afam4eva:

Conquest or vanquishment is still another word for stealing.

Yes, but everybody did it.

afam4eva:

The british were slaves to whom exactly.

Go to the English city of Bath and ask them who physically built all the Roman wash houses there.

ezeagu:

I wouldn't call it theft, but 'conquest', don't forget where you're from.

There are countries like Spain who have ransacked more times than Britain, but where are they now. The people of Britain are just an experienced set of people who's island had been prey to other people like the Romans and Vikings for thousands of years. No other country had experience in battle, conquest, and failure like the British did, so by the time they got their heads into something they were good at (the sea) there was no stopping them.

The truth is the British had been slaves longer than they had bee enslavers.

Well, there is now!

My brother, I see that you study history as well.

Spain is not wealthy, because they overstretched themselves in the Americas. That is where all their wealth went into, trying to quell popular revolts from Chile all the way to Mexico. An overstretched empire, will suffer in terms of wealth.

Do not give me that nonsense about that island, being plundered through the centuries. lol

Yes, the Romans invaded the island.

Yes, the Saxons invaded the island.

Yes, the Vikings invaded that island.

Finally, yes the Normans invaded that island.

But the fact remains, the Great Britain would not be where it is, without the wealth that it stole from its colonies and overseas empire. You cannot deny that fact.

ezeagu:

Go to the English city of Bath and ask them who physically built all the Roman wash houses there.

But the Romans actually tried to improve their provinces (colonies). They introduced to them Roman civilization, architecture, language, arts, and other scientific achievements.

What did the British introduce to their colonies? Only misery and theft.

ezeagu:

Yes, but everybody did it.

No other country ripped the world as much as GB did.

EzeUche_:

But the Romans actually tried to improve their provinces (colonies). They introduced to them Roman civilization, architecture, language, arts, and other scientific achievements.

What did the British introduce to their colonies? Only misery and theft.

Even till this day Britain always thing it's colonies owes her a favour not thinking that it's the other way round. Look at other colonialist like the french and the way they are assisting their colonies in every way possible by Britain is still looting from poor and helpless countries. Like the one they stole is not enough.

afam4eva:

Even till this day Britain always thing it's colonies owes her a favour not thinking that it's the other way round. Look at other colonialist like the french and the way they are assisting their colonies in every way possible by Britain is still looting from poor and helpless countries. Like the one they stole is not enough.

That is why I loathe Great Britain more than other nation in the world. No nation has caused misery like the British have done. A close second though is Portugal, but the British really wrecked havoc across the globe. Look at India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria, Iraq, Afghanistan. The list is endless.

EzeUche_:

My brother, I see that you study history as well.

Spain is not wealthy, because they overstretched themselves in the Americas. That is where all their wealth went into, trying to quell popular revolts from Chile all the way to Mexico. An overstretched empire, will suffer in terms of wealth.

Do not give me that nonsense about that island, being plundered through the centuries. lol

Yes, the Romans invaded the island.

Yes, the Saxons invaded the island.

Yes, the Vikings invaded that island.

Finally, yes the Normans invaded that island.

But the fact remains, the Great Britain would not be where it is, without the wealth that it stole from its colonies and overseas empire. You cannot deny that fact.

I never denied the fact, but I was pointing out that they would have never gotten in the position to do so (plunder) if it wasn't for their experience. Spain did not have experience like Britain (England) did, and England even defeated them once under a queen when Spain foolishly tried to invade them.

EzeUche_:

But the Romans actually tried to improve their provinces (colonies). They introduced to them Roman civilization, architecture, language, arts, and other scientific achievements.

What did the British introduce to their colonies? Only misery and theft.

Well, if you replace Roman with British you can say the same for Nigeria under the British.

"The British actually tried to improve their provinces (colonies). They introduced to them British civilization, architecture, language, arts, and other scientific achievements."

The Romans actually made stone statues of Julius Caesar putting his foot on Britannia's neck symbolising their enslavement. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2570/3768411515_4226455f4a.jpg

If the British stayed in Nigeria, yes they would still be in charge (less violent than the Romans who enslaved the British), but Nigeria would be like Britain now. They left before they could have as much impact on Nigeria as the Romans had on them, and even the British didn't have a choice because it was by force that Roman culture was the main culture of Britain. When the Romans left the French now came and said it was French that was the official language, can you see how much they've been through?

afam4eva:

No other country ripped the world as much as GB did.

