/10/2023
29/08/2023
29/08/2023
28/08/2023
08/09/2021