I have worked in the US for many years; EACH and EVERY job I've ever obtained was after undergoing a stiff screaning process based on such criteria as education, experience, written tests, and oral interviews. None of the jobs was ever given to me based on anything but MERIT. I know about "affirmative action", but the overwhelming majority of jobs here are based on qualification and competence. Often, one finds oneself working with mainly whites and asians; but EVERY black I have worked with here are very competent and very hardworking.

That is the America that I love. That is why things work here.

Why is it that in Africa, the moment one cannot beat a competitive recruitment or appointment process, one starts to allege all types of "domination", "marginalization", etc?
Why should laziness be accomodated in any progressive society?

Even more, why should we complain when things don't work, even when we know that the incompetent workers were chosen so as not to trip the wire of "domination" or "marginalization"?

I noticed that those usually "guilty" or on the receiving end of these accusations are usually the hardest working Africans, and you find this same problem in nearly every African country.

How can Africa ever develop with a lazy accussatory culture which envies, (and often) blackmails hardwork, often presenting it as something negative?

Isn't this mindset a form of mental retardation or mental derangment?

For me, the simplest test to determine whether this mindset is rational or not is to examine the infrastructure and civil service of a country.

A friend shared an experience about when a team from GOOGLE "streetview" went to Nigeria to establish a presence. When the Google team got there, met with some Nigerian (Lagos really) officials, and the Nigerians simply said to the Google team, "don't worry, you can start business, there is no problem, you shouldn't even pay for land. . .". The Google team was baffled, because they had expected a detailed meeting and signing of documents and the like. Didn't happen. But guess what happened when they returned to start making physical moves? Everybody they met again pretended as if they have not seen the Google guys before!

The Google guys were shocked; I wasn't shocked of course because we are talking about Nigeria where maybe the "guy in charge" didn't even know how to handle such world class company.

The problem is, Africans, for whatever reason, are currently more nepotistic than other groups. Some people just can't play by the rules.

merit ko merit ni.

i am sure i could fill an entire cabinet exclusively with qualified igbos and the same with yorubas, but that would hardly be a reflection of the diversity of Nigeria would it.

and in a society like ours that is highly ethnocentric, one mans merit is another mans tribalism.

^^^^^Alh Harem how market?

Maybe we should have applied merit into killing our political leaders in 1967

Instead of the Nepotism and tribalism that the ill-bred Igbo son did

PhysicsQED: The problem is, Africans, for whatever reason, are currently more nepotistic than other groups. Some people just can't play by the rules.

There is no scientific (or even non-scientific) proof anywhere showing that Africans are more nepotistic than other groups. Europe has fought far more inter-ethnic wars than Africa can ever dream of. Yet, they are able to create a merit based system and is developed today because of it.

A normal human being (with a well functioning brain) would prefer that things are working irrespective of who is making them work.
A country like America (which Nigeria is pretending to be copying) is only possible,because human beings here trust progress more than ethnicity. In Nigeria, even as far back as 1950s which almost every Nigerian would tell you was a golden period, there were still HUGE CRIES of "domination" and "marginalization". Those cries played critical roles in the genocide of 1966 and the gang up against Biafra. But guess what, even the groups that ganged up against Biafra, cry today for the same things Biafra wanted to solve, yet they couldn't raise their mental capacity to support Biafra then.

Guess what again, the same people who fear "domination" most would be the first to panic when the "dominating group" wants to secede!

That is why I believe the problem is a form of mental retardation or derangement.

First, my comment can be read two ways, and I meant for it to be interpreted both ways. I think you've figured out one of the interpretations based on the knee jerk reaction and the spiel that followed my suggestion that Africans are currently more nepotistic than other groups.

Second, Europe is divided mostly (but not exclusively or perfectly) along "ethnic" lines. So apparently those "inter-ethnic" wars you're referring to were for a reason.

PhysicsQED: First, my comment can be read two ways, and I meant for it to be interpreted both ways. I think you've figured out one of the interpretations based on the knee jerk reaction and the spiel that followed my suggestion that Africans are currently more nepotistic than other groups.

Second, Europe is divided mostly (but not exclusively or perfectly) along "ethnic" lines. So apparently those "inter-ethnic" wars you're referring to were for a reason.

I never missed the second reading one bit.
That is why I said that the people who alleged "domination" went to war to keep the "dominating group" in Nigeria. Even today, those who fear domination most are some of the most virulent attackers of secessionists who ironically are from the alleged dominating group. Does that make any logical sense at all?

That is why I say that mental retardation or a form of derangement must be responsible for this.