Is it about how much people have ripped, because Spain has ripped just as much and so have other countries in the past.

Ezeagu,

I did not know you enjoyed history so much. Very impressive I must say.

But what did the British do that was beneficial for Nigeria or any of its colonies? I have yet, to see anything that is worthy to say that they helped us in any way, except for giving us their language at the detriment of our own beautiful indigenous languages.

And you said the British were not violent? They destroyed my village and slaughtered many people in cold blood. Yes, they could be quite violent.

EzeUche_:

Ezeagu,

I did not know you enjoyed history so much. Very impressive I must say.

But what did the British do that was beneficial for Nigeria or any of its colonies? I have yet, to see anything that is worthy to say that they helped us in any way, except for giving us their language at the detriment of our own beautiful indigenous languages.

And you said the British were not violent? They destroyed my village and slaughtered many people in cold blood. Yes, they could be quite violent.

compare that to what the spanish did to the aztecs and leopolds massacre in congo.

EzeUche_:

But what did the British do that was beneficial for Nigeria or any of its colonies? I have yet, to see anything that is worthy to say that they helped us in any way, except for giving us their language at the detriment of our own beautiful indigenous languages.

Do you really believe that? They created Nigeria's railway, gave them some other long distance transport like ships, introduced materials such as cement, introduced higher science's such as improvements biology, introduced technologies that brought about new ways of making money like coal mining, introduced electricity, introduced foods that gave people a more balanced diet, killed some practices that weren't good, and so many other things such as opening regions to the wider world. You could say that the British peoples languages before the Romans were beautiful, but now they are mixed with so many Latin words.

EzeUche_:
And you said the British were not violent? They destroyed my village and slaughtered many people in cold blood. Yes, they could be quite violent.

I said less violent, which I meant by they didn't enslave people in Nigeria completely (you can say they did with some jobs) but your village was destroyed out of a war, some villages were destroyed out of revenge, it is just how humans have been behaving for as long as they lived.

So the British are just people who got to that position when any other groups would have done the same if they had the chance.

Jen33:

cap28 said:

Well, is the north ruling now? In many ways, their power has become increasingly neutralized, or rather, brought to  a more even keel with the other regions.

Im sorry but if one section of the country has been ruling for 43 out of 50 years of a country's independence i fail to see how that demonstrates a gradual neutralisation of its powers.

This can be seen as the price of nationhood, for which Nigeria will not be the first or the last to experience it. The USA and Britain have fought civil wars in their formative years as well. France experienced a bloody revolution. Under Stalin, an estimated 30 million Russians were brutally murdered. Many of the nations you look at and admire today have been through some very serious crises in the past. Nations tend to learn from these experiences. I believe the civil war sensitized Nigerians to the need for greater conflict resolution, which I believe has stood us in good stead today. In the past, incidents like Boko Haram would have been enough to trigger a coup, or even civil war.

YOu cant compare nigeria to the US or russia for that matter.  The american settlers were a united people who all spoke the same language and they had a common objective - to free themselves from the yoke of british colonialism.

The russians again are largely one race of people with one language who were also united and fighting a common cause - to prevent their country from being invaded by the  germans - there was unity of purpose and objective.
Not only are nigerians not united by way of a common culture or language but we do not have unity of purpose.  Remember that during british colonial rule the northerners wanted the british to remain in nigeria while the southerners wanted the british out, we differed then  in our vision and purpose and we differ today as well for similar reasons.

If it were that nigeria had indeed acheived nationhood  we would not have a corrupt and lopsided system of governance in which the majority of nigeria's leaders consist of a small powerful clique from the north.
Nigeria is not a nation it is a Kleptocracy, a country run for the benefit of a powerful cabal of thieives.

Yes, and today there is an amnesty program, and there is major infrastructural development work going on in the area. The region now has 13% derivation, and a member of that region is now the president. If that is not progress, what is?

The 13 % derivation is an improvement on the original allocation of 3% however increasing the allocation can not work unless you have honest people at the top all the way down to local govt level , if i allocate 13% of oil revenue to a state but the governor is a theif who diverts it into his personal bank account, of what use is the increase in allocation?  my point is that the root of governance in nigeria is corrupt because its built on a foundation of kleptocracy, if, however nigeria were to split along ethnic lines govt officials would be forced to be much more accountable to their respective regions.

Yes, but what about the other 99% of the country where people of various ethnicities and religions live in peace?

Do they not count??

I wouldnt say that the other ethnic groups are exactly living in peace and harmony, remember how the igbos were betrayed by the yorubas and the ijaw people during the nigerian civil war.  I would say there is more inter ethnic tolerance in the south though.

ezeagu:

Do you really believe that? They created Nigeria's railway, gave them some other long distance transport like ships, introduced materials such as cement, introduced higher science's such as improvements biology, introduced technologies that brought about new ways of making money like coal mining, introduced electricity, introduced foods that gave people a more balanced diet, killed some practices that weren't good, and so many other things such as opening regions to the wider world. You could say that the British peoples languages before the Romans were beautiful, but now they are mixed with so many Latin words.

They created railways, which benefited them and not the people who inhabit the regions. You know and I know that those railways were used for exploitation of the people. Minerals and other resources were placed on those railways that led to the coast to benefit the "mother country." The bad outweighs the small good that they gave the peoples of Nigeria.

And the English language was more influenced by the Saxons, more so than the Romans. English is actually a Germanic language. It is not a Celtic language like the original inhabitants of England spoke. Only Celtic languages in existence is Welsh, Scottish and Irish.

ezeagu:



So the British are just people who got to that position when any other groups would have done the same if they had the chance.

There were many nations that were in the British position at one time or the other and they did not exploit others. China was a great power and they did not subjugate others like the Europeans did. They only came to the East Coast of Africa to trade. China only focused on their nation, instead of the subjugation of others. That is why I view them favorably.

And I doubt African groups if place in the same position would have been barbaric like the British.

EzeUche_:

They created railways, which benefited them and not the people who inhabit the regions. You know and I know that those railways were used for exploitation of the people. Minerals and other resources were placed on those railways that led to the coast to benefit the "mother country." The bad outweighs the small good that they gave the peoples of Nigeria.

The great Roman roads and buildings that are in Britain today were not built for the British people either. These positive things may have originally been used for exploitation but you cannot deny that Nigeria became better with them.

EzeUche_:

And the English language was more influenced by the Saxons, more so than the Romans. English is actually a Germanic language. It is not a Celtic language like the original inhabitants of England spoke. Only Celtic languages in existence is Welsh, Scottish and Irish.

And Cornish. The language on the coat of arms is Latin, the language of education for a certain amount of time in Britain was Latin (and is still kind of) even Nigerians sometimes go of speaking Latin to sound intelligent.

EzeUche_:

There were many nations that were in the British position at one time or the other and they did not exploit others. China was a great power and they did not subjugate others like the Europeans did. They only came to the East Coast of Africa to trade. China only focused on their nation, instead of the subjugation of others. That is why I view them favorably.

And I doubt African groups if place in the same position would have been barbaric like the British.

Well, they're making up for it. The Chinese didn't take fool hold of the world, not because they were 'nice' (ask Tibet) but because they had internal problems, civil wars, rival politicians bringing their own laws on what China should or shouldn't do. I don't believe that China would not have joined the Atlantic slave trade if they could.

ezeagu:

The great Roman roads and buildings that are in Britain today were not built for the British people either. These positive things may have originally been used for exploitation but you cannot deny that Nigeria became better with them.

You do know the Romans moved to their provinces. And they created cities, roads and other structures that would resemble home. They even allowed their subjects to join politics even though they were not Romans by birth. That is why the Roman empire was able to last so long, because it was a multi-ethnic empire. You even had non-Romans emperors like Diocletian, Constantine, Romulus Augustus etc. The Romans used cultural imperialism, but many people benefited from this.

