texazzpete: I'm sorry but all this talk about someone being immune to criticism becasuse he's 'well known' and 'famous' are pure bunkum and the proponents of this imbecilic viewpoint should be ashamed of themselves.

Hitler's 'mein Kampf' sold millions...and hitler will always be more well known than everyone on this forum combined. Does that make the content of his hate-filled book unimpeachable?

Let the intelligent ones provide rebuttals. Those who denounce without reading have shown the world their level of ignorance.

Thank You!

I read mien kampf when I was in my first year in the university, my lord! the book was so boring! I could not grasp any message that's worth something in it.
I came across there was a country last week, the first thing that came to my mind was that it could be another boring book despite the mass of issues surrounding it, I'm still waiting for someone to buy it and borrow me sha, so i won't feel cheated of my money.

7842I:

If you think Achebe is not an English word, try google search. If wikipedia can spell it correctly and you cannot, then you need to learn Latin

I USED DICTIONARY.COM TO CHECK FOR THE MEANING OF ACHEBE IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
HERE IS THE MEANING:
A·che·be
[ah-chey-bey] Show IPA

noun
Chin·ua [chin-wah] Show IPA , born 1930, Nigerian novelist.

PROBABLY, ACHEBE MEANS BEING BORN IN 1930.

CHECK IT OUT ON YOUR OWN ON (dictionary.reference.com)

berem: very loooong thread! btw i thought we were done with Achebe? una don come again this year! make una free the man abeg.

My problem here with those that have not seen the book and have started throwing missiles over it.

7842I:

You don't talk in an online forum (comma) you post!

I will keep teaching you English, I learnt from the best, Achebe

You learned so much from your god yet you don't know when to use the word 'post' rather than 'talk'?
You learned so much from this same god yet you don't know that it's wrong to post about what you can't back up with facts? ('Billions' read achebe's book)
You learned so much from your literary god yet you don't know how to provide an answer for a simple question but rather choose to dwell on frivolities?
You learned so much from ashebe yet your spelling is not flawless.

Why will I expect you to be different from your god who is a genius in propagating lies, diverting attention from his aggressive actions while portraying the other party as the aggressor.
When your mentor is the devil himself why will I expect you to be different?

7842I: It is funny how the entire western Nigeria has been struggling to discredit the great works of a great literary giant with funny write ups like this one. I know more will be written but the truth has since been exposed, moral of the story, you cannot back stab another person and expect him to forget it. Good work Achebe.

It's the truth...only to the Igbos. Did you know Achebe called Igbos ibos in the book?

Dede1:



For the sake of your half life, you could have avoided the bolded in your post. I guess O’Cornell could be Scottish or Irish. The people of his\her primordial communities have sought or have intention to seek loyalty toward a nation state which will engender national stability. The French, Italians, Germans, Russians, English and many other European ethnicities sought national stability by finding a common channel of loyalty.

Granted you are a typical Nigerian, I am not surprised you intentionally overlooked a post equated the call for consideration of merit to chest beating. To avoid the evitable bloody war, Nigeria and Nigerians should seriously consider the ways to disengage from the colonial contraption called Nigeria.

You have no proof that Biafra would be a progressive country had Gowon chosen to not quash the rebellion. In fact all hard evidence (leaving the propaganda and hearsay stories aside), point to a paranoid dictator out to achieve his childish aims at any cost including millions of his kinsmen. Equatorial Guinea comes to mind.


Since we do not have Biafra anymore, a smart choice would be to build this country harnessing all its positives rather than seeking to re-establish an old ideology of smash and grab which will not be consistent with any modern progressive country.

The Irish fought for self determination in the early 20th century but in the early 21st century take orders from a central body which the so-called former overlords actually influence. Maybe this call for a new Biafra is caused by a refusal to awaken from a very bad dream OR inability to actually work with and collaborate with neighbours to build a symbiotic relationship.

7842I:

The Demola guy is just seeking for attention, but a butterfly can never graduate to a bird

Usually when a man attacks the messenger and carefully ignores the message, people usually tag said fellow with the metaphorical ostrich that buries its head in the sand as a means to avoid a predator. Can someone write a rebuttal of this really long article and save us the 'He is more accomplished than you' line. Which by the way is another chest beating excercise which the writer had identified as a problem.

Is Prof. A.B.C. Nwosu also a liar?

