Some Interesting COVID-19 Protective Face Masks: Commitment to Survival or Artistic Performance?

by

Obododimma Oha

COVID-19 has almost turned many into masked figures, with their presentation of many types of coverings as their protective masks. It is suspected that the air might be a chief means of transmitting the virus, and the air is shared. Mask covering the mouth and the nose is recommended for preventing an entry of the virus into the body. There is also the conspiracy theory that masks sold by major organizations may be produced to infect many or secretly designed to implant a dubious control chip. For some who think that they are very clever, it is an easy way of ripping people off and making money. In this case, they could mass-produce and sell masks and encourage their use, but they have another agenda. That, of course, is happening, just as some may like an on-going war because it helps them to sell their weapons or bags of beans needed by troops somewhere.

On the other hand, the COVID-19 experience has almost turned protective mask-making into an art. This article is interested in exploring briefly this kind of art that makes the mask a source of fun.

Some Facebook friends have been sharing some of these masks. For instance, Toyin Mojisola-Adegbite Makinde. One may be interested in why she is doing that. One reason, I suspect, is that the mask represents a unique playfulness and there is an attempt at humouring COVID-19 (that means, laughing in-between tears).

Here are some spectacular updates of some funny protective masks on Toyin Mojisola-Adegbite Makinde's wall:
               
                                       (1).

(Taken from an update on Toyin Mojisola- Adegbite Makinde's Facebook wall, but photographer unknown ) 

(2)

(The Ape Facial Mask, taken from Toyin Mojisola-Adegbite Makinde's Facebook wall, photographer unknown). 

(3)

( The Bra Face Mask, taken from Toyin  Mojisola-Adegbite Makinde's Facebook wall, photographer unknown) 

In the second case in which a chimpanzee is mimicked, Wale Sobande in his comment writes: "This is coro monkey facemask." Sobande is right: obviously, there is an attempt to make us view masking as a way of taking the identity of the other. And why not steal that of a chimp that likes imitating a lot? It remains for the mimicry to be extended to walking on all fours and making a monkey-like guttural sound. Is that too fictional?

Mojisola-Adegbite Makinde also brings gender into this masking practice. We could see this clearly in the dressing of the masked figure in a woman's gown. But of the third image of the mask from her shuts one's mouth completely: a woman's bra is used as a mask! Surprising! Or, rather, alarming! Is what is important not the covering of the mouth and the nose?  If bra could do that, fine. And really every mouth or nose has touched what the bra is used in covering. But we are subtly reminded what the bra is originally used for. The secondary use is your own headache. In this case, the underlying idea of breast is just implied and is left to the reader-viewer.

This is where interpretation of signs comes in. Is the breast naturally tied to bra-wearing? Why not COVID? If not, why not?

Then, the worrisome aspect: women are sometimes associated with evil and disasters in male-oriented narratives. Ask Adam and Eve. Ask Delilah. Ask Jezebel. Ask Lady Macbeth. So, a woman's bra taken over by COVID, a global health disaster, reminds us about those terrible narratives. But COVID is not a woman. At least, one is not saying that it is. But COVID is disastrous!

All kinds of things have been used as protective masks, even tin. But also in some cases, one finds very strange, total covering of self, a clear humouring of the masking practice.

Perhaps, very direct to the masquerade link is the update by Chidozie Chukwubuike, in which we have following text: "If we knew we would all eventually be performing as masquerades perhaps my village wouldn't have cancelled our Ekpo masquerade festival in deference to COVID-19." The visual image of a masked self tells the rest of the story.

(Self-masking by Chidozie Chukwubuike, from his Facebook wall)  

For Toayofunmi Diya-Ayokunnumi, a more factual play on masking is also worth considering. So, she uploads the following information for our attention on masking:

(The Hard Facts about Masks and Masking, on Toayofunmi Diya-Ayokunnumi's Facebook wall ) 

She further explains that: "All is good but to be use (sic) at moderation. Excessively usage of N95 might implicate some respiratory complications. Why? It would congest C02 to less aeration." That sounds too Chinese!

Anyway, we could see that making just anything a mask is not protection but a mere performance. And that is the heart of the matter. Humour aside, performance aside, this is about survival. Covering the mouth and the nose is not just out of fun. It is about life, a desire for survival and a visual statement saying that. So, we can enjoy the joke of our miserable selves, but we should look beyond that and struggle to survive.

A Gbanjo Trader, Once Upon a Time

by

Obododimma Oha

Have you encountered a real gbanjo trader armed with a bell and his sweet tongue, inviting attention to his goods on the ground? "Gbanjo" is a Yoruba word  for what the English would call "auction," but that gives us a poor translation, for a "gbanjo" person does some other things. The Igbo would call this "gbanjo" something like "mgbuka" (cutting to bits or pieces) (alternatively, "ire na ntụ," or "selling as ash thrown away")  but this near-synonym is not acceptable to us, for "mgbuka" has something derogatory about it. The "gbanjo" person is not really "cutting it into bits," as the Igbo name sugggests. Anyway, the Igbo derogatorily refer to the "gbanjo" businessperson as "onye mgbuka." Also, in their naming is the implication that "onye mgbuka's" goods are of low and terrible quality. But we know that superior goods could feature in "onye mgbuka's" heap. Which is why this article partly reveals the slippery wisdom we used as "gbanjo" businesspeople once upon a time.

In my own part of Igboland, children are trained to be self-reliant. Right from infancy, they are exposed to the idea of struggling to be a success on one's own. So, when I was just a child, I was a dealer in kerosene and would return from school only to head for the market with my galon of kero and beer bottles for measuring the fluid for buyers. I used to have a strategic location in the marketplace, so that buyers would easily see me and my ware. This required being sharp-eyed to see when a bottle is approaching or when a bottle is hiding in a bag, especially if there were other competitors selling kero. But I supplemented this with going round and picking the bottles and knowing each owner, to ask the owner to pay later at nightfall when going home. So, one was used to making money by this means, or joining adults in their contributions in meetings which would be shared before a major feast like Christmas.

What it means is that one could approach the feast richer and could buy things for oneself. What gave joy like a shirt or footwear one gets for oneself? That was a special wear! And the feast was a special one!

So, one was already used to the culture of self-reliance which came up now and again. it was in the spirit of this culture of self-reliance that, during our long vacation, when I was only going to Class Three in the secondary school, I went to spend the "holidays" with a cousin who was a "gbanjo" trader in Imo State in Nigeria. In the one room that he shared with other traders, I was asked to find a corner and to occupy it. I did so. The "house" was in the heart of a market and its walls were made of zinc. That kind of house was called a "batcher." Well, my gbanjo cousin did not even mind.

In a few minutes, he explained their frugal ways: we had to go a kilometer away to fetch water in the night, we had to buy supper and it could just be leftovers of things, we had to sweep the premises, the landlady came once in a while  and was a fighter; in fact, as a no-nonsense woman, she could pour acid on anybody (something I witnessed once!), our toilet was that open street! And so on.

Over to the real "gbanjo" experience. On a marketday somewhere in the vicinity (provided the ware was ready and waiting), one would leave very early to get a ride at the back of a pickup van with some market women. The ride could be hard and challenging, but when one got to the market, one would quikly jump down or be helped to do so. One could  get cramps after such a long and uncomfortable ride. But that was to be expected and was just an exercise or personal training.

Then, to the heart of the market on arrival. One spread one's nylon on the ground, brought out one's bell, and one's carton of wares. Then one went to the food sellers to buy breakfast and eat it fast. Time waited for nobody. After that, one had to pretend to be a buyer and confirm at the shops the prices of the wares that one brought.  If one brought camphor and a wrap was ten kobo in the shops, one cut one's price to five kobo. That was it.

When the selling began and the "gbanjo" business person was with the bell inviting attention with some sweet words or drama, even those in the shops would come to buy and resell later. They could buy in large quantities. that meant more gain. Their logic was that, instead of going to Onitsha to buy which could entail offering bribe to police on the way (apart from other risks), the best thing was to buy from the "gbanjo"  trader. Let the "gbanjo" trader carry or take away the many risks.

