Ethnic and cultural resistance to the rise and spread of globalization in Nigeria

Globalization as a system of the modern society might not really be a bad thing in itself, however the articulation of this reality in manners that continue to create social, religious and ethnic inequality will always make globalization a suspicious reality. The contrasting social, cultural, economic, ethnic or political differences is an element of globalization that can create harmony in diversity. Globalization certainly pulls some power away from the nation but at the same time it pushes down and creates new forces for local identity. This study examines ethnic and cultural resistance to the rise and spread of globalization in Nigeria. One feature that has made the global wave suspicious is its inability to deliver its economic benefits to all. The findings of the study revealed that every community desires social and community development with good infrastructure and humane serenity. The study concludes that until this issues are looked at and globalization from above embraces and make room for globalization from below, favouring no group, religion, political party, race, culture, nation or continent; globalization will continue to experience resistance from various quarters. Based on the findings, the study recommends the need to create common level ground for all citizens of Nigeria irrespective of tribe or religion and the National orientation agency of Nigeria to make plans aimed at re-orienting the populace towards accepting the new normal of living in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.


Introduction
It has been observed by leading experts on globalization that the world in which we live in today, is no longer the world we anticipated [1]. In the enlightenment world, it was believed that the more we know about the world we can control it, and science and technology were supposed to help us do that. Giddens believe that we live in an opposite world today, a world which seems to be spinning out of our control and the future we were supposed to master has become a plaque [1]. There is a growing concern that the growing significance of global changes for all societies, has rendered the vibrancy of the approaches of the enlightenment period and the national traditions it generated less meaningful [2].
The speed and dynamism of the modern age has kept almost everything in a state of movement, some for the better while others for the worse and you cannot step into a body of the same water twice [3]. The level of global changes experienced in the last thirty years in the context of global interdependence, international travels for sports, tourism, business, education, and diplomatic conferences is drastic and phenomenal and Giddens [1] calls it dramatic and revolutionary. All these have given rise to a world that is completely new and poses greater expectations from all in the 'global village'. In 2012, about 214 million people resided in a country other than where they were born, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) [4] estimates that this number may almost double, to 405 million by 2050, prompting some scholars to label this age as the 'age of migration' [5]. This means that movement and settlement in places other than one's place of origin has become increasingly a common lifestyle. This migratory nature of the modern society has inevitably created new patterns of cultural hybridization, acculturation and trans-valuation of various social, economic, political, and traditional values/symbols. This global 'globalizing' trends have been sensed in many quarters of the world by many groups as acts of invasion where cultural values and practices, lands, heritages, languages, food, natural resources, religion and even ancestral patriarchal heritage is contested and challenged. The reality of a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-racial and multiideological society which has become an intrinsic element of the modern society tend not to find acceptance in many quotas. This has unfortunately been welcomed with great resistance and hostility by many individuals and groups that it has led to so much bloodshed, destructions of irreplaceable valuables of land and properties and finally the displacement of millions of people from lands and places they have always called home.
Nigeria as a nation is such a unique and dynamic country that has more than 300 ethnic groups, speaking 250 languages and 100 dialects. This is already a fertile ground for trends of globalization to survive in beautifully. Among these groups, with the Yoruba from the Southwest, the Hausa/Fulani from the North and the Igbos from the Southeast making up the three major groups. These groups have historically dominated the political and economic sphere of the country since independence. The historical narrative of the Nigerian state has been a narrative of clandestine and deliberate struggle by many regional and ethnic groups to resist and insist on their identity with an intent of mutual exclusivity. In such a society full of various symbols and agitations presenting varied meanings and understanding to various groups and individuals, how can the tide of globalization find acceptance? This work shall critically examine some of the recent happenings in Nigeria and how they are directly or indirectly pointers to resistance to globalization.

The Nigerian State
Nigerian historical evolution is one that will continue to create an atmosphere of clash of interest. This is because the colonial amalgamation of 1914 has been considered by many as an artificial creation [6]. This is because before the 1914 amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorate, Kingdoms and empires had existed independent of each other. The only link shared was mainly on trans-Saharan trade routes. Suddenly the colonial master brought together people divided by various cultural, linguistic, social, historical differences and orientation and establishes them into a nation. Gudaku [7] captures this when he observed that, there is a clear sense in which Nigeria may not be called a nation. In the strictest understanding of the concept of nationhood, Nigeria falls short of being one. We do not have Nigerians in the same sense as we have the English, the French, the Germans, or the Poles. The identities of the people that belong to this geographical expression called Nigeria are so variegated that it may be better to describe it as an amalgam of many nations of people [7].
Looking at the ethnic nationalities that makeup the Nigerian nation, it is clear that they each have their national programmes and goals; each seems to have a chain of authority and specific self-centered demands that underpin the purpose of their existence.

