Afam4eva:
I'm not necessarily comparing them to their mates in America. Rather i'm comparing them the openness of the British society to absorb these people in all spheres no matter how little their population may be.

Well if that is your argument then its not a fair comparison since America is far bigger than any country in the highly populous Europe. There is a limit to how many immigrants can be absorbed into any one European country.
But why are you talking about Hollywood when you could as well talk about how open the Premiership is to talents from all over the world.

@cap28

WEstern education merely transformed us into docile robots who unquestioningly follow the dictates of our white masters. Christianity came along and put the final nail in the coffin of our collective psyches. We are nothing more than glorified slaves of the white men. WEstern education taught us not to question anything and accept the white man as our lord and saviour.

Actually it is the way we used the Western education. The South Koreans et al used it to invest heavily in technical and vocational education(and BTW...THEY were heavily infested by that same Christianity.....and Indonesia Islam)....

As for accepting the white man as our Lord....have you not heard of Pan Africanism? ...Besides..

The problem is the way we used the Western Education.....to look for desk jobs, instead of developing technical and vocational education.

What can you do with an education that was designed to keep you in perpetual slavery? Don't you see how our leaders behave when they are in the presence of Europeans and americans?

Our education was not designed to keep us in slavery...indeed some Colonialists opposed the introduction of Western education on the grounds that it would 'spoil the African'!

Again, education is how you use it. The Japanese Education system, language aside is basically German. And the Germans emphasize technical education.

Development in South Korea would never have got off the ground if the united states was not in support of it - how come the same helping hand was not extended to Nkrumah when he approached Eisenhower for financial assistance in the development of the Volta dam in the 1960s ? Why was Nkrumah railroaded into accepting a world bank loan which put Ghana onto the road of indebtedness and financial ruin? Unless you want to tell me that Park Chung Hee was a greater visionary than Nkrumah. Please lets stop lying to ourselves and face up to the reality, Nkrumah had grand plans for Ghana which were openly scuppered by the United States govt along with the CIA.

The Volta dam was eventually built, not so? What needed to be done next was to focus on industries. But no, Ghana simply continued to depend on revenues from exports, like most African countries. Thing about dependence on exports...when the raw material gets uselsess...you are bankrupt.

Oh, and one thing about South Korea.....they have very little resources. So...industries. African countries on the other hand, have a mass of resources, which they sell to Westerners and the Chinese, and then'share ' the money among themselves....instead of developing industrial backbone. Plus the South Koreans invested in education. Finally, South Korean family industries are well run....not like Nigerian industries which are looted by the 'family' on the founder's death!

How about Burkina Faso - why was Thomas Sankara assassinated by French intelligence operatives? Do you think it might have had something to do with his plans to make Burkina Faso an economically independent country and loosen France's control over its economy?

Or that his friend Blaise wanted to be the ruler...

I like Sankara, but did he have plans to actually develop Burkina Faso as a country freeof reliance from cotton? No.

Congo had problems , but who created the problems? Wasn't it King Leopold of Belgium that annexed this country in 1885 and transformed it into his personal property?

Wasn't it this same Leoopold who enslaved millions of Congolese and forced them to work on rubber plantations? Wasn't this rubber exported to Belgium and the proceeds of its sale used to develop Belgium whilst Congo was left undeveloped?

Don't get me started on the genocide that he perpetrated on that country which resulted in the deaths of over 10 million Congolese people. In a nut shell Belgium, the US and the rest of Europe owe Congo a huge debt and the least they could have done was help rebuild the country but instead they chose to destroy it with the help of one of their puppets. Mobutu was recruited and assisted by Europe and America what is the point of talking about the way he looted, the issue is not how he looted but WHY he was even allowed into that position in the first place.

Yes...and South Korea was messed up by Japan for thirty years...and before that by China.....

Plus.....the problem with the Congo was simple....
1/.Relaince on exporting raw materials.

2.Leaders who looted and invested abroad..instead of at home.(Mobutu , as I said is similar to Suharto of Indonesia....the difference is that Suharto invested his loot at home...and then had to develop indonesia...or lese his investment would have been destroyed...while Mobutu invested his money in Swiss banks. The result....Indonesia in 1998 was developed, Congo in 1998 was underdeveloped.......and Indonesia too had brutal rule by the Dutch and the Japanese.