To say the least, the profit was not much for us as "gbanjo" traders but before long we were ready for home, ready for another market elsewhere in the state, collecting our little profits. Those who wanted to sell a wrap of camphor (which may be discoloured at point due to age) for ten kobo could wait for buyers for months or even years. The "gbanjo" businessperson had moved on.

The next day, the "gbanjo" businessperson living in a "batcher" would climb into another crowded truck and head for another market in the local community. But one was not worried since one was sure of making little money during the holidays and buying things for oneself.

I remember these "gbanjo" days with great pride. Today, as an elite person, one has to live a life of falsehood, giving the young ones the wrong impression that going to school means depending on other people for life. Nonsense. One is here on earth on one's own. If one chooses not to struggle, it could be terrible and worse tomorrow. Onyemaechi? Who really knows tomorrow?

The End of Speech

by

Obododimma Oha

Think of an absurd situation in which people have to carry their ideas and things they want to talk about as enormous luggage on their heads. When they meet other people and want to talk to them, they carry down the luggage and start gesticulating. The kind of absurd situation Lemuel Gulliver describes in his encounter with the people of Laputa.

As you may argue, this kind of world is inconceivable and can only give stalled transactions. But it seems acceptable to institutions that privilege silence, or encourage people to speak less. It could particularly appeal to bee-keepers (who have to maintain silence when approaching honey-bee hives, to avoid upsetting the bees and getting stung). But human beings have to disturb the air acoustically and attach meanings to the sounds they produce, which they call speech.

 Interestingly, too, experts on sound production in  humans tell us  that that kind of process of attaching meanings to sounds comes much later in human development. In fact, they argue that the production of sounds as  a form of communication with other agents is a secondary function of the organs we assign to speech production. They inform us that the so-called speech organs (lips, tongue, mouth cavity, nostrils, etc) were primarily designed by nature to serve our feeding and survival and not for speech, that speech was added by us later. That means that those parts of the body were trained later to produce some sounds and their transformations! So, speech, you are still a late-comer, and should be prepared for the treatment mapped out for late-comers!

Well, it looks like speech has got into trouble out there where functions are strictly policed, maybe partially for coming late. It has got into trouble with those processes with which it has to share the air, like air-borne diseases and their relatives. One may be making light a very tragic situation in the COVID-19 experience if one links up the wearing of protective masks to that idea that speech is a late-comner who has to wrestle to get out of the luggage people carry to communicate ideas and the frightening possibility that it is in trouble in sharing the air and may come to a bad end.

Am I protecting my speech (maybe falsehood or non-chalance) or protecting my life when I wear the mask? Please, I am for safety and not dying due to carelessness, but one has been trained to examine life, for, as the ancient Greeks used to say, "An unexamined life is not worth living." Let us help speech to survive the pandemic, too, for the pandemic seems to force people to mask the exposed parts also used for speech.

If one protects one's speech and prevents it from being infected through the spreading of fear, fake news, and conspiracy theories, one is not doing the objectionable. The fact that modern life involves a deluge of information, which one also has to sort frequently, is itself a pandemic. Many are killed by information that pursues them here and  there. If one has to survive the news pandemic, one has to be in charge of one's mind and not submit easily to everything conveyed in language on the Internet.

I feel strongly for speech as a late-comer. If some useless humans have to be erased and a new world would emerge, then a new speech is needed (to emerge, too). The old speech may come conveying the absurd luggage from the old world. And that is not good. New world, new speech. And this new speech may have a different character and not borrow body parts as speech organs.

Perhaps the new speech has to learn from sign language, even though it has to avoid reminding one about the Swift absurd syndrome.

The end of speech should mean another form of communication free from viruses. Let us understand when the anti-virus would be produced before the creation of the new speech. Let us also be made ready, in the form of training, on how to convey our meanings in it, just like the production of sounds and the funny attachment of meanings to them. Training of the body and of the mind that conceives.

No, no need of the cremation of speech that has been taken by the pandemic. We can build archives to house things of the old life. We can actually use technology to mimic meaning-making in the
old life.

