Thoughts Lead To Appreciation
This article deals with the issue of the aggrieved who, systematically, encourages the continuation of the mistreatment and anguish.
The theme applies to the relationship between Hausa-Fulanis and Muslims of other ethnic identities, as well as Christians in Northern Nigeria.
It is significant in understanding similar settings of interactions in real-life and online life where opposing factions regularly come in direct contact with each other.
Granted in social interactions, complaints of misconduct are common.
Complaints might continue as the complainant retains connections with and pays undeniable attention to the accused.
The former acknowledges the negativity, yet cannot resist associating with the enemy.
The former can and does choose which hateful person to keep company and engage in discussions.
Recent or non-benefiting enemies are kept at bay.
Persons (or groups of persons) who have, over several months, demonstrated unabated hostility are treated with familiarity and decorum.
Very often, the complainant insists on the intervention of third parties without taking concrete and resolute steps to modify own behaviour.
The one who perceives and experiences the injustice might desire the removal of the unjust group, as occurs in online interactions, or the “push Hausa-Fulanis into Niger” sentimentalists, or the “I want Ruqqayah (or Ibrahim or my husband) to die” expressions of frustrations.
Worse, the complainant might conclude the only solution is the complete separation of both sides, such as the secession yearnings of my people Ndi Igbo.
Total demarcation is emphasized by the often heard sentiment that the Federal Republic of Nigeria should be split along North-South lines.
Several questions arise:
a) Why does one persist – over months and years – to exhibit the behaviours which cause one distress?
b) Why does one, repeatedly, concede attention, time and other resources to one’s detractors?
c) Why does one enable one’s antagonists to derive pleasure from negativity?
d) Why does one embolden own enemies to perpetuate the injustice?
e) Why does one, habitually, grant eminence through recognition to one’s detractors?
The relevant answer to each of those questions is one or a combination of the following:
1) One perceives an affinity towards one’s enemies.
2) One’s empathy and compassion extend to one’s detractors.
3) One is so generous as to share in the frustrations of one’s antagonists.
4) One benefits from the interactions.
5) One secretly identifies with negativity.
One, frantically, clings to an intervention of wide-reaching ramifications.
One is reluctant to restrict the consequences of a cessation of interactions to self.
One is unconcerned about the bearings of the prolonged dispute on the public.
One holds no hesitation to cause strain to others.
One considers only self.
Does one demand an intervention to restrain the actions of others, whereas one cannot restrain self?
Does one expect a penalty to be imposed on individuals with whom one associates?
Is one so incompetent to define own interactions as to need a third party to uproot and place an individual or group in a different setting where one will not encounter that person or group?
If one’s habit is to interact with one’s enemies, why should there be an intervention to extricate one from one’s interactions?
If one honestly believes in freedom, one ought to require any third party to respect one’s freedom to associate with one’s detractors.
It is frivolous to exercise the rights and freedoms of adulthood while petitioning to be treated as a child.
One is guilty of wilful compliance in own trauma.
Should there be an intervention, it will involve the ejection of one and one’s enemy.
Theoretically, it is in the best interest and security of the public to unplug both conflicting parties to a desert where they can continue their interactions without causing harm to the public.
An intervention is necessary only when one has, consistently, demonstrated the willingness, ability and capacity to ignore one’s enemy and limit any interaction to strictly obligatory circumstances.
There will be no removal of the enemy.
There will be no secession.
The aggrieved and the antagonist are going nowhere.