Why the linguistic sexism of the new old national anthem?

Is it not hilarious that a nation that is blessed with myriad linguistic and literary intelligentsia has just approved an oxymoronic new old national anthem that harbours elements of linguistic sexism alienating or disparaging the feminine gender contrary to the spirit of the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)?

Does a national anthem that is not linguistically impeccable befit a country regarded as the most populous black nation cum giant of Africa? Is it not pertinent for governmental authorities to be responsive to the following fundamental interrogative submissions?

Why should a national decision bordering on the choice of a national anthem be hastily taken and somehow unilaterally or undemocratically just by few privileged people in power? Is a tactically delayed decision not better than a hasty decision taken without the sine qua non of a sound, timely and collectively taken decision?

Won’t proper planning preventing poor positions and permitting perfect performance have facilitated good decisions in respect of how, when and why the former national anthem was suddenly ousted or dethroned and the present national anthem was reinstated or enthroned?

Couldn’t the myriad language experts, literary geniuses and communication gurus we have be contacted or consulted to help to linguistically re-examine and overhaul the new old national anthem before its re-adoption?

Wouldn’t they have discovered and discouraged the utilisation or retention of the sexist lexemes of the reintroduced national anthem viz ‘brotherhood, ‘motherland’ and ‘no man’? Wouldn’t they have stressed the unsuitability and unacceptability of the gender-biased lexemes or expressions and recommended suitable and acceptable alternatives without negative lyrical, poetic or semantic implications?

Wouldn’t the re-introduced national anthem be linguistically synonymous to an old wine in an old wine skin since the present anthem is guilty of gender-biased language use just as the former anthem based on the generic use of ‘fatherland’ and ‘hero?

Is the retention of the linguistic sexism of the former anthem in the present anthem in tandem with the principle of linguistic dynamism which justifies positive changes in language use based on contemporary realities? Is it not obvious that a linguistically defective anthem can’t be replaced with an equally linguistically defective anthem when expecting a better linguistic evaluation or positive impression of the masses?

Are the powerful forces behind the sudden re-introduction of the present national anthem not aware of the global condemnation of gender-based discrimination including sexist communication which mostly denigrates the feminine gender and sometimes disparages the masculine gender? Are they not conscious of the fact those linguistically alienated in the national anthem that epitomises the country’s history, philosophy and ideology will always feel discriminated against and highly disturbed? Don’t the agents of the sudden change of the national anthem know that linguistic sexism is a form of linguistic violence that can inflict emotional wounds or injuries on the affected people?

Can’t the sexist cum ambiguous ‘brotherhood’ of the present national anthem be replaced with equally tri-syllabic lexemes like ‘unity’ and ‘unison’ with semantic similitude or ‘nationhood’ which is another tri-syllabic word?

Can’t the expressions ‘In unity we stand’, ‘In unison we stand’ or ‘For nationhood we stand’ which all have similar rhythmic patterns and hexa-syllabic lines, lyrically and musically replace the sexist ‘In brotherhood we stand’?

Won’t the stanza still maintain its musicality with the replacement of the semantically complex ‘brotherhood’ just as the flower called rose will smell equally good when called another name as posited by William Shakespeare?

Can’t the gender-neutral word ‘nativeland’ used initially on line two of stanza one of the recent national anthem replace the gender-specific ‘motherland’ on line six of the same stanza one of the national anthem to eliminate the second linguistic element of sexism or sexist communication? Won’t it just simply look like a stylistic foregrounding or repetition for emphasis of the word ‘nativeland’ as the terminal lexeme of the second and sixth lines of the first stanza of the anthem?

Is the repetition of the tri-syllabic word ‘nativeland’ not lyrically or musically better than the use of the bi-syllabic ‘homeland’ which will affect the syllabic cum rhythmic pattern of the final line of the first stanza of the national anthem?

Can’t the androgynous bi-syllabic indefinite pronoun ‘no one’ also serve as the gender-neutral linguistic alternative of the misogynistic ‘no man’ on line four of stanza three of the present new old national anthem somehow imposed on the citizens?

Can’t the replacement of ‘no man’ with ‘no one’ even go unnoticed if silently done before reintroducing the present anthem since both words are di-syllabic and partly homophonic as they start with ‘no’ which is phonemically articulated and transcribed as /nəʊ/? Won’t it amount to what Chinua Achebe described as sitting beside the river and washing the hands with spittle to use the sexist ‘no man’ where there is a non-sexist ‘no one’ that depicts language flexibility?

Shouldn’t the decision to replace the national anthem have been done democratically and not somehow autocratically considering the fact that this is a democratic dispensation? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for a referendum to have been conducted prior to the approval and re-introduction of the former national anthem to be sure the idea is acceptable to the people? Who would have challenged the legality or otherwise of the procedure employed if the idea had emanated from the masses or patriotic citizens of this great nation?

Why are the people in authority sometimes not taking the right steps at the right time in the right ways to get the right results that are commensurate with people’s expectation? Why are some powers that be still putting the horse before the cart as if steady progress can be made by not doing things rightly or correctly especially in ways that can guarantee sustainable development? Hope the issues quizzically presented in respect of the linguistic sexism of the new old anthem will be positively considered since the medium is the message according to Marshall McLuhan’s postulation?

.Oluga, is the dean, School of General and Administrative Studies, Federal Polytechnic Ede, Osun State