Perhaps the new human will speak through the anus instead. Perhaps the new human will not need to modify the stream of air at any point and will just produce one long guttural sound. Don't ask how meaning can be negotiated. The human being may just see another and proceed to scan the other's mind, to determine intention. It is a new day and a new language is needed.

The end of one speech: the beginning of another.

The Road to Survival

by

Obododimma Oha

If I tell my children that during the Nigeria-Biafra War, our main sources of protein and sustenance were mice, crickets, lizards, and numerous vegetables, I look like somebody who has been watching the exotic African film titled "Mr. Bones." But it was real and I was a character in that struggle for human survival. Yes; we ate funny things and they were supplied by the Maker in abundance in the Biafran countryside. We enjoyed them as baskets left after feeding on two fishes and few loaves of bread. And we rubbed our stomachs, thanking the Maker, too, for listening to our voices: Bia nuru olu anyi, nna bia nuru olu anyi! (Come and listen to us, father, come and listen!).

That means that one has got some experience of surviving in a disaster or life-threatening situation (even though disasters and their challenges may differ from context to context). That experience is helpful, for experience is still the best teacher, not the teacher with the longest cane.

That little experience shows me that survival is for those who can adjust or adapt to new situations, not those who stubbornly stick to their old ways. The Igbo were right in saying that: A naghi ano otu nga elele mmanwu (One does not watch a masquerade performance from only one spot). The performance requires moving around the square (including the global village square!) (and that movement is part of the performance, too). One who does not move around is asking to be hurt. Such a person may be flogged by  the masquerade. And if the person is rooted to a spot, other watchers may be wondering what is wrong with the fellow. Maybe the fellow has come with a witchcraft and has been charmed. Maybe the person has been struck by a thunderbolt from the hands of Amadioha on account of the numerous charms worn. So, watching a masked performance from only one spot is unusual, very!

As a result of that knowledge, we knew immediately that when we prayed, "Give us each day, our daily bread...."the bread could come as crickets and lizards. We were ready to adjust and that saved us. We were also ready to pick up the remnants for another meal, instead of leaving them like spoilt children and disturbing our heavenly father every time.

Our eyes were also open and we were ready to see things and to improvise. Those who want to change their ways should come down to earth and discover alternatives. Was it not how our ancestors discovered that pumpkin leaves, water leaf, and yam tubers could be eaten and also used as medicine? With all our learning, which new consumable have we found in the bush, apart from old ones we try to modify and transform to eat? Is it noodles and rice we could find to eat? What other things have we identified, which our ancestors did not know, apart from our fine taste of modernity that recommends that we abandon those as backward things? Even Corona virus, have we candidly asked the bush for a solution?

One can see that, as one of my neighbours once pointed out, elitism is a culture of self-deception. Elite culture tells one that it is low-down to come out of a government-owned house and harvest a bunch of oranges or mangoes, instead of waiting until outsiders harvest them and sell back to the elite person in the marketplace. Elite culture tells that lazy fellow that he or she was created only to read books. Then, eat, sleep, and bath. Elite culture is a bad culture. With all our learning, we still cannot find an instant cure for the virus within hours! With all the universities, polytechnics, colleges of education, etc! It is good and symbolic that they are all closed down, for they have failed  woefully.

So, my children, stop laughing at me as Mr. Bones. That Mr. Bones was able to solve his problems without wearing masks and crying because a virus has chosen to commit suicide in the peppersoup pot.

Look at the birds of the air and other wild animals. Do they fear or show their worry for COVID? Are they not on earth here with us? Yes, they, too, have their typical diseases. Many. But that is not the issue. So, don't go there. perhaps we need to follow them around and  find out where the magic is. How can they be so happy and unworried?

The road to survival is populated by those who can use their heads, not those who show arrogance over the little that they know.

Social Distance

By

Obododimma Oha

Sometimes, politicians and other social actors define what words should mean for us. They can even give new meanings to familiar words and we have to queue up and accept them one after the other, same way we can kill other people for a politician to win at an election, or queue up for hours on end to vote for politicians from whom we have collected some bribe money. So, we could see that politicians and other significant social actors tell or lecture us on what "distance" means and know that "social distance" can be something done to the population, using the population. The novelist, George Orwell, author of the popular
1984,was known  to have shown his annoyance over  this in his essay, “Politics and the English language. ” Indeed, his annoyance is justified.