What have we as Africans benefited from British colonialism?

ezeagu:



And Cornish. The language on the coat of arms is Latin, the language of education for a certain amount of time in Britain was Latin (and is still kind of) even Nigerians sometimes go of speaking Latin to sound intelligent.

Cornish for ostensive purposes is a extinct language. Latin was used by many nations for educational purposes, because the Romans were more advanced than the barbarians that conquered the Western half of the Roman empire. So, I can understand why Latin was still used. Even the Roman Catholic Church still uses Latin.

ezeagu:


Well, they're making up for it. The Chinese didn't take fool hold of the world, not because they were 'nice' (ask Tibet) but because they had internal problems, civil wars, rival politicians bringing their own laws on what China should or shouldn't do. I don't believe that China would not have joined the Atlantic slave trade if they could.

The Chinese are not here to colonize Africa. They come to Africa as businessmen, and they do not get involved with the local governments. That is something that I like about the Chinese. Now the British continue to play a role in many African governments through their companies. This is NEO-COLONIALISM.

And the Chinese were quite stable when they were exploring the globe. I think it was the Tang Dynasty that sent Zheng He to the East coast of Africa to open up trade routes. The Chinese in the past cared about their own nation, and only searched for partners. The British only wanted to conquer. And the Chinese would not have joined the Atlantic Slave trade, because they have always had a booming population.

I think it is pointless blaming any country for  empire biulding. It is the rule of nature that  the strong will always make the weak submissive. History is littered with so many instances ( Egypt,Greek, Roman, Persian, Ottoman, Mongol,etc) .
We need to move on from this blame game,

shotster50:

I think it is pointless blaming any country for  empire biulding. It is the rule of nature that  the strong will always make the weak submissive. History is littered with so many instances ( Egypt,Greek, Roman, Persian, Ottoman, Mongol,etc) .
We need to move on from this blame game and move on.

How easy it would be able to move on, if the British did not interfere in our government. However, we all know the British have never left Nigeria. They may have given us "political" freedom, but they continue to play role in our economy. And our leaders do listen to what their leaders have to tell us.

Neo-colonialism is alive and well and you will be a fool to deny this.

EzeUche_:

You do know the Romans moved to their provinces. And they created cities, roads and other structures that would resemble home. They even allowed their subjects to join politics even though they were not Romans by birth. That is why the Roman empire was able to last so long, because it was a multi-ethnic empire. You even had non-Romans emperors like Diocletian, Constantine, Romulus Augustus etc. The Romans used cultural imperialism, but many people benefited from this.

What have we as Africans benefited from British colonialism?

I've already listed what Africa has benefited. There really is no difference between what you are saying for the Roman Empire and what the British Empire did.

EzeUche_:

Cornish for ostensive purposes is a extinct language. Latin was used by many nations for educational purposes, because the Romans were more advanced than the barbarians that conquered the Western half of the Roman empire. So, I can understand why Latin was still used. Even the Roman Catholic Church still uses Latin.

Just replace Roman with British and Latin with English and you'll sound like a British officer sent to Nigerian in the 20's.

EzeUche_:

The Chinese are not here to colonize Africa. They come to Africa as businessmen, and they do not get involved with the local governments. That is something that I like about the Chinese. Now the British continue to play a role in many African governments through their companies. This is NEO-COLONIALISM.

Would you sell a portion of Arochukwu to Chinese businessmen?

EzeUche_:

The Chinese in the past cared about their own nation, and only searched for partners. The British only wanted to conquer.

Eh, is Tibet their own nation? What about Taiwan? Is it fair to say the British only wanted to conquer and the Chinese only cared about their country?

EzeUche_:

And the Chinese would not have joined the Atlantic Slave trade, because they have always had a booming population.

No. If they wanted slaves they could use African to develop their colonies, or they could use the trade for profit if they wanted or needed to. If Africans themselves were selling African people, why would outsiders not? Plus we've seen enough genocides by Africans that has nearly outdone the British slave trade in deaths.

ShangoThor:

[size=28pt]@ cap28, I admire you for speaking the truth![/size]

thanx bro

ezeagu:

I've already listed what Africa has benefited. There really is no difference between what you are saying for the Roman Empire and what the British Empire did.

