[James] Baldwin is alert to the absurdity of being a writer from New York who is considered inferior by Swiss Villagers, many of whom have never travelled. – Teju Cole
Migrant. The choice of appellation is full of information.
Immigrant. It is as though another human being could never attain full humanity in the gaze of other humans. The accident of geography that accompanies your birth – or that of your parents – is forever of consequence when your humanity – or your expression of it – is in discussion.
Otherness. It confers the authority to determine your essence and often what you may aspire to, using simple and crude techniques such as a misinterpretation of numbers to pretend to present facts.
What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. – Ludwig Wittgenstein
Superiority is often communicated most pleasantly. It is the disguised kindness in the hearts of fellow human beings. It is the feigned sympathy on the tongue of a colleague at work. It is the writing of another’s story with audacity as if you have lived their life and therefore you have authority over their experience and reality. “This is who you are, and surely, this is how you must be helped” – superiority is often communicated as audacity.
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain
The human capacity for innovation is unparalleled: an innovative overhead reservoir is supported by a single frame of reinforced concrete. A disguised untruth can be the mainframe for the innovative construction of many more untruths. There is the thing about untruths though, they do not stand up to scrutiny very much. There is a place and time for untruths; where everyone involved is welcomed, perhaps even encouraged, to suspend disbelief. There is the cinema, there is fantasy and fiction. Untruths have no place in matters that deal with the reality and destiny of fellow human beings. Untruths have no place in a think tank – one is compelled to wonder what sort of thinking goes on in that tank.
There is that great proverb — that until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter. – Chinua Achebe
Often enough, the story demonises the lion in a bid to justify the hunters’ authority. The hunter is justified in his hunt because of something in the lion – perhaps its nature, or what the numbers can be said to prove no matter how remotely or untruthfully. But you see, numbers are a strange thing. Numbers can be – and have been – interpreted to pretend to prove a preconceived point. It seems sensible that to write the story of or about a people regardless of who they are, it is imperative to consult these people. One ought to be careful about making conclusions concerning something that one has no lived experience of.
The 20th century was very bloody indeed. It presented us with some of the greatest events in the achievement of destruction. It presented the first and second world wars, the cold war, and colonisation, to mention a few. This achievement of destruction that was not bounded to property and the touchable, but it was extended to the intangible and immaterial: the soul of mankind. Many echoes of the catastrophes of that era ring to our modern time. Undoubtedly, it has and will require an immeasurable amount of dedication to undo the badness meted out to humanity from humanity.
The 20th century was very constructive indeed. It presented us with some of the greatest feats in the achievement of ingenuity. It presented space exploration, the internet, decolonisation, and human rights, to mention a few. These feats were not limited to property and engineering, they also extend to the immaterial and intangible: the soul of mankind. Many echoes of the triumphs of that era ring to our modern time. An unreckonable amount of work has been put into maintaining the victories of the past and guarding against the repetition of the mistakes of it.
The modern world welcomed the first women members of parliament in Finland in the 20th century. Finland has always been a leader in the discussion of the rights of women, not only to vote and be voted for, but also to self-determine. We stand on the shoulders of legendary Finnish women who thought bravely that it was nonsensical to endeavour to determine what they each ought or ought not to do with their lives. We are eternally proud of these women; they affirmed that they, and only they, can decide what they considered worthwhile. If they considered standing for parliamentary election worthwhile, so it was. If they considered studying engineering worthwhile, so it was. And if they considered getting married and raising children worthwhile, so it was – and so it is. The 20th century was very constructive indeed.
Following this example, a nation has been fashioned that is worthy of immense emulation. A nation has been created that champions the rights of women to self-determination on a global stage. Therefore, at what point and for what reason shall any woman be stripped of this presumably innate right: the accident of geography at birth, gender, complexion? This is the question that is on the table. Should we betray the brave women of the past by attempting to strip today’s women of their understanding of what they ought to do? Securing the future is no mean feat. Many consider raising children as the single most important thing that they will do. It is an all-important work. It is astonishing that anyone, regardless of intent, would consider this “not work enough”. “Stop raising children, it is not important enough, go and get a “real” job!” It is a staggering claim.
This matter is still open for consideration; an invitation is extended to you, the reader, to ponder these things. Shall we lazily tell the stories of others without regard to what they say about themselves? Shall we paint people with a broad brush and confine them to predetermined cabinets? Shall we name some women with a moniker and proceed to declare them unworthy of the ideals of self-determination to which we aspire? Does this help to create a more just and fair nation? Is this the Finland that we want now and in the future?
In the final analysis, our answers reflect our ideals, and our ideals make us worthy or unworthy of emulation.
Written by: Akin Akinsola