Rational thinking dictates that a "dominated group" would work very hard to see the back of the "dominating group", from North to South; from East to West. But that is not what we see in Nigeria. Rather the so called dominated groups ganged up (and are still ganging up) to keep the dominating group in Nigeria.

I once begged that they push the dominating group out of Nigeria so that they can enjoy nirvana alone. It hasn't happened and looks like it will never happen.
So, isn't this a form of insanity or mental retardation?

I think you need to revisit the political history of Nigeria even up to the present if you think that only those that tried to secede were ever accused of "domination" or if you think that only those that were accused of "domination" wanted autonomy.

PhysicsQED: I think you need to revisit the political history of Nigeria even up to present if you think that only those that tried to secede were ever accused of "domination" or if you think that only those that were accused of "domination" wanted autonomy.

I've basically meditated on Nigeria's history (especially the pre civil war and the civil war history); what I see shows a pattern of mental retardation.
From the North, if you read what Ahmadu Bello thought about Southerners, Easterners and Igbo, you would see that he was convinced that the North was being dominated by Southerners. The same goes to groups in the West that had to carpet-cross to ensure that they were not "dominated in their own land", never mind that the dominators were technocrats and seasoned politicians who could have elevated the average living standards of people in that region. The same happened in SW Camerouns (which led to their historic mistake of joining a French country), and to a some extent also happened (though partially) with Mid western and Eastern groups in the war against Biafra.
Some minority groups alleged the same "domination".
I personally believe that if Igbo were asked to form a country of their own with only Igboland, the Biafran war wouldn't have been fought at all, talkless of it lasting for almost three years.

So, why don't "the dominated" want their dominators to secede? Why do the dominated still panic at any signs of activities suggesting that the "dominating group" is planning to secede? We see it in Nairaland constantly.

So, what is going on?

Onlytruth:

I've basically meditated on Nigeria's history (especially the pre civil war and the civil war history); what I see shows a pattern of mental retardation.
From the North, if you read what Ahmadu Bello thought about Southerners, Easterners and Igbo, you would see that he was convinced that the North was being dominated by Southerners. The same goes to groups in the West that had to carpet-cross to ensure that they were not "dominated in their own land", never mind that the dominators are technocrats and seasoned politicians who could have elevated the average living standards of people in that region. The same happened in SW Camerouns (which led to their historic mistake of joining a French country), and to a great extent also happened (though partially) with Mid western and Eastern groups in the war against Biafra.
Some minority groups alleged the same "domination".
I personally believe that if Igbo were asked to form a country of their own with only Igboland, the Biafran war wouldn't have been fought at all, talkless of it lasting for almost three years.

So, why don't "the dominated" want their dominators to secede? Why do the dominated still panic at any signs of activities suggesting that the "dominating group" is planning to secede? We see it in Nairaland constantly.

So, what is going on?

I think you have a deep misunderstanding of some of the history you've read, but whatever. I initially thought the purpose of this thread was to actually have a real discussion, not to just repeat the same naive tripe that is constantly repeated on this forum over and over again.

You can just continue the discussion along the lines of your agenda with those operating under the same mentality. I don't think I have the time to squabble over interpretations of this part of Nigeria's history right now. Later.

PhysicsQED:

I think you have a deep misunderstanding of some of the history you've read, but whatever. I initially thought the purpose of this thread was to actually have a real discussion, not to just repeat the same naive tripe that is constantly repeated on this forum over and over again.

You can just continue the discussion along the lines of your agenda with those operating under the same mentality. I don't think I have the time to squabble over interpretations of this part of Nigeria's history right now. Later.

The greatest problem in Nigeria is that even the educated bulk at HONEST issues. You obviously have run out of any logical basis to continue supporting your position. Why not just admit so and then move, rather than call me names, trying to make it my fault? That is the mentality of the "Nigerian" elite.
I'm not here to squabble with anybody. lol. I'm here to ask an honest question: Why do some Africans see merit based appointments as a form of domination"?

This mindset bears the fruits of jealousy, hate and genocide.

What is my position?

Did you even ask me what my position is before you started ranting?

I insist that you only read my comment one way, and still haven't got the other meaning of it, and yet you continue with the spiels.

Edit: As for the references to 'hate, jealousy and genocide', really that's low of you . What I really have is a deep disgust for the dishonesty, distortion and misrepresentation of some of the historical events by you above. It is so deliberate and yet so callously dishonest that it's shocking and off-putting.

PhysicsQED: What is my position?

Did you even ask me what my position is before you started ranting?

I insist that you only read my comment one way, and still haven't got the other meaning of it, and yet you continue with the spiels.

Your position is that there are two side of the story isn't it: those on the giving and those on the receiving sides. Am I wrong about that?

To elaborate, Europe has more uni-ethnic nations than Africa.

Merit based what? By the time i am ready for this thread i hope you will still be around to shout merit?

Also the second leg of my question is why the so called "dominated groups" are always fighting to keep the "dominating group" in Nigeria?
Makes no damn sense.

When our fathers felt that the British were dominating them, they seceded from Britain. Nigeria seceded from Britain in 1960 and the British didn't go to war to stop Nigeria's secession. Why should Nigeria go to war against say Igboland (Biafra carved from Igboland only)? Why would any Nigerian fight to keep Igbo in Nigeria? This logically seems to confuse not quite a few Nigerians.
That is why I allege mental retardation.

Onlytruth:

Your position is that there are two side of the story isn't it: those on the giving and those on the receiving sides. Am I wrong about that?

Exactly. You're not wrong.

Now why then did your post to me only dwell only one side of the story - my contention that those making the accusations are not always just talking nonsense? I didn't see any comment that suggested that you saw how I was agreeing with you - that those who want their ethnic kinsmen to always be in positions of power or influence at the expense of merit are practicing nepotism. Maybe you got that meaning, but I didn't see that in your posts.

If you got the second meaning, then why do you think that I "have no logical basis to continue supporting my position" when my position even agrees with yours, just that I also think that those accused of nepotism are not always blameless? I wasn't even talking in the context of Biafra or the 60s but in Africa in general.

To give an example of what I'm talking about, I read an article a while back where the Binis were accused of "dominating" the present Edo state because of their population in the state.

If a smaller group in the state wanted more autonomy so that their politicians, who might be just as good or even much better at governing, could have more direct control over improving the lives of their people without so much emphasis being placed on one area of the state at the expense of their area and others, would they be wrong in alleging marginalization? Would they really be talking nonsense?

Onlytruth: For me, the simplest test to determine whether this mindset is rational or not is to examine the infrastructure and civil service of a country.

A friend shared an experience about when a team from GOOGLE "streetview" went to Nigeria to establish a presence. When the Google team got there, met with some Nigerian (Lagos really) officials, and the Nigerians simply said to the Google team, "don't worry, you can start business, there is no problem, you shouldn't even pay for land. . .". The Google team was baffled, because they had expected a detailed meeting and signing of documents and the like. Didn't happen. But guess what happened when they returned to start making physical moves? Everybody they met again pretended as if they have not seen the Google guys before!

The Google guys were shocked; I wasn't shocked of course because we are talking about Nigeria where maybe the "guy in charge" didn't even know how to handle such world class company.

so you know that google chap? you sure say i no sabi you for real life.

PhysicsQED:

Exactly. You're not wrong.

Now why then did your post to me only dwell only one side of the story - my contention that those making the accusations are not always just talking nonsense? I didn't see any comment that suggested that you saw how I was agreeing with you - that those who want their ethnic kinsmen to always be in positions of power or influence at the expense of merit are practicing nepotism. Maybe you got that meaning, but I didn't see that in your posts.

If you got the second meaning, then why do you think that I "have no logical basis to continue supporting my position" when my position even agrees with yours, just that I also think that those accused of nepotism are not always blameless? I wasn't even talking in the context of Biafra or the 60s but in Africa in general.

To give an example of what I'm talking about, I read an article a while back where the Binis were accused of "dominating" the present Edo state because of their population in the state.

If a smaller group in the state wanted more autonomy so that their politicians, who might be just as good or even much better at governing in general, could have more direct control over the improving the lives of their people without so much emphasis being placed on one area of the state at the expense of their area and others, would they be wrong in alleging marginalization? Would they really be talking nonsense?

I hope you didn't miss where I said that Europeans and other first world countries love progress more than they hate the next tribe, hence they really don't care much about who is leading a project provided the project is delivered and working well. Then I wondered why Africans (who have fought far less inter tribal wars than Europeans) tend to be stuck on tribe, and then in a bizarre logic still cling on the group they accuse of dominating them.

Igbo say that you don't tell a grown man to get out of the sun.

Why did some of those who cried most about being dominated still go to war to bring the dominating group back into Nigeria?
Makes no damn sense one bit.

without federal character some sections of the country will not be able to enroll into higher institutions therefore wont be able to qualify for job,political offices etc.

bashr8: so you know that google chap? you sure say i no sabi you for real life.

You fit sabi me o.
Na small world bros me.

bashr8: without federal character some sections of the country will not be able to enroll into higher institutions therefore wont be able to qualify for job,political offices etc.

