The Phenomenon of Hate Speech in Tiv Oral Literature: A Study of Selected Political Songs of Mikel Mfater Kaha (El Stuffy) Tsavmbu, Aondover Alexis Department of Languages and Linguistics Federal University, Dutsinma, Katsina State, Nigeria. Abstract Having observed the dominance of oral literary creativity on the Tiv political platform, this paper examines the role of literature in political mobilisation among the Tiv. Specifically, the paper examines the extent oral art on the political landscape which could be regarded as political mobilisation or hate speech. To achieve this objective, the political songs of Mikel Mfater Kafa (El Stuffy) are studied via the functionalist approach. The finding is that as far as political songs are concerned, hate speech has completely replaced satire as an instrument for social engineering. The paper also discovers that what exists on the political platform as oral art is bereft of all the features that used to define Tiv oral creativity which used to thrive on satire. Tiv oral literature of political extraction is closer to hate speech than art intended to deride social foibles in order to correct them. The work concludes that this could be the reason Tiv politics is usually highly charged with violence or threats of same and finds the Tiv oral artist culpable in the existing political tensions. The paper recommends that if Tiv politics is to outgrow the existing obnoxious trend, the oral artist has to re-examine himself and his art in the light of societal aspirations. Introduction Tiv oral art is generally known for its skilful use of satire as an important tool for social engineering. Among the Tiv, therefore, the oral artist is a person of no mean importance. His impact is felt in nearly every facet of life particularly in politics. This explains why since the dawn of party politics in Benue State, politicians have employed oral artists for political mobilisation and sensitisation of the electorates towards their desired objectives; making oral artists and their art a permanent feature of Benue political activity. Consequently, hardly does any frontline politician announce a bid to any political office without first securing the services of an oral artist who is noted for his dexterity in satirising political opponents and exposing them to public ridicule while extolling the virtues of his patron. In this manner, some politicians have amassed immense political capital over the years due to the contributions of their oral performers. But more importantly, because this art is accomplished in the local language, oral performers have also facilitated political inclusion in Tiv land as all the people are carried along whether or not they are educated. This has helped to make Tiv land one of the most politically informed societies in Nigeria. On the flip side of this, Tiv reliance on oral creativity as means of political mobilisation has made scarce the kind of intellectual political discourse found in other civilised climes. More worrisome is the fact that in recent times, some observers are getting increasingly worried that some Tiv oral artists churn out hate speech rather than utilise the traditional literary tool of satire to dispense messages aimed at political mobilisation as was the case in the past. For people who hold this view, the propagation of hate speech by Tiv oral artists rather than political sensitisation explains why party politics among the Tiv is characterised by violence leading to recurring scenes of loss of lives and destruction of property: a situation that has not just made many credible candidates to steer clear of politics but also promoted apathy among the electorate. It is against this backdrop that this paper examinee the extent hate speech has replaced satire as the key instrument of the oral artist performing political songs among the Tiv with the works of Mikel Mfater Kafa, popularly known as El Stuffy as its guides. Review of Related Literature Cetral to the focus of this paper is whether or not political songs of Tiv could be described as hate speech or legitimate use of satire for literary creativity. This notion is germane to contemporary Tiv oral creativity because the line between satire and hate speech is blurred. Webster’s Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus (2007: 417) defines satire as “a literary work in which folly or evil in people’s behaviour are held up to ridicule”. This definition has been perfected by the Microsoft Encarta (2009: 1) that satire is a literary creation that “employs wit in the form of irony, innuendo, or outright derision to expose human wickedness and folly”. This implies that satire is desirable of change in society. However, this understanding does preclude any tendency for abuse of this tool for literary expression. For instance, in the Renaissance, satire took on the unfortunate connotation of lasciviousness and crude mockery as a result of its false etymological linkage to the Latin ‘satyr’ by the renaissance satirists. There was fore little or no effort to veil the attacks on persons, institutions and values. As far back as that period there was the tendency to mistake hate speech for satire. It is in that sense of lasciviousness and crude mockery that Amase (2013: 88) quotes Charles Sanders as saying “… satire is the impulse to give form to divergent opinion, denunciation and irreverent mockery”. Certainly, what is being defined here is the opposite of satire because the term could be many things but “irreverent mockery” as the above definition tends to indicate. The point is that for some people, satire is similar to hate speech and this is a matter of concern particularly in Nigerian politics. The need to show concern about the aberrant connotations of satire is important. This is because satire could lose its corrective aural and degenerate to the realm of destructive verbal assaults or arrant hate speech. It is due to this concern that scholars expend intellectual capital in conceptualising hate speech so that it can be clearly differentiated from satire. Abimbola Adelakun (2017:10) defines hate speech as any speech that is “used to demean persons based on their identifiers such as race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, [politics] and predispose them to acts of violence” (10). In August 2017, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo states that hate speech would no longer be tolerated in Nigeria as it was tantamount to terrorism. Regrettably however, some oral artists are culpable in this regard having lent their art to this dastard purpose of spreading hate speech while pretending to be utilising satire, which is the artist’s traditional tool. It was the need to clearly delineate the two related concepts and set them apart that Dan Agbese (np) provided six criteria for identifying hate speech: One, hate speech must be explicitly or implicitly directed at persons or group of persons who are different from us in terms of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Two, hate speech is intended to cause social, racial, ethnic or religious disharmony and incite violence directed at persons or groups so categorised here. Three, hate speech includes verbal or non-verbal communication with the same intent as mentioned earlier. Four, hate speech must be seen to be calculated to injure or traumatise persons or groups of persons for the purposes of causing the community in which they reside to deny them their basic human rights and entitlements. Five, hate speech must explicitly or implicitly profile the persons or groups it is directed at to prejudice others against them by emphasising their detestable racial or ethnic characteristics. Six, hate speech must be discriminatory of persons and groups on the basis of their attributes referred to earlier.( ) For Dan Agbese, the tendency of one’s speech being labelled hate speech could be measured by the extent to which such speech embodies the six features. Satire, on the other, is different. Rather than merely being ‘the impulse to give form to divergent opinion, denunciation and irreverent mockery’ as is the case with hate speech, satire is intended to censure weaknesses and correct vice by subtly poking fun on a variety of foibles and utopian dreams via the instrumentality of irony, innuendo and, in some cases, outright derision. These qualities are necessary because otherwise, the resultant work would be bereft of the creative and entertainment value that defines literature. Irony and innuendo are particularly important considerations because, “the satirist’s territory is between illusion and reality, therefore he presents us with a world that is double in nature” (Amase, 2013: 88); thus heightening both the didactic and the entertainment values of the work and by so doing, downplaying the shock or force that would have occasioned a more brutal, overtly derisive and frontal attack. Additionally, the satirist must attempt more than visceral laughter or corrosive spite which is the domain of hate speech. Surely, a satire may fall dully flat, and the satirist may appear unfairly prejudiced or sanctimonious; or a satire may be vacuously humorous, playful, witty, or ridiculous without point. ‘‘The satirist, in short, demands decisions of his reader, not mere feelings’’. He or she ‘‘wishes to arouse [the reader’s] energy to action, not purge it in vicarious experience’’ (Paulson 1967: 15). Through either mimetic or discursive art, the satirist provokes mirth or sadness, a concern for the innocent or the self-destructive fool, or revulsion for the deceitful knave, and always either laughter or scorn at the anatomised subject. Furthermore, satire cannot function without a standard against which readers can compare its subject. We praise with delight what we admire, enjoy, or profit from, and we censure with indignation the despicable or what causes ill because we have an acquired sense of what the world should or might be.