Plus...the excuse you use for the Congo was the same excuse some Congolese friends of Nzeogwu used to explain to him (Nzeogwu) back in the 60's why many of their countrymen were so lazy. Nzeogwu refused to accept that excuse. Niether should we.

Countries get messed up....yes true, and yes we should demand for justice. We should also demand that our leaders do the right thing. But in a country where people were referring to Abacha as God-sent, while he looted the country dry......

Indonesia is not a country that I think you would wish to emulate, are you aware that Suharto under instructions from the CIA eliminated over 2 million people in a space of less than a year?

The CIA drew up lists of people who were suspected of being communist sympathisers and these lists were handed to Suharto who instructed his thugs to systematically torture and kill these people - this is well documented in a documentary/film called "The Act of Killing" google it and see the horrors that were perpetrated on innocent people in that country. Anyone who wanted a fair chance in life by way of a more equitable system under a socialist/communist govt was butchered by Suharto's killers - is that what you wish for Nigeria? By the way this was done so that the US and Europe could implement neo liberal economic policies without having to worry about opposition groups within the country.

Yes, Suharto developed the country but only because he was told that in doing so he would be given a big share of money that would be generated from foreign investment, Suharto's regime was one of the most corrupt and brutal dictatorships in the world but the west turned a blind eye because of the huge returns they were making on their investments.

Have you asked about the price the indigenous people had to pay - the only beneficiaries were Suharto and his cronies and thugs while ordinary people (that is the ones who survived the death squads) ended up working in sweat shops making products for western multinationals - is that your idea of progress?

I am aware of all that....note that I never expressed admiration for Suharto or Mobutu(I called them both theives). I merely brought them up because I wanted to point out why countries with similar histories do so differently.

Both of them were CIA creations.....the difference is that one invested his loot at home, the other took it outside. The result...Indonesia, while not Shangri La,....is no basket case either.

If the US truly wished for a more developed Congo why did they assassinate Lumumba who for all intents and purposes was more than willing to go down the route of development of the country?

Lumumba was killed because he wated to ally with the Soviets....so Cold war politics.

But like I am trying to point out....the concept of a good leader is complicated. Sir Khama of Botswana (1966-81) was a Western imposed leader....and yet left his country in a great state. By contrast Sekou Toure was a leader free of the West....and yet his country was left in a mess.

The thing is.....the problem with most African leaders post independence was that they took the money from selling their raw materials and used it to develop more desk jobs to share the money...instead of developing the infrastructiure and the technical and vocation al education needed to develop Africa.

Black countries do not prefer to flog their resources to the highest bidder - sankara of Burkina faso wanted to control the resources of his country himself and this earned him a bullet in the head, Lumumba the same thing, Gbagbo wanted to limit france's involvement in ivory coast's economic devt , this ended up with ivory coast being invaded by france and his subsequent arrest and deportation and imprisonment.

The fact is that Lumomba's death too was linked to who controlled the rights to sell the raw materials. And that is the problem...because we are so resource dependet...we fight over who gets the right to sell the resources and share the money. Not how the North argues for power in Nigeria...not based on qulaifications...but on who controls the oil money. And most often they are killed by their coutrymen who want to cotrol the money..so that they can share it. Same for everyone.

Gbagbo was thrown out because he was a tribalist.......research the whole 'Ivorite' nonsense. and you will see why Ivory Coast has issues.....tribalism is a snake that bites you badly.

Qadaffi though not a black African incurred the wrath of Europe and America when he refused to allow their oil companies set his crude oil prices and take over the running of Libya's banking system. Prior to the invasion and devastation of Libya by NATO, Libyans enjoyed the highest standard of living on the African continent.

Qaddafi was a tyrant....and he was able to share oil money...after all Libya produced oil ten times more than Nigeria...and had a population of five -six million. ...so enough of the oil money tricked down to give an aura of goodness.

But my problem with Ghaddafi was that he did not use the oil money to develop an indigenous industrial system.....including a local arms industry(and before you ask...the chemical weapons he had were developed with foreign help). That was why he lost.