What is globalization?
Globalization as a concept refers to the ways in which development in one region can rapidly come to have significant consequences for the security and wellbeing of communities in quite distant regions of the globe [5]. As much as there seem to be an understanding of the concept, Holton and Turner [8] opined that the theme of globalization has in the last three decades become the key topic of the social sciences. The continuous rise of China as a world power, the further globalization of terror through global terror network and the financial crises of 2008 that was felt at a global scale across borders have more than ever influenced every aspect of human life in every corner of the planet. Nevertheless, globalization is probably more feared than understood. It is also seen as interregional flows and networks of interaction within all realms of social activity from cultural to criminal on different regional levels from global to local [9]. Giddens [10] stated that globalization must be understood as a dialectical phenomenon, in which events at one corner of the earth often produce divergent or even contrary occurrences at another. This means that globalization is an overwhelming force that transverses sovereign States, regions, territories and continents. This is in agreement with the view of Mcluhan [11] who first coining the word 'global village' depicted in his writing a sense of closeness that time and space was drastically minimized. Martell [12] in line with this observed that globalization is a strong force today because of the rise of global communication, especially the internet. This has made people to feel the connection across the world more strongly and speedily.
Globalization is a challenge to social theory. It demands a re-thinking of the notion that there are societies constituted as separate bounded entities. It raises questions about the taken-for-granted equation of society and nation-state [13]. Is globalization merely Westernization or Americanization, or does it hybridize all cultures, creating new commonalities? Giddens [1] opined that there is no other civilization in history that has remotely attended the level of interdependence as we have now and have experienced… globalization therefore is a threefold process and not primarily economy. After the WW II, there was a new dawn in the 1970s launch of satellites, making communication instantaneous throughout the world. This became a turning point in our civilization and global connectedness [14]. Globalization is a contradictory and conflicting process ever since its initiation over the past thirty years. One important point made by Giddens [1] of interest to this work is when he observed that globalization certainly pulls some powers away from the nation but at the same time globalization pushes down… it creates new forces for local identity, for local separation as seen in Catelonia and Scotland.
The conceptualization of globalization demands an engagement with the changing implications of spatiality and temporality, with space-time compression, an increased rate of flows of people, objects and symbols around the world, and the non-linearity of these processes. It requires re-thinking the concept of society, its boundlessness and processes of formation, and the relationships between social systems in the world [15]. Definitions of globalization are diverse and often encompass many different social processes. Globalization has been identified and conflated variously with internationalization, universalization, Westernization, supra territoriality [16], Americanization, and neoliberalism. In particular, 'globalization' has often been treated as if it were effectively the same as the expansion of capitalist markets [17]. The conflation of globalization and capitalism is unhelpful because it does not allow for the significance of any social relations other than capitalist ones and, further, precludes analysis of the political actions that might be facilitated by the increased global inter-linkages that might be in opposition to the growth in power of global corporations. It is better to have a definition that is minimalist in the sense that it does not include the causation nor name the processes involved. This is helpful in that it avoids conflating the causation of globalization with its definition and allows for the possibility of more than one wave of globalization with different causes.
Globalization is here defined as a process of increased density and frequency of international social interactions relative to local or national ones [15]. This definition closely follows the definition of Chase-Dunn, Christopher, Kawano, Yukio, Brewer and Benjamin [18]: 'changes in the density of inter-national and global interactions relative to local or national networks. A more fulsome, though similar, definition of globalization is that used by Held, David, McGrew, Anthony, Goldblatt, David, Perraton and Jonathan [19] as a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions -assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity, and impact -generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power'. Therefore, four types of changes in globalization becomes obvious viz: i.
It involves a stretching of social, political, and economic activities across political frontiers, regions, and continents. ii.
It suggests the intensification, or the growing magnitude, of interconnectedness i.e. flows of trade, investment, finance, migration, culture, religion, language, technology etc. iii.
The growing extensity and intensity of global interconnectedness can be linked to a speeding up of global interactions and processes, as the evolution of world-wide systems of transport, and communication increases the velocity of the diffusion of ideas, goods, information, capital and people. iv.
The growing extensity, intensity and velocity of global interactions is associated with their deepening impact such that the effects of distant events can be highly significant elsewhere and even the most local developments may come to have enormous global consequences. In this sense, the boundaries between domestic matters and global affairs become increasingly blurred [9].
Globalization is a transformative process in which the units within the process change as well as the overall environment. Several dimensions can be distinguished: the extent of networks of relations and connections; the intensity of activities and flows through these networks; a temporal dimension of the speed of the interchanges; and the impact of these phenomena [19]. Hence five dimensions of globalization emerges as follows: Economic: global finance and market of economy, multinationals, networking, international trade, and business, new labour markets, new development cooperation.
Political: Human rights, international terrorism, war and new security problems, nation/state relationship.
Democracy: good governance by people's participation, human rights and social equality.
Ecological: sustainable globalization: use of common resources and legislation (biosphere; water, forest, earth, air, atmosphere).
Cultural: multicultural society of different identities: local, political, gender, family, religious, national, individual, and social. Multicultural education for intercultural literacy [20].

