Frank Zano’s video makes the bold claim that African cultures lack the concept of “maintenance,” which he links to issues like poor infrastructure and sanitation in cities like Lagos or Accra. While he raises some valid cultural points—such as the prominence of extended family structures in African societies and the contrast with Western nuclear family models—his central argument is flawed.

The idea that African languages do not contain the concept of maintenance is simply not true. Many African languages have clear words for maintenance, repair, and care. In Swahili, there is matengenezo; in Yoruba, itọju; in Igbo, ndozi. The fact that several terms exist doesn’t weaken the argument—it shows that the concept exists, even if it’s expressed differently.

Zano also falsely equates littering or lack of infrastructure with the absence of a cultural idea. Problems like public urination or trash on the streets are more likely due to poor governance, lack of funding, or colonial legacies than any supposed conceptual deficiency. His argument veers dangerously close to cultural essentialism—blaming systemic issues on language and mentality rather than material conditions.

He relies too heavily on a rigid interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggesting that if a word doesn’t exist, the idea cannot be understood. This is a widely disputed view in modern linguistics. People can understand and practice complex behaviors even if they don’t have a single word for them.

In short, Zano’s video oversimplifies complex issues with sweeping generalizations. While cultural introspection is important, claiming that African societies lack a concept as basic as maintenance is both inaccurate and unhelpful.

>>507156611
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyit