“African Culture” is a buzzword that has suffered the curse of overuse. Sure, there are clearly things that distinguish the African from his non-African global dwellers, and are decidedly the African way. Our clothes, songs, food, celebration of birth, death, marriage, etc. continue and should continue to be distinctly African. Yet, we do ourselves much disfavor by holding many things static and referring to them as our culture. The reason for this is that everything changes, the only choice we have are the when and how we change. In fact, many of the things that may be rightly considered to be culture (including those identified above) are gradually being swept away from us, and replaced with other cultures, while we continue to lay claims to them. The main argument of this section is to point out that African culture must be dynamic, not static, with the main aim of collective preservation and well-being.

Makgoba (1997) states that peoples of African descent (see Lassiter, J. E. 1999 at http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v3/v3i3a1.htm. Note: I do not endorse nor necessarily agree with the sentiments in the article on this site):

"are linked by shared values that are fundamental features of African identity and culture. These, for example, include hospitality, friendliness, the consensus and common framework-seeking principle, ubuntu, and the emphasis on community rather than on the individual. These features typically underpin the variations of African culture and identity everywhere. The existence of African identity is not in doubt" (1997:197-198).

There is no doubt that the above traits are easily accepted by Africans as part of “African Culture”, but I assert here that the true implications of such a culture are absent today on the continent. The evidence for this assertion is clear. Incessant conflicts all over the continent is a testimonial to either the lack of a “common framework-seeking principle, and the emphasis on community” among the warring parties.

The problem is that while the individual African may generally be hospitable, friendly, and consensus-seeking in his dealings with others, it is not carried to the collective. The reason for this is to be found in the criteria that underlies the "shared values" forming the bulwark of our group boundaries. In essence, what ought to be a dynamic definition of "shared values", focused on collective preservation and progress, is reduced to tribal groupings based largely on language - language being the preeminent measure of cultural origins.

The first implication of using language as the definition of our "shared values" is that it has degenerated into a cycle of conflict - language fragmentation - conflict - language fragmentation, and so on. By creating isolated language groups that continuously splinter into even more language groups, the singular and sufficient reason for a group to incur the wrath/hatred of another on the African continent, and indeed in Nigeria, is to be of a different culture i.e. language. As suggested above, this is not necessarily the case at the individual level. It has been demonstrated over and over again all over Africa how friends/neighbors of many years, but of different languages, do not hesitate to slaughter each other once they are caught in collective conflict.

A second negative implication of our approach to culture and collective grouping on the African continent is well-illustrated by Nyasani (1997) (see Lassiter, J. E. 1999 at http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v3/v3i3a1.htm Note: I do not endorse nor necessarily agree with the sentiments in the article on this site) who wrote

"(W)hat we experience in the practical life of an African is the apparent stagnation or stalemate in his social as well as economic evolution,  It is quite evident that the social consequences of this unfortunate social impasse (encapsulation) can be very grave especially where the process of acculturation and indeterminate enculturation is taking place at an uncontrollable pace.… By and large, it can safely be affirmed that social encapsulation in Africa works both positively and negatively. It is positive in as far as it guarantees a modicum of social cohesion, social harmony and social mutual concern. However, in as far as it does not promote fully the exercise of personal initiative and incentive, it can be regarded as negative (Nyasani 1997:130-131, emphases mine)."

The emphasis here is not on the African's authority structure and family/communal support system per se. The emphasis is on its static and encapsulating protection of a narrow (language-based) and continuously fragmenting collective that actually leaves the collective extremely weak. Perhaps this point is best made by reference to the biological functioning of the human body. It is well known that a human body that is overprotected from the many bacteria and viruses that seek to ravage it easily succumbs to the certain eventuality of illness. In essence, our language-based group boundaries creates isolation of thought and practice, fostering neither peace within the collective, nor preparing us to deal with external influences whose objectives are to conquer, exploit and destroy.

The acculturation described by Nyasani, while bringing certain positive changes to African life has caused more harm than good. This is apparent in the almost complete repudiation of traditional African views of the universe and its workings for other viewpoints. We have failed to recognize that there is really no correct worldview, but that of maintaining a dynamic (or even multiple) worldview subject to change under the light of new knowledge, but ultimately in the pursuit of our collective progress in the world. Today in the west, those who sing the highest hallelujahs to the eternal God (possibly embedded in a mono-poly-theistic trinity) are the same ones who continue to pursue scientific progress based on the diametrically opposite believe in the autonomous creation of the universe in which there is no need for and there is no God - God cannot be allowed to get in the way. In contrast, when a scientific subject bearing on evolution is broached before many an African he/she tends to interpret and respond on the basis of his religious professions, which today is likely to be Christian, Islamic, Judaic or other non-Afrocentric traditions. The fact is that while specific practices may differ African interpretations of the cosmos is not fundamentally different from those of other traditions. By repudiating our version of the shaping of the world and its associated system of knowledge we destroy a fundamental ingredient that connects us to our past. This point does not argue in favor of insisting that the world is flat, but recognizing, maintaining and enhancing the process of knowledge evolution, so that even though "truth" may change, our ties to the process that led us to today's truth is not severed in favor of knowledge that we cannot as yet verify.