Ethnicity
As used in this study, and from the oxford dictionary of sociology [21], ethnicity is regarded as individuals or groups who consider themselves or are considered by others to share common characteristics that differentiate them from others in the society. These characteristics could be language, culture, religion, customs etc. [22].
Calhoun [23] observed that ethnicity as part of an obsolete traditional order seems not to be vanishing. It is still part of modern-day categorization and identity highly in use by elites and other participants in political and social struggles. This act of categorizing people along ethnic lines still shapes everyday life, offering the society a means for grasping preexisting homogeneity and difference and for constructing specific versions of identities [23].

Resistance
The Oxford Dictionary of English [24] defines the word resistance as the act of withstanding the action or effect of something or somebody. It is also the refusal to accept or comply with something. Hollander and Einwohner [25] in their article Conceptualizing Resistance observed that given the number of variations in the understanding of the concept, it is not surprising that there is little consensus on the definition of resistance. The term could mean acting autonomously in one's or active efforts to oppose, fight, and refuse to cooperate with or submit to an authority [26]. It could also mean questioning and objecting to views and agendas contrary to one's interest and plan. There seems to be an understanding of the word even though most writers take little or no time in explaining what they meant. From whatever perspective this word might be viewed, there is always a common denominator of expressing a sense of the act of denying, standing away from and rejecting an opinion, symbol or sign explicitly through the use of violent resistance or implicitly [27].

Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored on symbolic interaction theory. The symbolic interaction theory was founded by George Herbert Mead in 1934. This theory is built around the claim that social and physical phenomena are based on and directed by social symbols. The meaning attached to these symbols determine the social response they receive. The theory therefore examines the meanings emerging from the reciprocal interaction of individuals in social environment with other individuals and focuses on the question of which symbols and meanings emerge from the interaction between people? [28]. The theory was first adopted by Herbert Blumer as a name for the sociological position that he partially drew and partially extrapolated from the social behaviorist thoughts of the philosopher George Herbert Mead who is considered the founding Father of Symbolic interaction theory [29]. Arnold Rose [30] summarizes this theory with four assumptions which she discussed thus; Man lives in a symbolic environment as well as physical environment and can be stimulated to act by symbols as well as physical stimuli. Rose went further to expatiate on what she meant by symbol when she said; a symbol is defined as a stimuli that has a learned meaning and value for people, and man's response to a symbol is in terms of its meaning and value rather than in terms of its physical stimulation of his sense organs.
Through symbols, man has the capacity to stimulate others in ways other than those in which he is stimulated. Man communicates to others in order to evoke meanings and values in the order that he intends to evoke. Through communication of symbols, man can learn huge number of meanings and values. The symbols, meanings and value to which they refer do not occur only in isolated bits, but often in clusters and sometimes in large and complex context.
Most communities are built around these principles and modern critics have criticized this theory because of its inability to cope with change. According to Vaughan and Reynolds [31], since symbolic interactionist theory conceives of society as a changing phenomenon, social change is not something that interactionism is merely capable of explaining but the very essence of the perspective. Critics of this theory feels that symbolic interaction perspective is incapable of treating change at the macro level but is conceptually geared to deal with micro change [31]. This is the reality of globalization as a trend that modern society must battle with. This is because the wave of globalization possesses an overwhelming outlook that some societies cannot control or withstand such a sudden and unexpected change. The symbol presented by globalization so often contradict its laid-out principles in which most people often see it as a foreign tool of neocolonialism.
A lot has been written on this theory by many sociologists and philosophers who in their various discourse, the underlying argument has been the fact that various social, cultural and human actions and symbols articulate a certain meaning and message and every individual and community react to these meanings, messages and symbols based on the meaning and values they have attached to those incoming symbols [29].