Please read for yourself:







Achebe: Best Late Than Never

Guardian Newspaper
MONDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2012 00:00 BY A. B. C. NWOSU OPINION - COLUMNISTS  

I AM of the view that the spate of comments elicited from Nigerians and non-Nigerians by Prof. Chinua Achebe’s latest book: There Was A Country is good for our development as a nation because it provides us again with another opportunity for national exhalation of “bad ethnic breath”, so that reconciliation and genuine inter-ethnic mix can happen.

We had the earlier opportunity provided by the Justice Oputa Truth and Reconciliation Committee with Rev. Father (now Bishop) Matthew Hassan Kukah as secretary. I, therefore, read and retain all the comments and interviews by various individuals on the book as I came across them. It has been such a very long time from that horrid period (over 40 years), and we have moved on with our lives, that we should by now be able to reflect on these terrible events without being terrified of them. Achebe’s book has, therefore, come at the right time.

There is, however, this very curious write-up by Kole Omotosho (who is also a writer) titled: “The Trouble With Achebe” on page 19 of The Vanguard October 26, 2012, in which he quoted and agreed with a belittling review of Achebe’s book by William Wallis of the London Financial Times. Omotosho made much of this review. But what did Omotosho really expect on Biafra from William Wallis and London Financial Times? Achebe in his book had castigated Britain for its well-established anti-Biafra, anti-Igbo role in the entire crisis. Bluntly stated, Ndigbo (not only Achebe) hold the British Government responsible for having masterminded the pogrom and genocide against Biafrans, so to many of us, Mr. Wallis wrote what he had to write. So much for the Financial Times, the British, Mr. Wallis and his review of Achebe’s book.

Omotosho should also have quoted Nadine Gordimer, winner of the Nobel prize in Literature, who said that the book “exceeds all expectation”.

I went back to re-read Omotosho’s well-researched novel “Just Before Dawn” published in 1988 by Spectrum Books Ibadan. In his three-page acknowledgements, he had mentioned two persons who particularly excited my attention. The first person is Anthony Kirk-Greene whose two volumes titled: “Crisis And Conflict In Nigeria: A Documentary Source Book 1966-1970”, are a must-read for anyone truly interested in finding out the truth about the Nigerian crisis of 1966 and the Nigeria-Biafra War 1967-1970. The Kirk-Greene volumes are a repository of first-hand information consisting of over 227 broadcasts, press releases, speeches and official reports.

If, therefore, I had Omotosho’s opportunity to meet with Mr. Kirk-Greene, I would have asked questions on two documents namely: Document No. 104 (p.414) titled by Mr. Kirk-Greene as “Awolowo promises West will secede if East does,” dated May 1, 1967. Also, Document No. 109 (p.425) dated May 26, 1967 and titled: “Hassan Katsina’s interview on the Withdrawal of Northern Troops from the West.” These documents are important because the two subjects, as well as the possibility of a “Southern Solidarity” and Aburi Agreement, were extensively and frankly discussed at the Enugu meeting on Saturday and Sunday May 6 and 7, 1967, between Lt.-Col. Odimegwu Ojukwu (as he was then) and Chief Obafemi Awolowo and their teams. Prior to this meeting, the refusal of Yakubu Gowon to withdraw military personnel from the West and Lagos had been given as the principal reason why Chief Awolowo withdrew from the Ad-Hoc Conference on April 24, 1967.

Another person acknowledged was the Igbo legend, Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani (Zik’s long-time confidant and Arthur Nwankwo’s maternal uncle). I would be surprised that Omotosho was hosted by Dr. Ikejiani in Nova Scotia Canada, where he lived after the war, without hearing from him his strong views on the 1952 Western Nigeria elections, the January 1966 Military coup, events in Biafra, which he served loyally as ambassador plenipotentiary, and about his struggles over his “abandoned properties” in Port Harcourt and Lagos. These and other subjects are well-covered in Dr. Ikejiani’s 593-page autobiography titled: “The Unrepentant Nationalist” published in 2007.