And his tyranny built up a lot of bitterness....in 1984...he massacared thousands in Benghazi.

The pattern is the same throughout Africa - European and American exploitation of black African

No, the problem with us Africans is

1.We look down on technical education.....and we prefer to use education to get 'a desk job where I will be eating money'. So in the process, we end up with a glut of university graduates with no job....and a lack of technicans....the chaps who keep an industrial economy running.

2.We have resources....which we refuse to use to fire our industries, because we feel that it is easy to import rather than manufacture.

3.We have leaders who steal from us....and then invest in foreign banks...because they are 'African chiefs'..to whom the people are nothing but a mass of slaves. Asian leaders, including thugs like Suharto and Park Chung hee...invest in their local economies.

4.Our family businesses are looted by the children and relatives of the Founder...whereas Asian family businesses are well run..Toyota is a fine example.

5.We refuse to spend on infrastructure projects like railways and electricity. Because we can always import genrators.

6.We view leadership as our opportunity to be big men....not developers.

7.We are so tribalist....whereas China(with over 50 tribes) and INdonesia(with over 200) while having tribalist issues....still somehow surbodinate it for the greater good.

8.We are corrupt. Please....alll those racist Europeans would like to invest in Africa....but who wants to invest in a country where YOU have to pay for security?

shymexx:

Both are the same when it comes to institutionalised racism. However, America is more openly racist in everyday life. Only in America would some white nutter tie a black person to a car and drag him around, yet the nutter won't get charged for murder till Al Sharpton starts complaining. That would never happen in the UK. Didn't a naija girl's neck got slashed in America a few week ago?

What is institutionalised racism. You need to be very explicit. There are checks and balances in the THE UK that prevent anyone from using an institution to victimise anyone.
However we need to be very careful with baseless comparisons as USA is a far more violent country than any country in Europe.

arsbeauty: Which Country Is More Racist-America Or England?

Any Nigerians who have lived or been to both America and England? Which country is more racist?

its clear na, in d 2 countries, whr do we hv mre blacks, US, do u tink blacks wud like stayin were dey r looked dwn on...we hear of black americans, infact most starts in america r black, so whr is d racism dr, hv u heard of black engish man b4... Uk z mre racist....

Oh really?

mickyarams: It's the UK my brother. In US the racists let you know they hate you in your face, in UK they drink with you and call you mate and stab you in the back. London is ok, but avoid places like Tilbury and Basildon.

Apart from London theirs more Nigerian living between Tilbury and Basildon than any other place in the UK, Nigerians own more houses or properties in Tilbury than any other place in the UK. In Scotland they welcome Nigerians like they do in Ireland they feel that Nigerians help their economy. In the USA they are some states you do not venture visiting, they all came out when Obama won the election. And in the US they have a system created for black people not to get anywhere in life.

Here we go again! black man with s.tupid talks on racism. really who is more racist than Africans? would we allow a white man to be the president of Nigeria? Can we allow a white man/woman to be a minister or a senator in Nigeria? or even local govt chairman?? Can a white person win MBGN? most times you even hear stuff like "she's too light skinned, she shouldn't win MBGN, she doesn't rep Africa".

Few months back your coach told someone to go back to belgium "white dude" and it was okay, if reverse was the case you'll see all black people crying offence.

We Africans are racists too, the only thing is other races don't give us the opportunity to shi.t them.

tensor77:
What is institutionalised racism. You need to be very explicit. There are checks and balances in the THE UK that prevent anyone from using an institution to victimise anyone.
However we need to be very careful with baseless comparisons as USA is a far more violent country than any country in Europe.

I was alluding to the obvious ceiling in the corporate world for black folks (since Asians get a pass sometimes) no matter how qualified you're. Once you start working in the corporate UK, you would understand my point. Also, other miscellaneous things in various institutions.

Nelly Ghenghen:
We Africans are racists too, the only thing is other races don't give us the opportunity to shi.t them.

Black folks can't be racist. Bigot - yes. But racist - no.

Just educating you based on the what racism means. You need power to be racist. Blacks are powerless.

