By Lexzy Ochibejivwie
The names we bear do matter, but the spirit of the persons behind names matter more. It is persons that house the spirit behind names and make them compelling. Take away persons, and you would have made names empty. So, the emphasis on names could be uneccessary. The point I am pushing here is that names do count for something, only to the extent that a person takes preeminence over them.
Indeed, the names we bear are meant to serve our end, not the other way round. They are meant to honour us, not to corner us, certainly not to hunt us. Men bear names. Names don’t bear men. That said, it is out of ignorance and, perhaps, insouciance that made Juliet Capulet of the William Shakespeare’s fame ask what may pass as an indiscriminate question: “What’s in a name?” If Juliet had lived at this time, when names of people occupy a make-or-mar status, she would have kept her tongue with a bridle.
If this daughter of Capulet had lived in a country where predatory practices are rife or at a time when a Lyon and an Eremienyo were successfully booted out as governor-and deputy-governor-elect by a Federal High Court, barely less than twenty-four hours to their swearing in, because of dust gathered by name-change, she would certainly know the fad behind it. But in the Lyon-Eremienyo’s example, a fact is worth underlining: both men are the first and only casualty, not their names To continue along the line of the thought preceding the last, , if Juliet had a wholesome tongue and lived at a time when a governorship nominee of a major political party has been dragged to court on allegations of forgery of academic credentials, and heckled all the way, Shakespeare’s dear Juliet wouldn’t say that a rose by whatever name called would still be a rose. She wouldn’t at all. Here again, it is governorship nominee that bears the brunt of the allegation.
On this side of the Atlantic, there is a huge sense of conviction that human names could be a vehicle through which we either gain all or lose everything. There is this Clout- and acceptance-bestowing status that have been accorded names. In the main, it is believed that names serve as destiny-framers, as nominative determinism — the idea that the name one bears prefigures one’s occupation or interest. Yes, the Almighty God Himself believed in this, which was partly why he changed Abram to Abraham, likewise Jacob to Israel.
So from Abram to Eremienyo, the potency of names in forging or deflecting the fortunes of people is deeply compelling. This much is true, to the extent that the spirit behind the names of people be considered first. There are names that are believed to attract good fortunes. But do names really construct enduring fortunes? Hoodoos have been tied to names. So do titles and monikers. Should it be so?
Delta state government changed the state’s motto to the “Finger of God”, because of the belief that the state’s former motto has something to do with obstinacy and the preponderance of youth restiveness in the state. Since this change, has this abated in Delta state?
The football team of South Africa, called the “Bafana Bafana”, meaning “the lads”, had contemplated name-change because they connected their poor run of forms at a certain period in their football competitive history to their moniker. But their contemplation could not be implemented, probably they became aware that it is the spirit of the players that needed to be revved up, not their moniker.
So, names and their spin off have always offered a foreground for shrewd contemplation. On this, here is my take: names should be appreciated, not aligned with some chance, so that it doesn’t take a way the importance of a person. Let humans and the works of their hands be the basis for measuring accomplishments, not names. Every so often too much worth has been accorded human names, to such an extent that they have now assumed primacy over human character, and have even shadowed human conscience.
So an individual could be large-hearted, but his name could well blot out his virtues. An individual could be endowed with grace, yet his name could be a foe. There are people who loathe other people they are yet to meet because they loathe the name they bear. As you may well know, a person’s favour may meet some pull and push, simply because of a name such a person has either chosen or refused to bear.
Names shouldn’t be as defining as much as the potentials of a person, because they can be adopted or dropped anytime. They are simply dispensable. So why should a tag that can be done away anytime be accorded significance this much?
Of course, names now assume fetish status, when in the context that a dead man’s name is accepted, while the one that is alive is repudiated. You might want to ask Sizwe Bansi of the Athol Fugard’s fame how easy and indeed necessary it was to extinguish his birth name and substitute it for that of a dead Robert Zwelinzima, in order to get a work permit. You might ask too why the name Robert Zwelinzima not remain active upon his death, and why did it take an almost helpless Sizwe to make the name come alive? You might wonder how Gerald Ford, the 38th President of the United States of America, managed to drop his biological surname of “King”, and without the troubles of an affidavit, led that country that prides herself as beacon of law and justice.
Still more, you might be curious as to how in 2012, 32-year old Florida’s Eddie Gonzalez changed his name to VoteForEddie.com, and still got this name on the ballot box, just so he could compel popularity to his campaign. You might want to know why in spite of the fact that he completely shrugged off his real names, he remains relevant in the scheme of things. You might want to know why the state of Florida could do without his real name in an important election as they had, when, in fact he gave no reconcilable reason for ceasing to bear his real names.