In his autobiography, Dr. Ikejiani, who lived in Ibadan in 1952, wrote extensively (pp. 197-200) on the “cross-carpet” episode detailing his role and involvement and named NCNC-elected members who he and others had approached on the aegis of the party not to “cross-over” which they did, the next day. However, Dr. Ikejiani in his autobiography, also said that on reflection, he had come to terms with the “cross-carpet” issue, given that Nigeria comprised of ethnic nationalities that had not yet become a nation. Dr. Ikejiani is revered by Ndigbo and his attitude summarises the Igbo position on that 1952 Western Elections affair. It is not a big deal with Ndigbo who have since gone beyond it. But the “crossing over” or “crossing of carpet” did take place and that is all that has been said. Omotosho begs the question by saying Zik would not have done for the West what Awo did for them. May be; may be not. The bottom line is that Ndigbo generally accept the reality that Chief Awolowo needed to govern Western Nigeria at that time in Nigeria’s development as a nation, and that is really it. Achebe did not dwell on this in his latest book, and so Omotosho’s dismissal of Achebe’s reference to Awolowo (on another matter altogether) and describing Chief Awolowo as Achebe’s “bête noir” is petty and is neither here nor there.


Back to Achebe’s latest book, which I believe is a great work that will serve its purpose when the present furore subsides because the facts and truths raised by the book about Nigeria’s history cannot be submerged. They will always rise to the surface. It is a 333-page, four-part (Part I-IV) book covering from Achebe’s childhood to the Civil War and after, with copious footnotes showing Achebe’s sources and interspersed with poems. I am convinced after reading the book that its aim is not to drag Ndigbo and Nigeria backwards but is meant for us to acknowledge certain events of our national history like the Nigeria-Biafra War, pogrom and genocide, and to analyse those horrific events honestly for ourselves and ask questions why those events occurred so as to guard and protect the country from future occurrences. Denying continually that the events happened especially in the face of weighty evidence is sheer hypocrisy and impedes the development of a national ethos. There is an Igbo saying that ‘a child who does not enquire as to what or who killed his father sooner or later suffers the same fate’.

Some of the facts of our nation’s history, which will facilitate a better understanding of Achebe’s book, which devoted over two-thirds to the 1966 crisis and the 1967-1970 war are as follows: Post-Independence Nigeria had lost its salt and violence had erupted resulting in a military coup in January 1966. The coup was nationally acclaimed especially in Western Nigeria and Lagos for obvious reasons. There was a counter-coup in July 1966 followed by well-orchestrated pogrom against Ndigbo, resulting from the reactions of soldiers and others of northern Nigeria origin to the January 1966 coup, which later came to be regarded as an “Igbo coup”. Following the pogrom, there was exodus of Ndigbo from other parts of Nigeria to their homeland (Eastern Nigeria), thereby creating serious rehabilitation problems. An ad-hoc national conference was convened by the Federal Government under Gowon to defuse the tensions and insecurity arising from the impasse. Chief Awolowo who had just been released from Calabar Prison led the Yoruba to that Ad-Hoc conference.


Continued from yesterday

THE Conference could not continue as a result of the withdrawal of the Eastern Nigeria delegation led by Sir Francis Ibiam because they feared for their safety arising from the continued presence of soldiers of Northern Nigeria origin from the West and Lagos. The impasse and stalemate continued. On Monday May 1, 1967, Chief Obafemi Awolowo delivered an address to the meeting of leaders of thought of the West and Lagos at Agodi Ibadan titled: “The Four Imperatives”. Imperative number three stated that if  “Eastern Nigeria through acts of omission and commission left the federation, the West and Lagos would follow suit.” The exact text of the speech is in “Awo’s Book on the Civil War” (pages 18-24) that is being run now by the Tribune newspaper.

On Saturday, May 6 and Sunday, May 7, 1967, Chief Awolowo led a delegation of the National Conciliation Committee to a meeting in Enugu with Lt.-Col. Chukwuemeka Odimegwu Ojukwu (as he then was) and his team. The meeting failed to achieve its stated objectives. I have read and re-read the transcripts of the Enugu meeting over and over again and cannot find the basis for Odia Ofeimun’s assertion that the Enugu meeting discussed the “creation of states” in Nigeria. I repeat that I find no evidence for this in the transcripts of the meeting as published. Chief Awolowo’s central objective for the Enugu meeting was to persuade Ojukwu for Eastern Nigeria to send representatives to participate at future “National Conciliation” meetings; the Ad-Hoc Conference convened by Yakubu Gowon having become defunct. Also discussed very extensively were the plight of the East as a consequence of the pogrom, the “blockade of Eastern Nigeria”, the Aburi Agreement, “Southern Solidarity, and withdrawal of soldiers of Northern Nigeria origin from the West and Lagos. All these are to be found in the verbatim report of the meeting. Creation of states, which Ofeimun claimed was the “sticking point”, did not feature in the discussions. The parting comment of Chief Awolowo at the Enugu meeting is quoted in full here below: “I am grateful to you (Ojukwu) for the enlightened stand you have taken all along - the stand for freedom and equality for all the regions of the federation. I hope that we shall succeed. May I end by praying the people of Eastern Region that there is no doubt that they are suffering not only for themselves but for others and I do pray that their suffering will not be in vain.”