If social distance is interpreted to mean keeping away from everyone, not just avoiding crowds in public places, does it matter? Sometimes,one can mean something without saying it directly and say something without saying something. And somebody can go to jail if that person does not do what has not been said.

This also means freezing up societies or saying no more social interaction until further notice. Social interaction tells me why lives have to meet. The other life is not created  for me to eat as  food. The other life is created to flow into mine for life to continue in a dynamic way. So, the other life is greater me.

Now, you are saying: “To your tents,O Israel!”

Anyway, “social  distance,” through which you try to kill something, should not be total distance or distance from  everyone. Don’t I know how to keep a  healthy distance from someone that I am  talking with? Do I have to wrap myself around that person or share  a seat meant for one with the fellow? Must bodies rub against bodies in a civilized world? Please,let us not allow social actors redefine for us what “social distance” means and become the victims that Omoniyi Ibietan is talking about in that update on Facebook that says:

Keep social distance from misconception, misinformation &
Disinformation....They are more contagious and deadly as COVID-19.

Does that make you a bit uncomfortable,especially after reading many conspiracy theories that look true? Anyway,”social distance” still has humour for you, as in this soccer visual targeting the targeter:

(Source: Anonymous  

Is Arsenal not reminded about the need to observe “social distance” if the club is targeting the cup? It should be a humane gunner, biko, especially in these days of Corona virus. Indeed, a Frontline Division One European League club, Arsenal has every reason to eye (and even sniff)  the cup. Corona or no Corona. Even if there is a virus on the cup, a club facing competition has to grab it.

Anyway politicians and other social actors kicking social distance  and meaning round the soccer pitch should know that we know their styles and that we know what they know.

Corona Virus as a Science Fiction Tragedy

by

Obododimma Oha


Some people make the mistake of thinking that science fiction (sci-fi, for short) is fantasy for young people who are crackpots. Science fiction may have dwelt on matters that are classified as puerile but can bring up serious issues about human life. It can point the way to new possibilities and inventions waiting.  It has also extensively looked at disease and human survival in the world. These doomsday narratives have been warning and cautioning, asking us to get ready with strategies for addressing the hypothetical situation.

As someone who has been consuming some of these narratives, I see a similarity between what is playing out now as Corona Virus Scare and many cases we have in science fiction narratives. When I was just thinking about  putting together this essay, I had to refer to some existent knowledge on the Internet  about those narratives. Here is an interesting explanation on Wikipedia about apocalyptic fiction, which we are thinking about:

Apocalyptic fiction does not portray catastrophes, or disasters, or near-disasters that do not result in apocalypse. A threat of an apocalypse does not make a piece of fiction apocalyptic. For example, Armageddon and Deep Impact are considered disaster films and not apocalyptic fiction because, although Earth and/or humankind are terribly threatened, in the end they manage to avoid destruction.

So, following this line of thinking, let us say that Corona Virus Scare is both disaster in outlook and apocalyptic, after all, there is a prediction that the epidemic would go away after sometime; we will manage to overcome it. And a new world will follow. But the route taken is disaster, and people may watch helplessly while loved ones suffer and die, or are isolated. That is very painful and a challenge to our humanity.

If I call it a tragedy, that is in a simple sense that many have perished in fighting it. I also refer to the classical sense of tragedy as something painful from which  some ironically derive pleasure or catharsis. An account of that catharsis has to include, not just the enjoyment of some conspiracy theories emerging from it, but also the fact that the characters mentioned in those narratives seem to derive some pleasure from what they are doing – performing experiments with human beings and trying to see if they can enact disaster! How different is that from the gladiatorial shows of the ancient Roman Empire? In the process of reading up for this essay, I came across conspiracy theories pointing towards the escape of the viruses from an American laboratory and another an experiment gone awry in a Chinese laboratory. These are just some of the emergent conspiracy theories.