The USA is an hypocritical ciuntry-Malcolm X

omar22:


Apart from London theirs more Nigerian living between Tilbury and Basildon than any other place in the UK, Nigerians own more houses or properties in Tilbury than any other place in the UK. In Scotland they welcome Nigerians like they do in Ireland they feel that Nigerians help their economy. In the USA they are some states you do not venture visiting, they all came out when Obama won the election. And in the US they have a system created for black people not to get anywhere in life.

I doubt the bold. I live around that axis. The people are a tad bit racist compared to greater London, especially Ockendon and Tilbury. That's where you might get pelted with eggs, however, it doesn't go beyond that. I think it has more to do with the type of white people around there, to be honest. The cockney accent having mofos have always been Brutish - add the crazy pikeys to the equation, then you would understand why they're like that.

omar22:


Apart from London theirs more Nigerian living between Tilbury and Basildon than any other place in the UK, Nigerians own more houses or properties in Tilbury than any other place in the UK. In Scotland they welcome Nigerians like they do in Ireland they feel that Nigerians help their economy. In the USA they are some states you do not venture visiting, they all came out when Obama won the election. And in the US they have a system created for black people not to get anywhere in life.

I dont know about welcoming Nigerians in Scotland but Ireland? No my friend! I lived in Ireland for 6 years and Nigerians are generally not liked and Nigerians contribute very little to the economy of Ireland-unfortunately.

shymexx:

I was alluding to the obvious ceiling in the corporate world for black folks (since Asians get a pass sometimes) no matter how qualified you're. Once you start working in the corporate UK, you would understand my point. Also, other miscellaneous things in various institutions.

Well its still too early to judge. Asians have had a head start remember. How many Jamos were ever that interested in higher education for example, talk less of making serious moves in the corporate world? This in a country which is 97% non-black and where the top jobs in industry and finance have traditionally gone to those with expensive Eton and Harrow and Oxbridge backgrounds.
However you should know that it is very competitive at the top. West Indians being under-represented in the corporate world compared to Asians has to do with their own values and lifestyle issues.
In other words you have not made the case for the existence of institutionalised racism.

i think America is more of racism

shymexx:

Both are the same when it comes to institutionalised racism. However, America is more openly racist in everyday life. Only in America would some white nutter tie a black person to a car and drag him around, yet the nutter won't get charged for murder till Al Sharpton starts complaining. That would never happen in the UK. Didn't a naija girl's neck got slashed in America a few week ago?

You're getting it all mixed up. Granted that America seems more crime prone than the UK and that's why you would see a lot of these scenarios that you have painted but it's not always about race. Was the Nigerian girl whose throat was slashed killed because she was Black? I doubt that very much as she was killed by her housemate that she has lived with for quite some time.

shymexx:

I doubt the bold. I live around that axis. The people are a tad bit racist compared to greater London, especially Ockendon and Tilbury. That's where you might get pelted with eggs, however, it doesn't go beyond that. I think it has more to do with the type of white people around there, to be honest. The cockney accent having mofos have always been Brutish - add the crazy pikeys to the equation, then you would understand why they're like that.

Really that is the least kind of racism to worry about. It is a bit silly really. Just because BNP have their HQ at Tilbury does not mean that Essex is racist. It just means that their support is drawn from the white working class people. However these are people with very little power and really are not in the position to oppress anyone. Honestly those guys have their own self-esteem issues.

Mr Knowitall: It depends on the lactation you go. It's safe to say that you are more likely to face racism in Nigerian than in U.S.

You are funny

tensor77:
Well its still too early to judge. Asians have had a head start remember. How many Jamos were never that interested in higher education for example, talk less of making serious moves in the corporate world. This in a country which is 97% white and where the top jobs in industry and finance have traditionally gone to those with expensive Eton and Harrow and Oxbridge backgrounds.
However you should know that it is very competitive at the top. West Indians being under-represented in the corporate world compared to Asians has to do with their own values and lifestyle issues.
In other words you have not made the case for the existence of institutionalised racism.

How's it too early when black folks have been here since the 17th century? Is it also too early for Oxbridge to be discriminating against black folks in admissions into more technical courses? My point is that, the country is territorial and no matter how you look at it, the interests of the ethnic Brits would always be protected, hence, why the talking point of every election would always be about immigration.