The stalemate continued and a Sovereign State of Biafra was declared on May 30, 1967 (more than three weeks after the Enugu meeting!). Chief Awolowo became appointed the Federal Commissioner (Minister) of Finance and Vice Chairman of the reconstituted Federal Executive Council, which was inaugurated by then Maj.-Gen. Gowon on June 12, 1967. Nigeria declared war on the fledgling state of Biafra early in July 1967. It was supposed to be a war of national unity, a war “to keep Nigeria one” and was expected to be of a short duration. An operational Code of Conduct had been issued for the Nigerian Army in June 1967 and signed by the Commander-in-Chief, Maj.-Gen. Gowon.

However as it happened, the Nigeria -Biafra war lasted for thirty months in the course of which over two million Biafran children died as a result of a deliberate “Policy of Famine” by the Nigerian government, and defenceless civilians were massacred at Asaba and elsewhere in flagrant disobedience to known codes of conduct of armies, the world over. Many of the starving, kwashiorkor children were evacuated to Gabon and other places and are now permanently “lost” in the Diaspora. Chief Awolowo publicly defended this policy of starvation. When the war ended in January 1970, Maj.-Gen. Gowon magnanimously made his “no victor, no vanquished” and “3Rs” declaration, for which he is still widely applauded by Ndigbo and the world.   However, there were very serious hiccups in the implementation of Gowon’s post-war declaration starting from the obnoxious “twenty pounds” “ex-gratia” award and the infamous “abandoned properties” saga.

Ndigbo have moved on with their lives working on the premise that they have received all the accommodation that existing structures in post-civil war Nigeria would yield to them. They have worked, scratched and clawed their way back into the Nigerian society and economy to the chagrin of all who did not wish them well. Meanwhile, the country drifted from one crisis to another, from one “transition” to another, what Achebe called “Painful Transitions” (p.243), and has not been able to achieve sustained economic growth and development.

Forty years after the end of the Nigeria-Biafra war, the country still struggles along, unable to develop into a well-rounded nation-state that operates a modern economy, and still unable to cater for the basic needs of its over one hundred and fifty million citizens, despite the enormous petrodollars it has earned during this period. Most importantly, the country has failed to define and assert fully what citizenship of Nigeria means in practical terms especially as it relates to the protection of lives and property.

The summary of Achebe’s contention in his latest book is simply that Nigeria can do better and must strive to do better. He proffers solutions and even gives his recipe on how Nigeria can address and improve the present unwholesome state of our politics, our economy and our society. This is what is expected of every patriot. I am convinced that after Achebe’s fiercest critics must have seen and read the book “There Was A Country”, they would find that their abuse has been unfounded and misplaced. It is then that they can participate in a frank national conversation on the book and the redefinition of the future of our country can begin.

To trigger the national conversation, Achebe has said that his latest book seeks to raise questions and perhaps also “cause a few headaches”. For sure, the book has certainly caused many headaches but it is important for the headaches and even belly aches to subside so that the nation can address the questions raised by “There Was A Country”. It is possible that as we examine frankly and dispassionately some of the questions raised, the headaches may develop into severe migraine. It does not matter: the questions need to be raised, addressed and redressed, more than forty years after the end of the civil war, so that Nigeria can move forward faster.

For example, we need to examine whether the January 15, 1966, military coup in Nigeria was truly an “Igbo coup” to foster Igbo domination. Why then did the July 1966 “counter coup” or “revenge coup” degenerate into a pogrom to be followed by the exodus of Ndigbo from all parts of Nigeria? Why did the entire Nigerian populace keep quiet as Ndigbo were hunted down all over Nigeria? Why could the non-Igbo not develop a collective voice against the pogrom? Why was it expedient for soldiers to breach the established military code of conduct in executing the civil war? Why was mass-starvation of innocent Biafran children necessary in a civil war? Was it important to reiterate this wicked policy at international conferences? Why the twenty-pound “ex-gratia” award (irrespective of the amount proven in an account) to further deprive an already devastated people coming out of war from a means of starting all over again? Why were there “abandoned properties” in a country that had become one again? Why the continued marginalisation of Ndigbo as exemplified by its five-states structure compared to the other zones, which have six and seven states? Why can Nigeria not develop to a modern country like the Asian tigers? These are some of the questions arising from There Was A Country that I shall give my views on in an attempt to kick-start a “conversation”.