The only difference, you would say, is that the science fiction narratives were imagined, scripted, revised, and then, published. But you are looking at real life. Reality has learnt to imitate fiction. Nothing prevents our world from modelling its life, its experiences, after what obtains in science fiction narratives. Are we not the fictional characters acting our roles and learning from science fiction? If Corona experience turns out to be apocalyptic, that, too, is a learning experience.

When Denial Annoys Even the Devil

By

Obododimma Oha

Denial is a typical human discursive activity, which is obviously an attempt at defending the self, showing the self as blameless. When that self is blameworthy and one is claiming to be blameless, it is damaging to the image of self. It is laughable and also seems to imply the following, which are likewise annoying:

(i) others are fools;

(ii) others can believe just anything;

(iii) others are under some control and can do anything that they are told;

(iv) others do not make use of their brains – somebody has to think for them.

(v) relationship with these others is founded on deception.

One can then understand why the devil is grossly annoyed in the film, Suing the Devil, in which a salesperson and poor law student, Luke O’Brien, sues the devil for eight trillion dollars, for the disasters and harm he has caused in the world. Oh, you are smiling, too! This special but seemingly laughable court case goes on ridiculously, people wondering how the devil, a supposedly non-existent entity, would appear to defend himself. But the devil appears though unrecognized in the court-room, wearing a suit and with his team of powerful attorneys. The aspect that concerns us is his annoyance over the claim that he does not exist. Initially, he finds that funny, but at some point, does not find it funny again. He gets angry, even with the presiding judge, stands up and tells him to shut up, whether it is not he (the devil) that has been doing wonderful things for him, including promoting him. He has also helped other attorneys present, who are arguing that he is fiction! Who has the courage to charge him with contempt of court in that supernatural manifestation? How could the immortal be subject to human law, including resolving disputes based on their little knowledge (for which they are very proud!) with an idea about whose arguments are smarter? Nonsense! So, the devil, starred by Malcolm McDowell, finds human denial and court-room discourse really deficient and grossly infuriating.

Released to the public in 2011, written and produced by Tim Chey, Suing the Devil shows us how far in logic our tendency to deny can go and should annoy us if we really make use of our brains. Indeed, it is the kind of discourse about the devil that C.S. Lewis, the author of the famous Screwtape Letters, would find exceptionally inspiring. Allhough the film has a Christian evangelical ring to it, it is very relevant to the logic of how we deny or accept things in discourse: it challenges us to think critically about denial in discourse and about reality. Is the act of denial not really an invitation for us to think, to probe things deeper or is it for us to accept whatever we are told? If we are prone to accept whatever we are told, does that not show that our population of people are the easiest to rule by any fool? Does it not seem to say that ignorance is still food in that very context and that the ruling group may want to perpetuate it?

Furthermore, the film invites us to look at court-room discourse and reality again. It seems our courtroom discourse overlooks certain things and carries on conservatively at the way it looks at reality and evidence. The courtroom order is typically Western and would not admit any evidence from Ifa or any other system that is not observable. Above all, it privileges the nonsense that one’s proud argument along conservative lines is able to say. In that case, it recognises just one reality and dismisses fiction as a mere dream, just as the film itself remains a mere dream!

What is the boundary between dream and reality, particularly in a courtroom discourse that places some importance on talk, on argument? This boundary will continue to operate outside the law, but could be flouted sometimes as we demand justice. When one thinks of suing the devil or an angel, one is considered mad but held hostage by one reality. How would that reality understand the insanity as sanity?

There could be a rational basis for denial in some cases. For instance, if you assert that the author of this essay is the current President of USA, he could deny the assertion and we could easily agree with him. The weight of evidence would weigh in his favor. Also, if one says: "It is well" when I know that it is not, I could say the assertion is false, even if rhetorical. Further, if somebody claims that he cannot function efficiently in power because his predecessors performed badly, is he not begging the question and merely being defensive? One should know when to deny ("Ihe a gba n'aka, a naghị asị weta enyo ka e lelee ya" (A  mirror is not required to see a bracelet that one is wearing). One should know when denial becomes ridiculous. What is obvious is obvious. A denial is not a profession, neither is it concrete action. Denial is discursive and only shows that one is merely looking for excuses.