Resisting the waves of globalization
Globalization is frequently viewed as a process that is sweeping away differences between societies, thereby creating similarity or homogeneity. This is often seen as a negative process that corrodes culture and political autonomy and increases inequality [32], although there are some exceptions that see globalization as a positive force associated with economic growth and development.
It has been argued that the particularity of societies [33], nation-states [34] and civilizations [35] is resistant to erosion by globalization. Modernity does not take merely one form, there are multiple 'modernities' with quite different forms. Neither industrialization nor globalization needs could lead to the erosion of differences [33]. Huntington [35] argues that cultural and civilizational differences are durable, and that rather than a homogenization of the world by economic development and increased communications, we are experiencing a 'clash of civilization'. There are several distinct civilizations whose basis is cultural and religious, with associated core states. Some movements may appear to be opposed to globalization, but often they are primarily opposed to the form that globalization is taking. These include environmentalism, anti-neoliberalism, feminism, and human rights.
Most Islamic radical organizations developed similar political analyses. All were opposed to globalization and the spread of Western values; all opposed what they perceived as corrupt regimes in several Arab states (notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt), which were mere puppets of US domination. Central to their political ideology is the recovery of manhood from the devastatingly emasculating politics of globalization. Over and over, Hassan writes, she heard the refrain 'The Israelis humiliate us. They occupy our land, and deny our history' [36]. The Taliban saw the Soviet invasion and Westernization as humiliations. Osama bin Laden's 7 October videotape describes the 'humiliation and disgrace' that Islam has suffered for 'more than 80 years'. This fusion of anti-globalization politics, convoluted Islamic theology and virulent misogyny has been the subject of much speculation The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia designed a state system on the twin-principle of territoriality and sovereignty. Sovereignty accords the state unquestionable but legitimate control over the nation and polity and gives it the latitude to preserve and protect its territorial domain from both internal and external threats. However, aside the fact that globalization and the internationalisation of the globe have reduced the primacy of these dual principles, there have also been the problem of ideological and terrorist networks that have taken advantage of the instruments of globalization to emerge and threaten state sovereignty and its preservation.
In Nigeria local and regional resistance to the wave of globalization is often expressed in religious and ethnic terms.  [37]. The surfacing of these militia groups has made religious intolerance and fanaticism more violent and disturbing. The four groups that have challenged Nigeria's national security, territoriality, sovereignty, and unity have been the Niger Delta militant group, Boko Haram, IPOB and the Fulani herdsmen. These groups are principally built around principles that undermine social, religious, cultural, and political hegemony. Their actions and reactions to issues often portray the reality that they believe in ethnic homogenization, religious monopoly and territorial domination. To these people globalization brings nothing than the struggle to deprive them of these principles.

