Few things shape global understanding of conflict as powerfully as language. Names determine who is seen, who is remembered, and who is believed. In Genocide Nomenclature in Nigeria, Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde makes a compelling case that selective naming in media reporting has erased Muslim victims from global consciousness while amplifying Christian suffering. His argument is detailed, provocative, and rooted in real historical pain.
Yet even as we acknowledge the power of naming, an uncomfortable question remains: Is correcting vocabulary alone enough to fix Nigeria’s conflict narrative?
The answer may be more complex.
Also read:
Genocide Nomenclature in Nigeria: How Naming Shapes Global Perception of Conflict
Naming Shapes Perception, But It Does Not Create Violence
There is no doubt that labels influence how the world responds to suffering. Who is named, how they are called, and who is left unnamed can tilt sympathy, funding, and international pressure. But naming does not create violence; it reflects deeper realities that naming alone cannot resolve. Nigeria’s conflicts are not driven solely by how journalists describe victims. They are driven by:
- weak state presence
- long-standing land and resource disputes
- identity politics
- economic collapse
- political manipulation
Correcting terminology without addressing these root causes risks mistaking narrative repair for conflict resolution.
Media Bias Exists, But So Does Media Uncertainty
Dr. Tilde argues that Nigerian and Western media consistently downplay Muslim victimhood while highlighting Christian suffering. While this pattern exists in many cases, it is also true that conflict reporting in Nigeria often suffers from limited access, fear, and poor verification, as well as ideological bias. In many violent incidents:
- Perpetrators are genuinely unclear because of weak security intelligence
- Security agencies release conflicting information
- local sources contradict one another
- journalists operate under threat
Terms like “unknown gunmen” are sometimes less about shielding perpetrators and more about avoiding volatile environments. While the result may still distort perception, intent and outcome are not always the same.
The Risk of Turning Victimhood Into a Competition
One unintended danger of focusing heavily on naming is the creation of a hierarchy of suffering, where groups compete for recognition as the “most persecuted.” Nigeria does not lack victims. It lacks justice. When discourse shifts toward proving which group suffers more, the conversation can quietly drift away from accountability, arrests, prosecutions, and prevention. Victims, Muslim or Christian, do not benefit from global sympathy if killers remain free and communities remain unsafe.
Global Attention Follows Power, Not Just Narratives
Another uncomfortable reality is that global institutions do not respond only to language. They respond to:
- geopolitical interests
- lobbying power
- historical alliances
- strategic value
Even with perfectly balanced naming, Nigeria’s conflicts would still struggle for sustained global attention unless they intersect with these interests. Expecting vocabulary reform alone to rebalance global concern may overestimate the moral consistency of international actors.
Equal Naming Should Not Mean Equal Simplification
Dr. Tilde’s call for egalitarian nomenclature is understandable. However, there is a risk that insisting on identical labels for all violence may flatten essential distinctions. Some conflicts are:
- ideological
- some are criminal
- some are communal
- some are politically engineered
Effective responses depend on understanding these differences. Precision, not uniformity, is what helps policymakers, security agencies, and communities respond appropriately.
Beyond Naming: What a Fuller Correction Requires
If Nigeria truly wants a fair and accurate conflict narrative, balance must extend beyond labels to include:
- transparent casualty databases
- independent investigations
- regionally balanced reporting
- prosecution of perpetrators regardless of identity
- protection for journalists and witnesses
Without these, even perfectly named victims may remain unheard in practice.
Dr. Tilde’s work performs a vital service: it forces Nigerians to confront uncomfortable inconsistencies in how suffering is recognised and remembered. That contribution should not be dismissed. But naming is only one layer of a much deeper crisis. True narrative justice will not come from vocabulary reform alone, but from a system that:
- values every life equally
- documents violence honestly
- punishes perpetrators consistently
- and protects communities regardless of religion or region
Until then, Nigeria risks correcting the language of conflict while leaving the conflict itself intact.
Can balanced naming change global perception without equally balanced justice on the ground, or are we fixing the mirror while the house continues to burn?
Related reading on Streaming Naija:
Crime and Terror Have No Tribe or Religion: Nigeria Must Stop the Double Standards
And its counterpoint:
When Naming Everything Terror Blinds Us: Why Context Still Matters in Nigeria’s Insecurity Crisis
3 Comments
What matters more in the long run, global perception, or justice and safety on the ground?
ReplyDeleteCan changing how conflicts are named really fix Nigeria’s insecurity narrative, or does justice matter more than vocabulary?
ReplyDeleteIs balanced naming enough, or are we correcting language while leaving the real causes of violence untouched?
ReplyDelete