There is a lot of differences, between what I am saying. However, I digress from that discussion. Just look at the borders that were created and see how we have benefited from those colonial borders.

ezeagu:


Just replace Roman with British and Latin with English and you'll sound like a British officer sent to Nigerian in the 20's.

You are comparing two separate things. There was no altruism, when the British came to Africa, Asia and the Americas. They only destroyed and pillaged the land. Look at what their settlers did to the Native Americans. One of the worse genocides that has every occurred in world history.

At least the Romans allowed their conquered subjects practice their traditional religion, speak their language and continue to have their form of government. As long as their conquered subjects recognize Rome's authority, the people lived in harmony.

The British destroyed many of culture, traditional beliefs, form of governments, corrupted our languages etc.

ezeagu:


Would you sell a portion of Arochukwu to Chinese businessmen?

I would open Arochukwu for Chinese investment. And I would not stop Chinese businessmen buying up private property in Arochukwu. As long as they pay their taxes, higher local people and improve our infrastructure. The Chinese are not here to stay in Africa, they are only trying to make money.

ezeagu:


Eh, is Tibet their own nation? What about Taiwan? Is it fair to say the British only wanted to conquer and the Chinese only cared about their country?

China has always claimed Tibet. Remember that Tibet was part of China during the Qing Dynasty. The Chinese saw their invasion of Tibet as recapturing terrotory that was lost during the upheaval in China after the fall of the Qing dynasty.

Taiwan as always been a territory of China. And the Taiwanese people are Chinese. They were just part of the political faction that lost the Chinese civil war and fled to Taiwan. China can claim Taiwan.

The British conquest were in far flung areas. How can you compare Chinese conquest of regions that have been traditionally part of China with British conquest of other people? You cannot compare the two, so that is a red herring.

ezeagu:

No. If they wanted slaves they could use African to develop their colonies, or they could use the trade for profit if they wanted or needed to. If Africans themselves were selling African people, why would outsiders not? Plus we've seen enough genocides by Africans that has nearly outdone the British slave trade in deaths.

And what were Chinese colonies if I may ask? The Chinese did not believe in slavery in the sense that Europeans believe in slavery. By that time, I think slavery was actually outlawed in China since the Han dynasty, which was in BCE. China's population allowed them not worry about slavery which was a fact.

They had Chinese peasants that they could use for labor.

And what genocides have Africans participated in that could number the lives lost in the Atlantic Slave trade in which 150 million enslaved Africans were taken from the continent. The Rwandan genocide cannot be compared to that, in which only 500,000 people lost their lives.

Pre-Colonial Africa was not in constant war.

EzeUche_:

There is a lot of differences, between what I am saying. However, I digress from that discussion. Just look at the borders that were created and see how we have benefited from those colonial borders.

Look at it like this, if the Romans conquered Nigeria you would not have to worry about Yoruba or Igbo because you both will be speaking a Romance language or a language with a lot of Latin, and you will have a Latin.Roman culture. Rome could have just joined the two and nothing would have been done about it.

EzeUche_:

You are comparing two separate things. There was no altruism, when the British came to Africa, Asia and the Americas. They only destroyed and pillaged the land. Look at what their settlers did to the Native Americans. One of the worse genocides that has every occurred in world history.

If they only destroyed and pillaged the land you would not be so good at speaking English, what law does Nigeria use? Is it not English? Were the schools you went to in Nigeria not introduced by the British, would you rather go to whatever schools Arochukwu had before they came? You have to acknowledge when someone has done well and the British did some things well in Nigeria.

EzeUche_:

The British conquest were in far flung areas. How can you compare Chinese conquest of regions that have been traditionally part of China with British conquest of other people? You cannot compare the two, so that is a red herring.

As you said China had peasants (slaves) to do their work for them so they didn't have to go to other countries for slaves, they used their class (caste) system and their numbers, unfortunately if they were as desperate to grow as the British they'd do the same thing as the British have. Look at Japan for example.

EzeUche_:

The British destroyed many of culture, traditional beliefs, form of governments, corrupted our languages etc.

Many other Empires (and confederacies ) did as well.