It is not without reason that most of the world’s so-called monotheistic traditions have couched their “paganistic” past in other terms and incorporated them in their new world views. Halloween in the west has a similar ritualistic underpinning, much like certain Yoruba egungun festivals? Yet, a Yoruba Christian in the west would gladly put on a halloween costume, but would rather be caught dead than participate in egungun rites. Truth be told, many of these rites may actually need to be repudiated, but the argument here is between repudiating the origins of egungun rites versus modifying its modern practice in the light of new knowlege. The main difference between the African’s approach and those of the west is that the latter tends to focus on a dynamic objective of increasing knowledge as the basis for determining today's truth, progress and well-being, while the former tend to hold statically to one set of beliefs and opinions, until forced to give them up. This last point of "how" change takes place on the continent is the explanation for the paradox of our seemingly rapid acculturation and change, yet static and perhaps reversal of, well-being. Most of the things we have changed are those the "outsiders" decided must change, and have forced or induced us to change - in their own interests.

Lastly, we seem to believe that many of the things we consider our culture today are unique identifiers and invariably sources of “African Pride”. Sad to say, while there are many of our beliefs and practices that deserve such appellation, many of what we hold on to as cultures are neither unique nor desirable. The only thing unique about such things is that we continue to practice them, and unwittingly make them appropriately “primitive” as many like to call them. Many of the same things were practiced in times past by other nation groups, but have been abandoned or modified in light of the dynamic objectives of human progress. Yes, the Queen of England remains the titular head of the “British Empire”, but has been consigned to a ceremonial status and effectively replaced with a modern system of governance. On the other hand, the reign of "egoistical" African monarchs, interrupted by the colonial powers (which itself was the hand of the "egoistical" western monarchies), resumed promptly after independence, but with greater vengeance. Africa is littered today with many so-called democracies where one man rules for 20, 30 or 40 years. Even more recently the Chinese whose monarchical past is well documented, and were recent champions of communism, are transforming right before our eyes into the next great capitalist, and potentially largest, empire the world has ever seen.

We deceive ourselves, and demonstrate a certain cultural "egoism" when some state that the "west has no culture". Some of what constitutes the west's culture today are organization, innovation and individualism, among others. Although these have both positive and negative implications, the positives far outweigh the negatives by far, in my view.

I'll finish this write-up by using an on-going cultural discussion to illustrate the above points - facial markings among the Yorubas. Today, it is difficult to explain the exact origin of facial markings among the Yorubas. Some claim it is for beauty, others suggest it was for tribal identification, yet others say it is a mark of bravery. The second reason probably was true at some point, but may not have been the real origin of tribal markings among the Yorubas. I have seen pictures of black Sudanese with markings such that someone unaware would place them in a Yoruba city. The variation of facial markings among the Yorubas to distinguish citizens of different city states testify to its use at some point as a cultural identity card, and to the fragmentation of the Yoruba nation at that point in time. In any case, facial markings are now viewed by segments of the global village, mainly non-Yorubas and non-Africans, as a cruel practice that needs to stop, with the support of some Yorubas and Africans. This argument however tends to ignore the three possible reasons for such a "cruel practice", while focusing mainly on the "outsiders" view. This illustrates my above points about how cultural changes has visited and continues to visit Africa, by force, threats and other means. A dynamic cultural approach, in my view, would not discountenance these personal and cultural reasons, but focus on the rights of the children on which such practices are currently visited, making sure that the "cruelty" in the practice is eliminated. Such a dynamic approach would see the Yoruba facial markings as not a cruel, barbaric and primitive practice that must simply be eliminated - but set modern guidelines that for example: 1) Tribal markings are for consenting adults, which means only kids 18 and above, or however we define adulthood in the face of modern knowledge; 2) Current medical practices means that it can and must be done without pain. These balanced view would protect children, reject external imposition of cultural views, allow an adult the freedom to make permanent changes to his/her face, and preserve the essence of the culture.

As stated in the opening paragraph the point here is that culture is not an autonomous, endowment of a given people, but habits and practices that are developed over time. As such it must be dynamic and guided by a reliable system of knowledge. I leave it to the reader to attempt a listing of what may be considered Nigerian culture today, good and bad.