Would you say that "federal character" is serving Nigeria well in things like science/technology,innovation and growth of a modern economy?
Here in US, people are coming from India and China to lead science projects; but in Nigeria, even Nigerians are excluded because of their tribe or state of origin etc.
The irony is that we still complain that things are not working in Nigeria. lol

Onlytruth:

I hope you didn't miss where I said that Europeans and other first world countries love progress more than they hate the next tribe, hence they really don't care much about who is leading a project provided the project is delivered and working well. Then I wondered why Africans (who have fought far less inter tribal wars than Europeans) tend to be stuck on tribe, and then in a bizarre logic still cling on the group they accuse of dominating them.

Igbo say that you don't tell a grown man to get out of the sun.

Why did some of those who cried most about being dominated still go to war to bring the dominating group back into Nigeria?
Makes no damn sense one bit.

there are somethings that one can never figure out like why are most african countries soo rich yet the people are soo poor, why are we complaining of unemployment yet keep importing chinese and indian workers, the list is endless. the truth is that as it stands now theres no light at the end of the tunnel , i used to think our fathers generation where the problem but our generation is even worse , maybe the next generation might have a solution.

bashr8: there are somethings that one can never figure out like[b] why are most african countries soo rich yet the people are soo poor, why are we complaining of unemployment yet keep importing chinese and indian workers[/b], the list is endless. the truth is that as it stands now theres no light at the end of the tunnel , i used to think our fathers generation where the problem but our generation is even worse , maybe the next generation might have a solution.

I think the bolded words support my allegation of mental retardation or a form of insanity in parts of Africa. Notice that these are not obtainable in ALL parts of Africa; just parts. Painfully though, it seems to be more prevalent in strategic African countries like Nigeria.

As far as I'm concerned European "tribalism" was quite significant but I think they reached a tipping point with WW2 and also got over it through the demarcation of mostly ethnically homogeneous countries. Also their tribalism is lessened by focusing on how they share more in common with each other than with the rest of the world. I guess you could say "pan-whiteness" mostly succeeded after enough blood had been spilled and pan-Africanism hasn't and possibly won't. When one reads about Romanians in Italy or the standoff in Belgium between the two groups (Flemish vs. Francophone) or the Irish and Welsh vs. the English or "anti-Polish" sentiment in Europe, one starts to realize that if they were all put in multiethnic countries they would probably have very serious issues as well.

Onlytruth:

Would you say that "federal character" is serving Nigeria well in things like science/technology,innovation and growth of a modern economy?
Here in US, people are coming from India and China to lead science projects; but in Nigeria, even Nigerians are excluded because of their tribe or state of origin etc.
The irony is that we still complain that things are not working in Nigeria. lol

nigeria's problem is just too complex some things will take decades to solve if we start today while some will require some form of violent revolution.

PhysicsQED: As far as I'm concerned European "tribalism" was quite significant but I think they reached a tipping point with WW2 and also got over it through the demarcation of mostly ethnically homogeneous countries. Also their tribalism is lessened by focusing on how they share more in common with each other than with the rest of the world. I guess you could say pan-whiteness mostly succeeded after enough blood had been spilled and pan-Africanism hasn't and possibly won't. When one reads about Romanians in Italy or the standoff in Belgium between the two groups or the Irish and Welsh vs. the English or "anti-Polish" sentiment in Europe, one starts to realize that if they were all put in multiethnic countries they would probably have very serious issues as well.

Exactly my point! (though in reverse). That is why I don't understand why a rational person who feels dominated and marginalized, would still go to war, or threaten war each time the "dominating group" mentions secession or wants to secede.

Isn't this a form of mental illness or retardation?

PhysicsQED: As far as I'm concerned European "tribalism" was quite significant but I think they reached a tipping point with WW2 and also got over it through the demarcation of mostly ethnically homogeneous countries. Also their tribalism is lessened by focusing on how they share more in common with each other than with the rest of the world. I guess you could say "pan-whiteness" mostly succeeded after enough blood had been spilled and pan-Africanism hasn't and possibly won't. When one reads about Romanians in Italy or the standoff in Belgium between the two groups or the Irish and Welsh vs. the English or "anti-Polish" sentiment in Europe, one starts to realize that if they were all put in multiethnic countries they would probably have very serious issues as well.

this is exactly what nigeria needs now.

bashr8: this is exactly what nigeria needs now.

But mention it and you will see people threatening war!

Onlytruth:

Exactly my point! (though in reverse). That is why I don't understand why a rational person who feels dominated and marginalized, would still go to war, or threaten war each time the "dominating group" mentions secession or wants to secede.

Isn't this a form of mental illness or retardation?

lol they dont see it that way , they are blinded by oil unfortunately the oils is not benefiting anyone rather it has become a curse.