2016 Nobel Prize for Literature recipient, Bob Dylan had had his name changed severally from Robert Allen Zimmerman to Robert Allyn, until he drew inspiration from the ink of Dylan Thomas that saw him changed ‘Robert” to “Bob” and “Allyn” to “Dylan”. The informal change of his name could neither stop him from a prestigious prize as the Nobel, nor could it stop him from retaining his clout in America’s rock and roll history. The committee who shortlisted him for the award cared not so much about the veracity of his name, but for the profound craft that he has produced and continues to produce. There are many examples like Dylan’s, but there is but one thing that runs through the cases pointed out here: names are dispensable, but in many cases the persons behind them are not..
One thing is also to be noted from the example of Florida’s VoteForEddie.com, as earlier presented, which is that it is the potentials exhibited by a person that is actually defining, not the name that is projected. Instructive as well is the fact that the potency of names is mostly in the tentative. What to learn again is that names are not more significant as the worth a person gives them. Not to forget that while names can pale into oblivion, the products of man’s character are indelible. The place of the human person is as constant as the northern star, but names are malleable.
There are countries that have changed their names due to one reason or the other, the sky didn’t fall. Benin was Dahomey. Ghana was Gold Coast. Tanzania bore a funny name, Tanganyika. Burma, where our ex-Service men fought side-by-side with Europeans and gained exposure, is now Myanmar. Southern. Rhodesia now goes by Zimbabwe. Ethiopia was Abyssinia . Iran, Persia. Japan, Edo, would you believe it? France, Gaul. A few other countries also underwent name-change. Not minding this change, the relics of their history remained. Friends and foes remained. Name-change did not cause them their native language.
Although the change was gradual, it was equally decisive, and it neither took away their mineral deposits nor stripped them of the peculiar people they are. If a country could not be perturbed by name-change, if the integrity of their institutions couldn’t be dismantled because of it, in spite of numerous involvement with global comity of nations, how so a private person? If it is as much convenient for countries to yank off their names with no major impediment on their way, the same, if not a less rigorous process, should apply for private person.
In many cases, names and the consequences of their validation have denied people of their fundamental rights. Majority of Bayelsans, for example, who voted for Lyon/Eremienyo’s ticket at the time and even now must have been terribly haunted by the judgment of the court, especially on discovering that a fuss was made by a factor as tangential as a name. In Delta state, especially as part of the fallouts of the PDP primary, it is embarrassing to know that name-addition is part of the problem.
It is embarrassing that the governorhip nominee has held several key positions in the state and has worked with prominent people in the state who are calling for his disqualification today. It is embarrassing to know that the said nominee now shepherd law-making in the state, and before now, a matter as name inconsistency was never brought before the global public square.
The nominee, before now, had undergone several screening and was certified as qualified by the system empowered to do so. It is rather appalling to know that it is the same system that certified him that is calling for his head now on account of an issue as minutiae as discrepancy in name.
Of course, if anyone is in doubt of the name of the nominee or even the academic credentials he has paraded, it is not difficult for a person to come forward to make claimant and, in doing so, put the matter to satisfactory rest. In any case, it is now established that the nominee did not forge credentials, since the institutions involved have written to confirm their conferment.
I am not surprised, names can really be a challenge, which is why I hold the view that they should not be a fetish. They have been and continue to be a dangerous albatross. It was a danger to Igbo people who were killed during the Nigerian-Biafran War of 1967-70, not only for their accent but on account of their Igbo names.
Still more, it was an albatross for people whose bank accounts were illegally frozen because of their Igbo names as part of the aftermatht of Nigerian-Biafran post-civil war experience. Let us not deceive ourselves, the name one bears has not stopped being an albatross in Nigeria today. Sugar-coat it, if you will, but it is the naked truth. During Nazi Germany, names were used as media to spawn the holocaust.
The Nazis compelled all Jews to choose from a list of names compiled and endorsed by the authorities, and the name one bore would determine whether one died or lived. In other parts of Africa too, the name one bears is big okpetu, an idebolo, a serious challenge. It was, for instance a big okpetu, a seriou trouble, to Hutus and Tutsis who were shot and killed, bludgeoned to death, when the people of that country witnessed hundred days of brutal genocide in 1994.
But the name that one bears and has decided to bear shouldn’t be a burden. It is not good for our world that this is so. It would be demoralizing to know that long-term service could be made nothing by just a challenge that has to do with either name-addition or name-dropping.
Mr Ochibejivwie writes in from Warri, and can be reached via email on [email protected]