EzeUche_:

China has always claimed Tibet. Remember that Tibet was part of China during the Qing Dynasty. The Chinese saw their invasion of Tibet as recapturing terrotory that was lost during the upheaval in China after the fall of the Qing dynasty.

If they have always claimed Tibet, where did the Tibetans come from?

EzeUche_:

Taiwan as always been a territory of China. And the Taiwanese people are Chinese. They were just part of the political faction that lost the Chinese civil war and fled to Taiwan. China can claim Taiwan.

Han Chinese are not the native people of Taiwan.

EzeUche_:

The British conquest were in far flung areas. How can you compare Chinese conquest of regions that have been traditionally part of China with British conquest of other people? You cannot compare the two, so that is a red herring.

And what were Chinese colonies if I may ask? The Chinese did not believe in slavery in the sense that Europeans believe in slavery. By that time, I think slavery was actually outlawed in China since the Han dynasty, which was in BCE. China's population allowed them not worry about slavery which was a fact.

So they had (have) slavery but it's not called slavery?

EzeUche_:

And what genocides have Africans participated in that could number the lives lost in the Atlantic Slave trade in which 150 million enslaved Africans were taken from the continent. The Rwandan genocide cannot be compared to that, in which only 500,000 people lost their lives.

Pre-Colonial Africa was not in constant war.

I thought it was 10 million all together? And weren't 10% of those captured by the British and half by Portugal and Spain? And is the Rwandan genocide the only genocide that happened in Africa?

Knowledge is power and wealth. Nigeria and Africa's poverty is simply a poverty of the mind. We lack the knowledge and capacity to add value to the resources we have. So our poverty is simply a value chain problem.

Nations are rich because their citizens add/create value out of what they have or from nothing. That is why they are rich and Africans poor. We can't do that. This is what makes us an exporter of primary products / non-value added products while we import finished products that will cost a premium due to the value added. Because of this, there is a net outflow of capital out of Africa. Little wonder we are poor and they rich.

Resources do not make a nation rich. It is brains that can add value to resources that creates wealth. That is why UK brands like BAE, BAT, BP, BT, Vodafone, Virgin, Aston Martin, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Barclays, Stanchart Unilever, Shell, Anglo American etc are global corporations that create wealth for the british state (via taxes).

Its not rocket science people!!

kalokalo said:

Knowledge is power and wealth. Nigeria and Africa's poverty is simply a poverty of the mind. We lack the knowledge and capacity to add value to the resources we have. So our poverty is simply a value chain problem.

Nations are rich because their citizens add/create value out of what they have or from nothing. That is why they are rich and Africans poor. We can't do that. This is what makes us an exporter of primary products / non-value added products while we import finished products that will cost  a premium due to the value added. Because of this, there is a net outflow of capital out of Africa. Little wonder we are poor and they rich.

Resources do not make a nation rich. It is brains that can add value to resources that creates wealth. That is why UK brands like BAE, BAT, BP, BT, Vodafone, Virgin, Aston Martin, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Barclays, Stanchart Unilever, Shell, Anglo American etc are global corporations that create wealth for the british state (via taxes).

Its not rocket science people!!

My friend stop spewing ignorant rubbish.

It takes a lot more than ''brains'' to become an advanced nation, and limiting your criteria to name-dropping British ''brands'' and quipping like some schoolboy about ''adding value''  as if you've just discovered some great new secret is pretty embarrassing.

Wait o! Who said the Chinese have no intentions to colonize Africa?! Lol. Hahahahhahaha! Listen, my friend, when a man thinks long enough (and has the balls,ability, and audacity) to convince you into "selling" a section of the Ocean/Water surrounding your country to him, there's no greater planned enslavement/colonization than that. And you gotta agree, for them to have succesfully pulled off that "sale/trade"; THEY'RE GOOD. . . Everyone else was thinking oil, and these 5ft 2inch, yellow, slanty eyed dudes were thinking "water". . . . Can't knock their hustle game, though.

cap28:

why would you say that its simplistic to blame britain for our woes when our current situation to date can be traced quite easily back to the colonial era ?