Insurgency in the Niger Delta
The long years of abandonment, environmental degradation, coupled with the inconsiderateness of successive governments and exploitation by the oil companies, produced a capricious atmosphere in the 1990s, characterized by frustration, anger and aggression that manifested in constitutional and violent protests and conflicts in the region [38]. According to Azigbo [39], the agitation actually began as peaceful protests by community development committees of a range of host communities to multinational oil companies who to the people are seen as machineries of globalization. Peaceful protests however degenerated into forceful agitations when the requests of the groups as regards the development of the region were slow in coming. The agitations were heightened by the massacre of the nine Ogoni leaders and Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995 by the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha, who had ignored all international and local entreaties and appeals to commute the death sentence of the environmentalists. The people's reaction to the wave of globalization was an outright rejection and demand for resource control. By 1998, anarchy overwhelmed most of the Niger Delta region [40].
The activities of the groups in the Niger Delta manifested in diverse ways such as militancy, kidnapping, killings, bombing, hostage taking, demolition of oil and gas facilities, pipeline vandalization, illegal oil bunkering [41]. The militants launched attacks on the Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC), Chevron and TotalFinal Elf (IFE) staff and facilities. MEND killed oil workers at Chevron, TotalFinal Elf (IFE), damaged a rescue helicopter sent to rescue employees, killed naval officers, injured soldiers, attacked police stations like the Mini-Okoro Elenlewo and killed some officers on duty, attacked five-star hotels, and carried out a bomb attack on the Eagle Square, Abuja on October 1, 2010 during the fifty year anniversary of independence. Between 1999 and 2007 a total of 308 hostage incidents were recorded in the region [42].
The sophistication of the weapons plus the dexterousness of operation questioned the security capacity of the Nigerian State. Despite the seeming prevailing calmness of the region at the moment, as regards the issues of terrorism, the outstanding issues of resource control and allocation, poverty alleviation and environmental security remain potential sources of explosive situations. Incidentally, while the amnesty for, and rehabilitation of the Niger Delta militants were beginning to mitigate the situation in the country, the Boko Haram uprising began.

The Boko Haram Challenge
The Boko Haram issue started as an insignificant agitation of an Islamic sect with a strange commitment to nonconformist standards of social organization in Muslim-dominated Bauchi and Borno states. It began in Bauchi State on July 26, 2009 and since that time, the group has extended its activities to other Northern states as well as to other parts of Nigeria. Unlike the militants in the Niger Delta that were driven by purely economic goals, Boko Haram is driven by proclivity in religious conviction, political aspirations, and social practice. Specifically, its goal is to make Nigeria an Islamic State and uphold only the laws as set out in the Koran [43]. This group believes that Islam detests Western civilization and that Western education is blasphemous. Literally, "Boko Haram" means 'Western education is a sin" or "forbidden".
Going by its alleged creation and sponsorship by a famous politician in Borno State in the early 2000s and its socioreligious outlook and agenda, Boko Haram is thus an Islamist insurgent group that arose from political, social and religious discontent within the Nigerian State [44]. The recruits of the sect are mostly youths from the Northern parts of Nigeria that are dissatisfied with the economic, political and social status quo. They include unemployed youth, stark illiterates, and refugees from neighbouring African countries. Thus, the sect explores the social-economic negativities of the country to recruit and radicalize its members [45].
Eso [46] observes that the push factor to recourse to terrorism in the bid to influence public policy is beyond sectarianism. He buttresses this by arguing that most of the attacks of the sect have been focused at the state and its institutions, plus the civilian populations. It has launched attacks on military institutions such as military barracks, police stations (including the Force Headquarters in Abuja); and have also swooped on educational institutions at all levels, government establishments, places of worship (both churches and mosques) and have assassinated key political figures, statesmen and religious leaders that oppose their philosophy. The strategies have included kidnapping, targeted killing, assassination, suicide bombing, bombing with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), VBIEDS, ambush, and drive by shooting.
In their own analysis, Ogbonnaya [42] thinks that the attack launched on the United Nations Office in Abuja in 2011 gave the militant group a face similar to that of the Al-Qaeda's. Locally, the sect is referred to as the 'Nigerian Taliban' due to the gravity and tenacity of it operations. More importantly is the strong link the group has with other transnational extremist groups, including Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda. Crucial aspects of their relations with other transnational militant groups include training, funding, strategic knowledge on planning and tactical attacks and activities, ideological influence, and human power resources [42].