Asians never had a head start - we got here before them. Olaudah Equaino was writing books in London in the 18th century before Asians got here. There were black communities in London, Liverpool and Bristol in the 18th century. However, I believe the Asians just have an advantage due to their distinct brotherhood, business ingenuity, ability to create wealth and the fact that they never went through what black folks went through.

Also, I honestly don't think the Caribbeans don't get the credits they deserve. They paved the way and most of the black folks at the top in the UK are of Caribbean descent. A lot of them are highly educated and very intelligent. It seems we just subconsciously think all of them are thugs based on what we see in everyday life. There are dregs in every culture - and Africans also aren't left out of the equation, if today's London is used as a yardstick, since Africans are over-represented among the thugs and gangsters in London.

Go to Chafford Hundred and see successful upper middle class Caribbeans. They're also all over North West London, West London, Surrey and Middlesex as well.

Afam4eva:
You're getting it all mixed up. Granted that America seems more crime prone than the UK and that's why you would see a lot of these scenarios that you have painted but it's not always about race. Was the Nigerian girl whose throat was slashed killed because she was Black? I doubt that very much as she was killed by her housemate that she has lived with for quite some time.

America is more violence prone not just more crime prone. They have a gun culture remember. However you are correct to say that the Adaobi lady's slaying was not a racist attack.

ITbomb: Everybody who comments on the pages of this thread must go to either USA or UK this wonderful year 2014 IJN Amen.
Click like to claim it

Omo, you go fear 'likes' now. Everybody wan enter the place, racism or no!

tensor77:
Really that is the least kind of racism to worry about. It is a bit silly really. Just because BNP have their HQ at Tilbury does not mean that Essex is racist. It just means that their support is drawn from the white working class people. However these are people with very little power and really are not in the position to oppress anyone. Honestly those guys have their own self-esteem issues.

Yes, it's funny. I've seen worse in Stoke on Trent. However, I don't think they have little power, since those are the people the politicians design their campaigns for. And almost all the most widely read right-wing newspapers also appeal to them - from dailymail, to dailyexpress, to Telegraph etc..

Does it matter which country is more racist? It will depend on your personal experiences and perceptions. There are no empirical studies to draw conclusons from. I have lived in the UK and now living in the USA. Racism can be subtle or overt. Your sensitivity may also play a part on how u view racism. Let us joins hands and develop our country and continent. More intra African trades.

tensor77:
America is more violence prone not just more crime prone. They have a gun culture remember. However you are correct to say that the Adaobi lady's slaying was not a racist attack.

Can you prove that it was racist? So, just because a white man kills a black person, it must be racist but when it's white on white, it's what?

shymexx:
How's it too early when black folks have been here since the 17th century? Is it also too early for Oxbridge to be discriminating against black folks in admissions into more technical courses? My point is that, the country is territorial and no matter how you look at it, the interests of the ethnic Brits would always be protected, hence, why the talking point of every election would always be about immigration.
Asians never had a head start - we got here before them. Olaudah Equaino was writing books in London in the 18th century before Asians got here. There were black communities in London, Liverpool and Bristol in the 18th century. However, I believe the Asians just have an advantage due to their distinct brotherhood, business ingenuity, ability to create wealth and the fact that they never went through what black folks went through.
Also, I honestly don't think the Caribbeans don't get the credits they deserve. They paved the way and most of the black folks at the top in the UK are of Caribbean descent. A lot of them are highly educated and very intelligent. It seems we just subconsciously think all of them are thugs based on what we see in everyday life. There are dregs in every culture - and Africans also aren't left out of the equation, if today's London is used as a yardstick, since Africans are over-represented among the thugs and gangsters in London.
Go to Chafford Hundred and see successful upper middle class Caribbeans. They're also all over North West London, West London, Surrey and Middlesex as well.

Very passionate post but I am yet to be convinced that the failings of the West Indian community in basic education as well as in family structure as manifested by single parent households is due to institutional racism. They have to take a hard look at themselves and not blame the white man.
Don't you see that without even a decent high school education in a developed post-industrial country like England a man is likely to be stuck in dead end menial jobs or the dole. That is when the temptation to make quick money on the streets arises.
However I am not saying there are no exceptions particularly among their females who are very smart but the men have their challenges.

