Whose version of history will be taught?

On the surface, the federal government’s decision to re-introduce history as a core course and integral part of primary and secondary school studies is a good idea. However, under closer scrutiny, there needs to be more haste and less speed. History was first removed from our basic education curriculum in 2008. It was a wrong and ill-considered decision.

Indisputably the removal of history as a core secondary school course has negatively impacted nation-building, historical scholarship, national consciousness and common identity. Lamentably, the Nigerian educational system prioritises technology and sciences’ over the humanities. This has led to widespread ignorance of the nation’s history among our youths and the consequent economic, democratic and ethnic repercussions.

Political analysts have identified ignorance and superficial understanding of the nation’s history as the reason for the emergence of intellectually vacuous and historically illiterate political leaders who do not have the knowledge to truly understand the nation’s past and consequently cannot conceptualise a future devoid of inherent problems.

SPONSOR AD

Since independence, Nigeria has tortuously passed through both civilian and military rule with no significant achievements to show for all the suffering, death and destruction. The British colonialists must share part of the blame because they created an artificial country and never prepared it for self-rule. After independence, a British Governor-General was in charge from 1960 to 1963 and acted as the ultimate power in selecting who remained in control.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria, created in 1963, was divided along ethnic, religious, and regional lines. This faulty foundation is the primary reason for Nigeria’s failed statehood, fragile unity and inability to develop a national ideology governed by a common good.

In the colonial era under British western education, Nigerian history comprised mainly of outlining the introduction of the English language; Christianity; new forms of money, transportation, and communication, and the emergence of an economy based on the export of cash crops. Post-colonial Nigerian history, which has never been taught in our schools, is the story of a society which emerged in the wake of independence unable to confront corruption and oppression and unable to solve their most basic problems.

According to history taught by the colonialists, Europeans “discovered” Africa and claimed it as their own “fair and square”, they did not steal it because there was nobody there who could provide ownership documents! Their history teaches that Africans were not “civilised” because they did not write anything down. Although Africans were masters of their environment using crude implements, primitive art, native medicine, ethnic religions, and had mastered the skills of fishing and hunting, Europeans referred to us as “uncivilised” because we did not use paper and pencils!

Certainly, this is not the biased version of history our youths need to be taught. Neither is there anything to be gained by teaching them our ancient history concerning the old Songhai, Oyo and Benin empires taught in secondary schools back in the 1960’s.

Nigerian youths need to be taught our post-colonial history. But before commencing compulsory teaching, it is important to agree upon the texts to be recommended for examination purposes. Back in the 1960’s less than 20 years after the Second World War ended, European youths were already being taught its history so that they could imbibe its lessons and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Almost 50 years after the Nigerian civil war, we are yet to agree on the truth of events, let alone teach it to our youths. There is an adage that history is written by the winners, but this is not exactly true. History is actually written by whoever takes the time to write it down! What is true is that although everyone writes the history of conflict, it is the winners who interpret it and mould the narrative taught in schools. Losers never get to write history. History is a political weapon because the winners will always be the judge, and the losers the accused, or as George Graham West correctly surmised, “in all revolutions, the vanquished are the ones guilty of treason because history is written by the victor and framed according to their prejudices and biases”.

If those in charge of our educational system truly want the re-introduction of history to help the next generation understand the nation’s past and apply their thoughts on how to avoid repetition of past mistakes and consistent failure in governance, the question is “whose version of our history should be taught and entrenched?” History is agreed upon by researching texts. The book “Why We Struck” tells the story of the first military coup from the viewpoint of Adewale Ademoyega, one of the principal plotters. The Book “The Five Majors Why They Struck” tells a completely different story from the perspective of A. M. Mainasara.

The death of most of the principal actors in the 1966 coup means that the events have become clouded in rumour, untruths and outright mythology and the truth may never be generally agreed upon. Indeed that is why cynics refer to the recalling of events as “his story”, not “my story!”