Global glamour gets ugly

KWENU! Our culture, our future

Global glamour gets ugly

M. O. ENÉ

New Jersey, USA

Tuesday, November 26, 2002

BEAUTY-FULL BABES?

Those who have followed my writings know that I like to dwell on issues of importance. The so-called “Miss World Pageant” or any pageant of physical characteristics is not my gourd of palm wine. In fact, I don’t give a frigging fig about the so-called “beauty” parade. To us Africans, beauty is about personality and productivity; anything that helps to make our world a better place is a thing of beauty. Pageants are not numbered in my books; so, sincerely speaking, I could care less if they were held on hills or in oceans.

What passes as “beauty-full” these days is a human creation, a senseless standard of what might pass as “gorgeousness” or “cuteness” in the eyes of the Western nations. It’s all about gloss or glamour, superficiality with no depth in essence. Says Marlene Dietrich: “Glamour is what I sell; it's my stock in trade.” Oh yes, gloss you can buy and sell; beauty is priceless. In bucolic Africa, women with commercial skin and brittle bones don’t pass for beauty-full; they are a sign of skewed upbringing and hunger. The reigning Miss Belize, Karen Russell, put it thus: “My definition of beauty is something that is deep within, and it radiates outside. Just to be happy with who you are, and say: ‘You know what? This is me and I can't do anything to really change it.’” Makes you wonder why she is striving in a parade with set physical considerations for being beautiful.

A woman, and even a man, should be full and flourishing without made-up bosoms and pumped-up lips and treated features. However, I have no problems with those who cherish the Caucasoid characteristics of cuteness and who would pay $2500:00 a head to feed their eyes on semi-nudity in Nigeria, where millions do not take home that much in a year! I bet it costs a lot less at Go-Go bars, and you get to touch. Regardless of our individual feelings, the firewood in every community cooks its meal. It should not be any different here.

On the other hand, no one should try to import such banality into our African culture, which has suffered enough abuse from centuries of colonial emasculation and foreign, revealed religions. In this regard and for the ugly outcome of the attempt to stage the event in Nigeria, I find the topic to be of importance.

UGLY SIDE OF BEAUTY

As you must have read or heard or seen, the 52-year-old Miss World contest took a turn for a path that could easily make it the most reviled global event. It started with the first Black African to win the contest last year, when Ms. Agbani Darego of Nigeria was crowned Miss World. The government, as in everything that looks like a success story, jumped in and asked to host the widely watched but otherwise common parade of thin teenagers, which some leftist feminists have termed “sexist cattle market.”

It came at a wrong time for Nigeria, where Islamic fundamentalists are bent on hoisting Shariah law on an otherwise secular country. The imams minced no words in condemning the pageant as “a show of shame.” They asked the government to keep it out of their views and out of their hoods. The government bulged and moved the date outside the Ramadan period and kept the event to the predominantly southern half of the country. The babes arrived and waited in south-southeast Calabar for the Muslims to stop fasting. Yet, the fundamentalist huffed and puffed.

WAITING TO EXHALE

Everyone knew that something was going to happen. How or when, no one knew. Then came the Nigerian ThisDay newspaper article of Saturday, November 16, 2002 titled "Miss World 2002: The World at their Feet…” by a hitherto unknown fashion writer, Ms. Isioma Daniel. In it, the writer rightly noted: "As the idea [of hosting the 2002 Miss World Pageant in Nigeria] became a reality, it also aroused dissent from many groups of people. The Muslims thought it was immoral to bring ninety-two women to Nigeria and ask them to revel in vanity.” Then she dived right into it with a simple four-word question and a quick fourteen-word answer many Muslims would consider ‘blasphemous and offensive’: "What would Mohammed think? In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from one of them. The irony is that Algeria, an Islamic country, is one of the countries participating in the contest.”

On Wednesday, November 20, the two sentences of 18 words containing 77 letters had reached enough ears and eyes, no thanks to cell phones. The ready-tool band of boys in strict religious schools (almajiri) was mobilized to burn the office of ThisDay in Kaduna. And by Thursday, November 21, despite appeals from civil and religious leaders and apology from ThisDay, the mob went to work. And the rest is already history. By the time it was over, 215 people have died in Kaduna as Muslims went on a rampage killing and burning churches and Christians reportedly fighting back. More than 1,000 people were injured and 11,000 made homeless; about 20 churches and eight mosques were burnt down, as well as a number of hotels. Three cities in the predominantly Christian southeast region witnessed reprisal attacks on Muslims, but no deaths were reported. In 2000, in this same city of Kaduna -- following the introduction of Sharia law in Zamfara State and talks that it could come to Kaduna State soon, more than 2,000 died in clashes between Christians and Muslims.