Herdsmen-Farmers Crisis
According to Idowu [47], the Fulani (also called Peul or Fulbe) are people of obscure origin that expanded Eastward from Futa Toro in Lower Senegal in the 14th century. By 16th and 19th centuries they had established themselves at Macina (upstream of the Niger Bend) and Hausa lands, notably, Adamawa (in the Northern Cameroon). Many of the Fulanis continued to maintain pastoral lives; some, however, particularly in Hausa land gave up their nomadic pursuits, settled in existing urban communities and were converted to Islam. This has often made it difficult to differentiate them from the Muslim-Hausas of Nigeria [47]. They are concentrated principally in Nigeria, Mali, Guinea, Cameroon, Senegal and Niger. Their indigenous language is known as Fula and it is classified within the Atlantic branch of the Niger-Congo language family. They constitute the fourth-largest ethnic group in Nigeria with an estimated population of over seven million [48].
However, Abass [49] noted that they are the mainstay of the meat and milk industry, accounting for about 90% of cattle ownership in Nigeria. They rear different species of cattle such as the Keteku, Muturu and Kuri, but the Zebu is identified as the most common and they are also the major suppliers of skins, bones and horns [50]. Fulani herders can travel hundreds of miles in large numbers with their cattle in search of pasture. They are often armed and visibly move about with weapons (like daggars, matchets, arrows etc) to protect their livestocks. Due to their violent nature and associated killings, the group was recently described as the world's fourth deadliest militant group [51; 52].
The struggle for the use of agricultural land for planting and grazing is becoming fiercer and increasingly widespread in Nigeria, largely due to intensification of production activities that are necessitated by rising human population [53]. Prior to 20th century, cattle rearing was prevalent in the Guinea, Sudan and Sahel Savanna belts where crop production was carried out on small scale only during the short rainy season. This gave cattle herders access to a vast area of grass land. However, the introduction of irrigated farming in the Savanna belt of Nigeria and the increased withering of pasture during dry season has made pasture less available for cattle. The herdsmen had to move southward to the coastal zone where rainy season is longer and the soil retains moisture for long in search of greener pasture and fresh water for their cows [54]. As the herders migrate Southward where the grass is much lusher and often intrude into spaces long claimed or cultivated by settled farmers, conflicts usually ensued [55]. This conflict is believed to have existed since the beginning of agriculture and either increased or decreased in intensity or frequency depending on economic, environmental and other factors [56].
In many places, herders have clashed with farmers and their host communities over cattle destruction of crops; farmers' encroachment on grazing reserves and indiscriminate bush burning by nomads which normally leads to loss of crops [50; 57; 58]. The seeming boldness of the perpetrators and mystery surrounding the real cause has continued to attract mixed perceptions. While many perceive it as mere farming, grazing land and water dispute; others see it as reprisals in defence of livestocks from banditry in farming communities [59; 60].
In order to curb the menace of herdsmen-farmers crisis in Nigeria, proposal to establish cattle ranches across all the states as it is practiced in other parts of the world and to encourage cattle grazing in a confine space and hence to avoid nomadic practice that often triggers unrest with farmers was made by the Federal Government. However, the resistive attitude of the Fulani herdsmen could not allow the proposal to see the light of the day-upholding that open grazing is their culture and cannot be adulterated.