Lets go back to the partition of africa or berlin conference of 1885 which was where many of the problems that we are experiencing today originated  - was any african leader present at this conference in berlin?  what say did africans have in the carving up and lumping together of different ethnic groups by the european colonialists ?  

How about Lugard's amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates - did any of us have any say in this? were we consulted beforehand?

Multiethnicity was not a problem until we were lumped together and forced to live under one system of govt, that was when it became a problem.  Why were africans with differing ethnic and cultural differences expected to live successfully under one system of govt when europeans themselves had been incapable of doing the same themselves?

You can not have a balance of power in a country like nigeria where there are so many different groups competing for political and economic dominance as well as control over natural resources, it just can not happen without those various groups clashing and eventually going to war with each other.

Progress is relative, perhaps in comparison to other african nations nigeria may have made greater progress but if you look at the various ethnic groups which make up nigeria in isolation and relate our "progress" to our land, natural resources and manpower i dont think we have progressed as far as we like to think.

Hmm, good points, in a way we're in agreement. But I'll always point you and others to the Singapore and Malaysia example. The Malays decided to split with the Cantonese after just one year of post-colonial rule, while the Nigerian ruling elite pretended naivete, with the exception of Awolowo, who still insisted on a regional agenda. We were colonised, yes, and forced into one federating unit. But wasn't that the idea for the colonialists, all along? Their objective was to loot the riches of the region, not to assist in the evolution of the Lower Niger into a modern state. So the grunt work still belong to us. That's why I say stop blaming the British and move on.

As per Nigeria's development, I would still say we have not done badly at all. We built most of our post-colonial institutions from scratch, despite the challenges of corruption and multi-ethnic infractions. We seem to have even done that much better than most of our African brothers, save one or two. But we've also squandered a stupendous amount of resources. That would be typical anyway, for a nation at this stage. Remember that many of the pre-Renaissance oligarchs squandered stupendous sums building cathedrals and palaces, pursuing meaningless wars all over the place, to the detriment of the general populace. What we need to experience in Africa is a Renaissance, but unfortunately we still have dinosaurs from the old era keeping us in the Dark Ages.

@Topic,
More than enough justice has been done at this stage. Britain's wealth is from colonisation, period. They have used it efficiently over the ages to build a veritable social system for their people, which is quite commendable. Unfortunately, knowledge drives the new economy, and they have been rather late to that party. Add that to the social burden, and you can see the current decline.

[b]@Jen33:
Nigeria is backwards. We have not achieved any meaningful or commendable development since after the independence. How can you be giving a loud round of applause to a nation that is still grappling with building motor-able roads, providing jobs for her citizens, Providing portable drinking water, creating an enabling environment for business to thrive, ensuring safety of lives and properties etc?  So Nigeria is moving forward, yet up till now we don't refine our own oil? We don't have a good standing police force? Our educational system is in disarray? Loss of Nigerian lives is now like piercing a hole on a big drum of water? Nigerians run to other countries and are treated like animals without a means to fight back? Abeg stop spreading lies. Nigeria stopped moving forward the moment the British completely left Nigeria in 1963. Everything grounded to a halt, and we have been doing the moonwalk since then.
If I may ask, what is really working properly in Nigeria? Can you point out one thing that is working the way it should work in Nigeria?
You seem to forget that Nigeria has all it takes to develop, Oil or no Oil. We have other natural resources and abundance of human resources. Even if oil is left for the Niger-deltans, there will still be abundance of resources, big enough for Nigeria to use and develop.
You need to go and see what other countries are doing with their oil palm, coal deposits, Tin, Gold deposit, water resources, Aluminum, domestic consumption advantage etc.
This is why I support the fact that Nigeria needs to be split. Until we do that, we'd be hovering around a circle, with a thought that we are moving forward.
[/b]

[b]Nigeria needs a political re-orientation.
Split the freaking country, or change it into a confederation.

East- Should have a democratic decentralized system, with a weak central leadership.
Stimulate development of commerce and trade in this region. Create an enabling environment for business to thrive, and run a mixed economic model on it such that basic development factors like Employment, Education, Entrepreneurship, tax revenue etc are stimulated along. Boost manufacturing in the region and ensure exportation of Nigerian made goods from this region. Leave the control of basic infrastructures like road maintenance, Security (Regional police force), Power generation etc for the regional governments. Generate electricity in this region with Solar energy, Coal and Gas.