Afam4eva:
Can you prove that it was racist? So, just because a white man kills a black person, it must be racist but when it's white on white, it's what?

Lmao. Black vs. White = race factor. Some might call it hate crime, however, since no one is a mind-reader, we've have to go with the race factor. It happens in America all the type. And I dare there isn't a week that goes by without something like that happening in America. Thank God for worldstarhiphop.com.

Afam4eva:
Can you prove that it was racist? So, just because a white man kills a black person, it must be racist but when it's white on white, it's what?

Actually I said it was not racist. The suspect was of Indian extraction anyway and well-known to Adaobi. It was not a random attack.

shymexx:

Lmao. Black vs. White = race factor. Some might call it hate crime, however, since no one is a mind-reader, we've have to go with the race factor. It happens in America all the type. And I dare there isn't a week that goes by without something like that happening in America. Thank God for worldstarhiphop.com.

So, if a black guy and a white guy who are very good friends have a disagreement which ends up in a fight and mistakenly the white guy kills the black guy, it's racism? Can't two friends have disagreements without the race card being whipped up? I think we're over-augmenting racism to a rather embarrassing extreme. Everything mustn't be viewed from a race prism.

shymexx:

Yes, it's funny. I've seen worse in Stoke on Trent. However, I don't think they have little power, since those are the people the politicians design their campaigns for. And almost all the most widely read right-wing newspapers also appeal to them - from dailymail, to dailyexpress, to Telegraph etc..

You surprise me. These kind of people settle with the Sun. Daily mail is read by the middle classes whilst the telegraph is read by upper class well-educated gentlemen.
However their views on immigration have become mainstream and rightly so. That is why the politicians have started taking action against illegal immigrants.

tensor77:
Very passionate post but I am yet to be convinced that the failings of the West Indian community in basic education as well as in family breakdown as manifested by single parent households is due to institutional racism. They have to take a hard look at themselves and not blame the white man.
Don't you see that without even a decent high school education in a developed post-industrrial country like England a man is likely to be stuck in dead end menial jobs or the dole. That is when the temptation to make quick money on the streets arises.
However I am not saying there are no exceptions particularly among their females who are very smart but the men have their challenges.

This isn't about blaming the white man. And at this stage of my life, blaming anyone for the woes of the black community is the last thing on my mind. However, the dysfunctional structure of the black family is solely the fault of the black man. The society has to take the blame for it due to lack of opportunities during the racial British system - and what we're seeing now is the backdrop of what happened back then and that has made it a vicious cycle of failure. Yes, we can all sing "kumbaya" about the pseudo post-racial and pseudo-multicultural UK. However, the beast they created during the racial period won't go away overnight. Even right now, things are still the same - it's just that it's more subtle.

Also, the institutions weren't created for you and I. They were created for their own people. So evidently they would always protect them from intrusion, except you pledge to serve them and only them, hence the need for proper assimilation into the British cultural values, for the minorities. You've to be quintessentially British a la the reference about David Lammy being the prototype for the good black man during the London riots.

sincerely i have no personal idea but from movies and what i read i think USA could be considered more of a racist country

Afam4eva:
So, if a black guy and a white guy who are very good friends have a disagreement which ends up in a fight and mistakenly the white guy kills the black guy, it's racism? Can't two friends have disagreements without the race card being whipped up? I think we're over-augmenting racism to a rather embarrassing extreme. Everything mustn't be viewed from a race prism.

Most times, the reason/intention plays a role. This isn't about whipping up the race card, it's about race relation in the society at large. When you see a crime committed based on racism, you would know.

tensor77:
You surprise me. These kind of people settle with the Sun. Daily mail is read by the middle classes whilst the telegraph is read by upper class well-educated gentlemen.
However their views on immigration have become mainstream and rightly so. That is why the politicians have started taking action against illegal immigrants.

Daily mail and middle class should never be in the same sentence. Yes, a lot of middle class might read daily mail but their stories are for working class people.

However, I agree with you about Telegraph. A lot of the readers aren't as obtuse as the other nutjobs. Anyway, I'm a liberal, and I only mess with Guardian and Independent.