The event had to move to London. It couldn’t go on with so much blood and with threat of more to come. No, that would be too tacky and insidiously insensitive, no matter how regrettable the President and his team find it. Besides, security reports suggest that Muslim fanatics were going to storm the venue and even kill some prominent politicians. So let no one weep for the glamour cuties; remember instead the souls that had to perish over skin shades and brittle bones.

IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM OR IRRESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT?

Let no one tell you otherwise: It was an explosion waiting to happen. Even in its early days and as the parade moved to London, condemnations and demonstrations have followed the Miss World Pageant. In 1970, according to a BBC report, feminist barged into the Albert Hall in London, “shouted down host Bob Hope and pelted the stage with flour.” Twenty-five years later in India, a self-immolating suicide protested "to save Indian culture.” In Nigeria, the heat took a religious flavor, and an Islamic coloration for that matter.

No doubt about it, Ms. Daniel’s submission was careless, especially in such an upscale independent press and at such a time when everyone knew that Muslim fanatics were waiting to exhale. But she has the fundamental right of free speech, and it is the duty of the state to defend her freedom of expression as enshrined in the Constitution. Those who felt aggrieved could have shown it whichever way they wanted, not resort to violence. They could have taken their case to the courts, boycotted the paper, or any nonviolent demonstration of displeasure. The shedding of innocent blood, especially at such a holy period as Ramadan, is nothing short of barbarism that is totally unAfrican.

The highly regarded and respected Sultan of Sokoto and President-General of the Nigerian Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs (SCIA), Alhaji Muhammadu Maccido, intervened with timely announcement on Thursday, November 21, 2002, in which he asked Muslims to let the sleeping dog be. He reportedly quoted from the Koran: "If they ask you about fighting in the sacred month, say therein that it is a great transgression" (verse 216 of Suratu Baqrat). Yet, these fanatics, who claimed to be following the sacred teachings of Prophet Mohammed as enshrined in the Holy Book, would not bulge.

ThisDay’s management has apologized profusely for the unfortunate sentences and retracted the publication. Ms. Daniels has apologized and resigned or, rather, forced to go underground. Yet, the Internet-based news-and-commentary outlet Gamji.com blocked news from ThisDay and even removed the link to ThisDayonline.com. Haba, in 2002! But let’s ask a simple question: What is really wrong with people expressing themselves in a supposedly democratic and supposedly secular country that showcases a vibrant freedom of expression? For President Olusegun Obasanjo -- who was partying in Lagos with Governor Baba Ahmed Tinubu as Kaduna burned -- to call this expression “irresponsible journalism” and to promise prosecution of the presswomen must number as one of those gaffes for which the President is legendary. Then again, what do expect from a president who confesses to CNN that he believes in Sharia but not in “freedom of speech.”

CROWNED OR CURSED?

From day one, the 2002 version of Miss World was dogged by controversy. Some contestants pulled out to protest the death-by-stoning sentence handed to an unmarried mother, Amina Lawal, by an Islamic court in Nigeria. The campaign was so damning the Nigerian government was forced to declare that no one had been stoned to death and no one would be stoned to death, no matter what the lower Islamic courts said. However, in a country where common thieves had been amputated in the predominantly Muslim northern Nigeria, no one was listening. It got to a point where an emir asked the government pointedly to cancel the show.

But let us not deceive ourselves: The underlying dynamics of Nigerian politics is to blame here; it is neither the writing of poor Ms. Daniel nor the sensibility of mainstream Muslims -- which was offended. Beauty pageants have been going on in Nigeria since 1950s. Everyone is free to watch or not to watch. The fact of the matter is that Nigeria is taking a turn for the worse under the guise of religion. And the government must bear the biggest burden for allowing the encroachment of religion to dye the wool of nurtured Nigerian nationalism.

The government has allowed religious fanatics (not fundamentalists, please) to walk all over the people without raising a finger. Trying to blame the Western media, especially the British press, as Information Minister Professor Jerry Gana did recently, is crying wolf where there is none. If you knew the Western media were out to get the event out of Africa, the least the government could have done was to cover the bases. The knee-jerk reaction is nothing but business as usual; the blame game is old tale, a claptrap commentary that tastes too tart.