Continued from yesterday.

WITH regard to the January 15, 1966 coup, being branded an “Igbo coup”, Ndigbo do not believe that it was, given (among other considerations) that Zik was president (albeit ceremonial) and Ironsi was the head of the Army. Ndigbo were not marginalised. So what was an “Igbo-coup” in 1966 supposed to achieve for Ndigbo? Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani was convinced in his autobiography (p.369) that it was not an “Igbo coup”, “even if most of the officers were Igbo and the executors had been misled”. The Special Branch Report on the events of January 15, 1966; Brigadier Hilary Njoku’s blow-by-blow account of how the coup was foiled (“Tragedy Without Heroes”); Peter Enahoro’s 743 page bombshell of a book titled: Then Spoke The Thunder; the published accounts of planners and executors of the coup namely Major Adegboyega (“Why We Struck”), Colonel Gbulie (“Nigeria’s Five Majors”); and now the unpublished manuscript of Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna (revealed in some detail by Odia Ofeimun) have raised very serious doubts reading the branding of the January 15 Coup as an “Igbo coup” for the domination of Nigeria. The facts simply do not add up. I shall stop at this point until the national conversation becomes much more rigorous especially in the scrutiny of the “Ifeajuna Manuscript” (because known facts of the January 15, 1966, suggest that Major Ifeajuna not Major Nzeogwu was the brain behind the coup). For example, the Special Branch Report is explicit that planning of the coup began in August 1965 but Major Nzeogwu joined only in October 1965.

We in the East have been vaguely aware of the “Ifeajuna Manuscript” but did not know that Chief Obafemi Awolowo knew of it and had obtained the actual manuscript (whose major revelation was that the coup-makers intended to make Chief Awolowo Prime Minister) as far back as 1967, as Odia has revealed. Achebe reveals in the latest book that he had read the “Ifeajuna manuscript” having received it from Christopher Okigbo. If only he and Citadel Press had published it!

With this background on the January 15, 1966 coup, why then did the counter-coup, the revenge-coup of July 1966 not stop at “revenge” killings of officers and soldiers of Igbo origin? Achebe had written earlier in one of his published essays and in his latest book that if the “revenge-coup” had stopped with the killing of soldiers and officers, it would have been seen and regarded by Ndigbo as a “horrendous tit-for-tat”, and the exodus of Ndigbo from Nigeria, secession and war would never have taken place. I agree with him. So why then were ordinary civilians killed? Why and how did northern civilians get involved with soldiers in executing the pogrom? Why did the pogrom continue even after the May 29, 1966, broadcast by the military governor of the North; Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s appeal for calm to Easterners in the North on May 30, 1966; and the statement issued by the Supreme Military Council on June 8, 1966? Why did Ndigbo have to flee from Lagos and Ibadan? (I fled the University of Ibadan where I was a scholarship student, our Igbo lecturers, professors and Vice-Chancellor, Prof. K. O. Dike, also fled.). How did matters degenerate to this stage as the Federal Government became impotent to protect Ndigbo as citizens of Nigeria? Why did non-Igbos except for very few (like Wole Soyinka, Tai Solarin notably) lose their voices as they looked on at the horrors? Ndigbo ascribe to this silence and acquiescence of non-Igbos that they (non-Igbos) believed that the pogrom served us Ndigbo right. It was a very bad feeling at the time. This bad feeling needs now to be expurgated. But before then, the feeling like expired breath needs to be exhaled.

Ndigbo in 1967 expected Chief Awolowo to speak out especially on the non-implementation of the Aburi Agreement, which had become the “sticking point” on which secession was declared (“On Aburi We Stand”). At the Enugu meeting on Sunday, May 7,  (p.81) Chief Awolowo had said that:

“With regard to Aburi, I was taken into confidence by the military governor of the West, and I can assure you that he was quite as valiant as he could be in seeking to get the decisions taken at Aburi implemented, and during my recent discussions with Gowon, I told him that it was improper, most improper, for any civil servant to sit in judgment over decisions taken by the highest authority in the land”.

He continued: “I have met a lot of people in Western Nigeria; not one of them suggested that the stand you (Ojukwu) took was wrong. On the contrary, they all supported the stand you took (on Aburi)”.

