Taiwo Abiodun-Oni
There seems to be a misplacement in semantics in English Language and this has led to the abuse of different terms, top of the list of which i believe is ‘racism, bigotry and tribalism’. At the heat of the Nigerian election, these terms seem to feature quite often. In fact, any criticism against a person from a tribe other than your tribe is seen as an act of bigotry any against your own tribe is seen as ‘sabotage or betrayal’. These then raises two important questions: who exactly is a bigot and can you be a tribalist against your own tribe?
Tribalism is a social phenomenon that refers to the strong loyalty and identification with one’s own group or tribe, often at the expense of others. This behavior is seen in various forms, from loyalty to family, ethnicity, or nationality, to political affiliation, and even to particular brands or subcultures. The question of whether one can be a tribalist against their own tribe raises complex issues around the nature of tribalism and its relationship to individual identity and loyalty.
Bigotry refers to an unreasonable or unfair attitude towards people based on their membership in a particular group or category, such as race, religion, nationality, gender, sexuality, or other identity characteristics. It is characterized by prejudice, discrimination, intolerance, and hate towards those who are perceived as being different or belonging to a minority group.
Bigotry can take many forms, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religious intolerance. It can manifest itself in both overt and subtle ways, ranging from hate speech and violence to more subtle forms of bias and exclusion. In all its forms, bigotry is harmful to both individuals and society as a whole.
Individuals who hold bigoted beliefs and engage in discriminatory behavior are often motivated by fear, ignorance, and a lack of understanding of the experiences and perspectives of others. This ignorance can lead to a distorted view of reality that reinforces stereotypes and negative attitudes towards minority groups.
On one hand, tribalism is often seen as an innate part of human nature, driven by a deep-seated instinct for self-preservation and group solidarity. From this perspective, it is difficult to imagine someone turning against their own tribe, as this would require going against their basic instincts and desires for security and social connection. In fact, people who have gone against their own tribe are often subject to ostracism, ridicule, or even violence from others within the tribe, further emphasizing the strong hold that tribalism has on individuals.
On the other hand, there is also a strong tradition of individuals who have defied their own tribe in pursuit of a greater good. This can be seen in the actions of people who have gone against their own family, ethnicity, or nationality in order to fight for a cause they believe in, such as anti-apartheid activists in South Africa or the civil rights movement in the United States. These individuals often face significant challenges, including personal and social costs, in order to pursue their beliefs and challenge the status quo.
However, it is important to note that the choice to be a tribalist against one’s own tribe is not always a conscious or deliberate one. In many cases, people may find themselves in situations where they are forced to make difficult decisions that go against their tribal instincts. For example, someone who is part of a particular ethnic group may find themselves in conflict with other members of that group if they hold different political or religious views. In such situations, it is possible for the individual to be pulled in different directions, torn between their loyalty to the group and their own beliefs and values.
The concept of tribalism against one’s own tribe is also closely tied to the idea of individuality and personal identity. Tribalism is often seen as a limiting force that restricts individual freedoms and personal expression. However, when someone chooses to be a tribalist against their own tribe, they are essentially claiming their own identity and autonomy, rejecting the constraints placed on them by their tribe and pursuing their own beliefs and values. In this sense, tribalism against one’s own tribe can be seen as a form of self-expression and a way of asserting one’s individuality.
Bigotry on the other hand is in itself a prejudice or discrimination against a particular group of people, often based on their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This can take the form of derogatory comments, harmful actions, or a general attitude of intolerance and disrespect towards the targeted group.
Tribal statements that make someone a bigot can include expressing hateful or condescending attitudes towards a particular group, making sweeping generalizations about the abilities or characteristics of that group, or denying the rights or dignity of that group. For example, saying that all people of a certain race are inferior or that members of a certain religion are violent and dangerous would be considered bigoted statements, so it may be safe to conclude that Brymo’s recent tweet against the Ndigbo is unbeatably bigoted.
Therefore, I would say the question of whether one can be a tribalist against their own tribe raises complex issues around the nature of tribalism, individual identity, and loyalty. While tribalism is often seen as an innate part of human nature, there are examples of individuals who have gone against their own tribe in pursuit of a greater good or in order to assert their own individuality. However, this choice is not always a conscious or deliberate one, and individuals may find themselves torn between their loyalty to the group and their own beliefs and values. Ultimately, the decision to be a tribalist against one’s own tribe will depend on the individual and the specific context in which they find themselves.