It is so sad that some of these cretins could not listen to their Imams. It is therefore commendable that the Imams in Kaduna refused requests to bury the Muslim victims of the religious riots; in my African religion, suicides do not get the rituals of final rites of passage. It is also laudable that such prominent Muslims as ex-military Head of State, Major-General Muhammadu Buhari and ex-military Governor of the old Kaduna State, Colonel Abubakar Dangiwa Umar are calling for the perpetrators to be brought to book. I bet that some of those who killed over 2000 in the year 2000 returned to kill again.

SHARIA

The main source of these troubles is the introduction of Sharia penal codes in 12 northern Nigeria states. It has fueled great expectations that vary greatly with the reality of people's welfare. Commenting recently on the issues, distinguished Professor Chinua Achebe said it all:

"I am now not optimistic of the benefits that will come to Nigeria because of democracy. We have dug ourselves into Sharia; into a situation where we have become a laughing stock of the world, because we are discussing things like stoning women to death in the 21st century. Religious differences have not just been introduced. Muslims and others have always been there, but somehow they didn't wipe each other out. What is happening today is that some people are using theses differences to promote their ambition and this is an abuse of politics... that's why the selfishness of the elite stands out so clearly."

Even as prominent and respected Muslims try to douse the serious situation, those who started the fire are still trying to sell snake oil. As calm was returning to the country, Deputy Governor Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi of Zamfara State, where the Sharia penal code reared its head in 1999, issued a ‘fatwa’ (religious decree) saying: “It is binding on all Muslims wherever they are, to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty. …. Just like the blasphemous Indian writer Salman Rushdie, the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed.”

The Zamfara State Information Commissioner Tukur Umar Dangaladima took the tragedy waiting to happen a bit further when he declared in Gusau on Tuesday, November 26: “If she (Ms. Daniel) is Muslim, she has no option except to die. But if she is a non-Muslim, the only way out for her is to convert to Islam." And if she converts to Islam, she still dies! Haven’t these holier-than-thou politicians come across a stipulation in the Holy Koran that demands that one who offends and apologizes should be forgiven -- as ThisDay pointed out in its first apology? [ "... whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is with Allah..." Qr 42 v. 40. "And verily, whoever shows patience and forgives, that would truly be from the things recommended by Allah" Q 42 v. 43]

This state bloodthirstiness is no longer a matter to pussyfoot about; the Federal government must call these officials to order. It is reprehensible, especially coming from elected officials -- not ayatollahs. In Africa, blood is sacred. Human beings do not give life, and they have no right to take it. The importation of foreign religious practices, both Christianity and Islam, has introduced this strange concept of fighting for the gods, no matter what name they call theirs. In Africa, deities do their own fighting. And it is about time people learnt to leave their faiths out of secular matters and to leave others to live their lives the way they see fit within the laws of the land. Nigeria is not yet a theocracy.

CONCLUSION

The bottom line is that religious fanaticism must be curbed at all levels and in every faith, if Nigeria and indeed Africa is not to witness more criminal and scandalous shedding of innocent blood. The crisis in Cote d’Ivoire has religion sitting at its feet. Sudan boils because someone steams religious relics of yesteryears. In Nigeria, over 10,000 have perished since Sharia-based penal codes were introduced in some northern Nigerian states, and this is happening under the lackadaisical watch of a democratic administration.

Nigeria is a secular country; there is a limit to what Christians and mainstream Muslims can take from fanatics in government, who have little to offer the long-suffering masses here on earth. The belief in abundance of hereafter is classic deceit. The Creator did not make men and women to suffer dehumanizing hardships here on earth; as the charismatic churches would say: “It’s not our portion!” Only the unwashed buy into such hogwash while the supposedly saintly sellers revel on the good things in life, including alcohol and choice cuties worse than the ones parading in pageants. And I am speaking from experience.

Nigeria is sitting on a keg of gunpowder, no doubt about that. The good people of Nigeria cannot afford to step into national elections next year with these fanatics roaming the land. The only solution is for a national conference to be convened and for Nigerians to decide how to coexist constructively. No one wants Nigeria to disintegrate violently or degenerate into anarchy as in the late 1960s, but everything points to that perilous path unless the matter is brought to a table and discussed. There is no telling the stubborn that there is a market stampede.

Everything else is embellishment.