What's in a name? - A rejoinder
by Iniobong Udoidem
If there is nothing in a name, why did we have to change names in order to become Christians? Why did we have to change names in order to be admitted in school?The May 7, 1984 issue of Talking Drums raised an enigmatic question whose answer will perhaps help to explain the phenomenon of 'name retrievals' among Africans. I use the expression 'name retrieval' as an alternative to the author's 'name change'. The phenomenon could not be described as 'name change' since these Africans had their African names prior to their confrontation with western colonial, religious and educational institutions which imposed new names on them. The exercise of dropping western names in preference to original African names is not a change but a retrieval of their proper names for the purpose of authenticity.
The article cites instances of how Africans like Kouassi Gode of Abidjan had their names changed by their colonial masters. Kouassi Gode became Phillipe Francis Gode. Instances are also given of a reversal process where Kouassi Gode, Kwame Nkrumah, Obafemi Owolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe, and Kofi Busia to name a few, who at some stage, adopted European names but later disowned them and returned to their African names. The phenomenon of name retrieval the article notes is 'a quiet revolution' toward selfhood.
The article is right in raising the question 'What's in a name?' Its confrontation of the culturally uprooted Africans who see nothing wrong in bearing foreign names is most apt. Those Africans with their nominalistic conviction argue that there is nothing in a name, that a name does not make a man but rather a man makes a name, therefore there is no need to change from European names to African names.
Even more absurd, they claim 'if Africans want to completely do away with foreign culture, values and norms, then aeroplanes, electricity, pipe-borne water facilities, telephones, etc. should also be done away with'. This kind of argument is nothing but evidence of shallow thinking. What they have not thought about is the question of why the colonialists had to change or give them new names in disregard of their original African names. If there is nothing in names, why did we have to change names in order to become christians? Why did we have to change names in order to be admitted in school?
There are various reasons, some of which may never be known, why Europeans changed African names. The more evident and simple is their arrogance and 'superiority' complex. Whatever-is-European-is-good-and- whatever-is-African-is-bad syndrome. For them, African names were not worthy of being known.
It was perhaps a blatant attempt to deface the Africans by changing their names so that they may not be able to trace their ancestral origins. This is precisely what was done to the African Americans that today even if Jesse Jackson would become the president of the United States, he would not be able to trace his ancestral roots in Africa as the Kennedy's and the Reagan's can trace their roots back to Ireland for occasional home-coming visit.
The same kind of defacement mentality gave birth to the research which resulted in skin-bleaching chemicals. The end was probably to invent chemicals that would affect African skin pigmentation and change it to a fair-like colour, the nearest colour to that 'pinkish-yellow' colour that is often misnomerly called 'white'. Today hair perming is used as an alternative to groom African hair to become curly like that of the Europeans. Strategies of defacement and deracination have not ceased, they have only become
Another reason for the European drive to change African names was their unwillingness to learn something different or be educated. They were insecure and dumb once they ventured out into a culture that was not theirs, yet they expected others to be at home and conversant with their culture, language and names. They gave Africans new names so that the victims I will now learn how to pronounce their names while they (the Europeans) adopted the master role of teaching the Africans how to pronounce their new found names.
This kind of attitude is still prevalent in most parts of Africa today Recently, an expatriate 'educationist in the college of education, Uyo Nigeria, in a letter advertising position openings in the college to his colleagues in Europe had this to say: "English is the only language of teaching and administration. A knowledge of a Nigerian language is neither necessary nor useful... a person who requires a high degree of comfort would not be happy here, but the challenge of teaching future teachers and the enrichment that comes from living in a different and developing culture can be found to be more than a compensation for the discomforts". Such display of arrogance of not wanting to learn the peoples language is a symptom of a syndrome. One wonders how such a teacher with his apathy to the indigenous language will understand the culture of his students. And what is more, not knowing the language, how then will he understand the 'developing' culture?
Yes, there is something in a name. The act of naming is a process of owning. It is a cultural manner of constituting a personality. This is why, in the Hebrew creation story, after God had created the universe and its content, he asked Adam to name the creatures. With the act of naming, Adam acquired full authority and power over all the creatures and the names constituted the identity of whatever was named.
Names are so that not to be known by name is a sign significant to our being of insignificance on the one hand and a sign of mystery on the other. As a sign of mystery and power, God in the burning bush refused to give Moses His name when he demanded. The voice said "I am who I am". In this context to have a name and be known by name gives the knower the power of designation and control. God refused to tell Moses His name because he never wanted Moses to have power over Him.
is a sign of insignificance and being without identity..
In Africa, naming is a cultural signification. And such significative expression takes into consideration the circumstances, the history and the being of the person named. If one therefore should abandon his culturally constituted name, then such a person will be abandoning his history and his personhood. Once a person has been named, the signification and what is signified become constitutive.
A name therefore expresses and indicates that which it signifies. Once an individual has been named, the name designates his person within the community. Even when the person is not present, once his name is mentioned, everyone knows who is being referred to. This is why 'stigmatic name calling' and black-mailing is so much abhorred in African society. Most names, apart from expressing and indicating the person, are philosophically significant because they tell us something about the implicit beliefs of the people. For example, in Nigeria, names like Uwemedimo, Iniobong, Ikpoto, Ubon, Uchena, Ukechukwu, Chukwu-emeka, Babatunde, Olorun- toba, Olufemi to name a few, are all loaded with meanings that reflect the cultural and religious beliefs of the people.
To name someone is a symbol of authority. In Africa, naming is often performed by the head of the family or the designate. To discard therefore, an indigenous and a traditionally constituted name in preference to a European name is a sign of break-down of indigenous authority as Chinua Achebe has so vividly depicted in his Things Fall Apart.
In an era of African personality and identity affirmativeness, name retrievals are signs and indications of self consciousness and signposts to the recognition of African personhood and the promotion of African cultural nationalism. With this kind of consciousness, Africans will then be able to confront western civilization, technology and culture not as Aristotle's Tabula rasas but as heirs of African civilization and culture.