The Contest of Ethnicity to the Wave of Globalization in Nigeria
Ethnicity is not an absolute; it is only meaningful as a social relation between ethnic groups. Ethnic groups usually perceive themselves as sharing a common descent and heritage [60] in contrast to other types of groups. Ethnic relations are complex inequalities involving both difference and inequality, often in contested proportions [61]. There is usually a positive valuation of the culture of each ethnic group, even when this is associated with inequality and exploitation by another ethnic group. Residential segregation is an example of this, in that it often involves both a positive valuation of living together as a community with their own practices even if it also means a lower standard of living and is partially the result of discrimination by other ethnic groups [62; 63]. The minoritization of some ethnic groups is an active process and not pre-given [64], and involves the economy, polity, violence, and civil society, even though dominant ethnic groups will often treat themselves as the norm without an ethnicity [65]. There can be many ethnic divisions in a country and not just one regime of ethnic inequality. This is because identity is people's source of meaning and experience [66].
It is fair to say that the impact of globalization in the cultural sphere has, most generally, been viewed in a pessimistic light. Typically, it has been associated with the destruction of cultural identities, victims of the accelerating encroachment of a homogenized, Westernized, consumer culture. This view, the constituency for which extends from (some) academics to anti-globalization activists [67], tends to interpret globalization as a seamless extension of, or indeed, as a euphemism for Western cultural imperialism. Giddens [1] observed that most scholars in 1980s said globalization does not exist and the developing nations said it was a Western plot to seduce them. This was the suspicion with which globalization was greeted within most traditional societies and communities.
Some people pledge their primary allegiance not to the state but rather to their ethno-national group which share a common civilization, language, cultural tradition, and ties of kinship [68]. The socio-political transformation of Nigeria by the colonial administration has generated the development of new values. These values generated by social processes may not necessarily be traditional, religious or colonial, but a birth of new modern social processes. Our state of dependency, culturally, economically, technologically and politically, has a lot to do with our craze for foreign or modern values. The decline of our productivity, independence/self-reliance, initiative, and creativity is closely related to our state of cultural bondage to foreign values. As a result, Nigeria faces an acute crisis of values. Thus, conflict of values often results between traditional values and their emergent new and Western values [69].
Many ethnic groups in Nigeria today seem to demonstrate war-like attitudes in pressing for their demands against social injustice, using primordial ethnic tendencies. For example, in a protest against the forceful confiscation of farmlands by a company in Bwatiye land through an installed chief of the Bachama ethnic group, a group which calls itself Bwatiye Patriotic Front (BPF) stated that for an avoidance of doubt, the land in question belongs to them and was acquired and secured by their forefathers through armed struggles of tribal wars of time immemorial and that they were more than willing to defend it through another armed struggle, our predecessors, did not cede it neither shall we [69].
It is glaring to state that most traditions in Nigeria have evolved an inbuilt process of training its members to acquire qualities such as bravery, strength and endurance [70]. This is sometimes done through traditional hunting and wrestling festivals. The most threatening problem of ethnicity in Nigeria has been the re-emergence of ethnic champions in the form of ethnic militia-groups. The activities of the ethnic militia are violent in nature and on several instances resulted in breakdown of law and order in different parts of the country.
Some other ethnic groups seek ethnic separation. They define nationality in terms of cultural homogeneity and radical distinctiveness. Citizenship is seen as a cultural bond between the individual and the community [68].
Ethnicity has also become a scourge of social differentiation and discrimination in many parts of Nigeria. Most ethnic groups involved in various acts of violence and crises have advocated ethnic cleansing. This situation has encouraged the sustenance and formation of strong ethnic militia in many parts of the country. This can be attested in the communities involved in conflict such as Tiv-Jukun, Jukun-Kuteb, Igbo-Ora, Ife-Modakeke, Hausa/Fulani-Sayawa, Hausa Yoruba of Idi-araba, Pastoralists/Fulani agriculturalists and a few ethnic groups in Warri crisis among others [68]. This situation has forced many members of various ethnic groups to relocate to the areas where they remain the majority in major towns and villages. So, the unity in diversity as promoted by trends of globalization becomes a norm which is highly contested against in many quarters.

Conclusion
This study has examined ethnic and cultural resistance to the rise and spread of globalization in Nigeria. Globalization is one reality that has come to stay either as a present reality or a heritage of our civilization and New World Order. Societies and communities will continue to make frantic efforts to survive as they pass through a liminal phase of uncertainty and confusion. This will create a situation where they are sandwiched between moving forwarding with the new normal or reverting to the known past. The study finding reveals that every community desires social and community development with good infrastructure and humane serenity. The finding of the study shows that globalization as a system of the modern society might not really be bad in itself, however the articulation of this reality in manners that continue to create social, religious and ethnic inequality will always make globalization a suspicious reality. Globalization does not carry an intent for cultural and religious homogeneity or hybridization. The contrasting social, cultural, economic, ethnic or political differences is an element of globalization that can create harmony in diversity. Globalization certainly pulls some power away from the nation but at the same time it pushes down and creates new forces for local identity. One feature that has made the global wave suspicious is its inability to deliver its economic benefits to all. The study concludes that until these issues are looked at and globalization from above embraces and make room for globalization from below, favouring no group, religion, political party, race, culture, nation or continent; globalization will continue to experience resistance from various quarters.

Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made: If the Nigerian state wants a society that will embrace her global plans and development, she must create a common level ground for all her citizens irrespective of tribe or religion National orientation agency of Nigeria (NOA) must go beyond a talk shop agency there must be a national plans aimed at re-orienting the populace towards accepting the new Norma of living in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multireligious society.
Creating a society of meritocracy in terms of national appointments will help develop a new global Nigeria that is built around academic and intellectual competence where every Nigerian access every available position based on competence and qualification.
Ethnic and religious affiliations on national documents should be discouraged and avoided by creating room for all Nigerians to be first seen as Nigerians before other affiliations of tribe, religion, or race.