South- Should have a federal political system, to accommodate their diversity in ethnicity.
Use the abundance of oil resources in this region to develop the region. Create refineries, and important oil exportation points in this region, and ensure that Entrepreneurial development, Employment generation , tax generation, community development are stimulated along with these investments. Leave the control of basic infrastructures like road maintenance, Security (Regional police force), Power generation etc for the regional governments. Generate electricity in this region with Gas.

West- Should have a British style of political system, with high regards for their centralized traditional monarchy.
Use the important national infrastructures in this region, with their high domestic consumption ability to develop a service based economy here. Take advantage of the tax generation ability of this region to create a perfect investment environment that will stimulate employment, encourage entrepreneurship and ensure further tax generation. develop the natural resources in this region and use them to ensure further regional and national income. Leave the control of basic infrastructures like road maintenance, Security (Regional police force), Power generation etc for the regional governments. Generate electricity in this region with solar energy and Gas.

North-  Should have an monarchical political orientation, with a muslim background. Sharia can be well implemented there.
Develop the agricultural capability of this region to create a sustainable means of income for them. While developing Agriculture here, stimulate employment, entrepreneurship and human development abilities. Let the North be a major source of food products for other Nigerian regions, West Africa, African countries, and the world at large. Leave the control of basic infrastructures like road maintenance, Security (Regional police force), Power generation etc for the regional governments. Generate electricity in this region with Solar energy and Hydro electric means.

There should be national armed forces with equal contribution from all the regions. Basic things like international airports, major seaports etc should be built in each region. National Universities should be established in each region to complement the regional ones. This way there will be progress which will be stimulated by regional competition.
If Nigeria cannot achieve this con-federal arrangement, Nigeria should be split. [/b]

eku_bear:

What is their economy based upon?

Primarily London and international finance/banking, right? They don't manufacture or build anything of note, do they?

Perhaps some UK nationals can shed some more insight on what their country's economy is based on (I'm too lazy to Wikipedia it right now. . . )

Oh Yes! I like what u said here, this is the kind
of topic all nairalanders should be interested in,

We know that Germany has Iron Ore and other base metals

But what does the British have?

And also remember that the UK is a "Net Importer Country"

Please this topic must be discussed very very very well

It should be a case study topic for 2011,

ShangoThor:

Its actually quite ironical

1. The bulk of the wealth in the UK was derived from the "Slave Trade" which funded their "Industrial Revolution".

2. The main funders of the "Slave Trade" were the "Barclays Brothers", who later formed "Barclays Bank".

3. Barclay's Bank is one of the biggest banks in the UK that has laundered and stashed billions of looted funds from Nigeria.

So I guess you can say its Nigeria's money being recycled when you consider Nigeria = pre colonial "Slave Coast"

Whoa!!! This dude is so on point!!! You are correct,

Please people keep on digging the truth out,

afam4eva:

Countries that have less mouth to feed are actually the richest eg Switzerland and those Scandinavian countries.

Switzerland is a International Private Banking Center. so they make their
money primarily by storing money which comes from other countries
but honest & stolen wealth.

Switzerland's economy is not only banking and finance based. They also make a bulk of their money from health and pharmaceutical, Tourism etc.

Knight1:

Education. they sell education.

london is like an international marketplace so, they shouldnt be poor

hmm very good point, London or really
"The Square mile" which is called the "City of London" is an
International Banking and Trading center but is built is self up
that way in the 17th Century through Trade expeditions (all the explorers
that you read about like Mango Park were sent on Expeditions by
Kings & Queens of Britain and Wealthy Merchants to discover new lands
so that they could obtain wealth (Naural Resources).

The Explorers would sometimes go with a peaceful crew to the new land or island
and make friends with the natives and spy out the land.

And would leave peacefully only for the Explorer to return later with the
British Navy/Army to strike a deal with natives or to conquer the land/island,

Thats how Britian obtained its Resource wealth, by making agreements & later
breaking them for conquest,