One can, therefore, imagine how horrified Ndigbo and Biafra were when the Biafra Information network reported that apart from Chief Awolowo’s defence of starvation policy, “Awolowo’s attitude towards ceasefire and peace talks proposals were negative throughout. On arrival in London, he said: “The rebels had committed a crime and must be punished”. These statements were quoted verbatim and are reported by Suzane Cronje on page 115-116 in her book: The World and Nigeria, published in 1972. Ndigbo were perplexed by such a drastic change of attitude and since the end of the war, have asked themselves why it was that these things happened.

Ndigbo do not accept that the “Igbo-coup” (spurious as it was) was reason enough to have produced a pogrom of the ferocity of 1966. We believe that the pogrom resulted from deep-seated hatred of Ndigbo. Havard-educated Prof. Amy Chua formerly of Princeton, now of Yale in her 2003 bestseller titled: World on Fire (346 pages) posits that ethnic cleansing assaults and ethnically targeted confiscations in a country are not spontaneous; they are always sponsored and encouraged by governments. In her analysis, such acts are triggered by circumstances such as the January 15, 1966 coup, fueled by hate-filled demagogues, passionately supported by an aroused and angry “indigenous” majority motivated by tremendous feelings of grievance. So it appeared to have been with Ndigbo who had become labelled in a half-insulting and half-admiring manner as “Jews of Nigeria” in the 1960s. Prof. Chua without being specific to the Igbo (who she discussed severally in her book) lists behaviour, which “indigenous majorities” find objectionable as “acting insularly”, indulging in “conspicuous consumption” and the “flaunting of their ethnic pride”.

Achebe in his latest book has been more specific on the tendencies that Ndigbo must put in check as they interact with the others. Ndigbo have listened to Achebe’s admonitions and advice and are using their tongues to count their teeth, but are insisting that the other micro nations in Nigeria should do likewise, because these other ethnic nationalities also have their own faults. It is when the various ethnic nationalities treat each one another with reciprocal understanding and tolerance that a national character will begin to emerge and the nation will face the 21st Century world with hope and optimism.

As we embark on this new journey, Achebe insists that there are no-go areas like pogrom, mass-killings and ethnic-motivated violence. In his lecture: Africa Is People in Paris 1998 he said, “Our humanity is contingent on the humanity of our fellows. No person or group can be human alone. We rise above the animal together or not at all. If we learned that lesson even this late in the day, we would have taken a truly millennial step forward”. I hope that Achebe’s traducers are listening. We all can begin now to build the new Nigeria of our dreams; a Nigeria that caters for the basic needs of its citizens; a Nigeria that is a pride to Africa and Black peoples of the world, if we mean to do so: This is what Achebe’s book exhorts us to do and I suspect this is why he paid a tribute to Madiba, Nelson Mandela at the end of the book.

Achebe has not changed one bit. In the Trouble With Nigeria published in 1983 (almost 30 years ago), he had said:

“I believe that Nigeria is a nation favoured by Providence. I believe that there are individuals, as well as nations who on account of peculiar gifts and circumstances are commandeered by history to facilitate mankind’s advancement. Nigeria is such a nation. The vast human and material wealth with which she is endowed bestows on her a role in Africa and the world, which no one else can assume or fulfill. The fear that should rightly haunt our leaders (but does not) is that they may have betrayed irretrievably Nigeria’s high destiny.” He then asks and answers for us a very disturbing question: “We have lost the twentieth Century; are we bent on seeing that our children also lose the twenty-first? God forbid!”

In his keynote address at the “Guardian Silver Jubilee” in Lagos on October 9, 2008 titled: “What Is Nigeria To Me?,” Achebe said:

“Being a Nigerian is abysmally frustrating and unbelievably exciting. Nigeria needs help. Nigerians have their work cut out for them - to coax Nigeria along the path of useful creative development. We are the parents of Nigeria, not vice-versa. A generation will come if we do our work patiently and well - and given luck - a generation that will call Nigeria father or mother. But not yet.”

He concludes his thoughts on There Was A Country: as he writes (p.252) “Nigeria’s story has not been, entirely, one long, unrelieved history of despair. Fifty years after independence, Nigerians have begun to ask themselves the hard questions: How can the state of anarchy be reversed? What are the measures that can be taken to prevent corrupt candidates from recycling themselves into positions of leadership? Young Nigerians have often come to me desperately seeking solutions to several conundrums: How do we begin to solve these problems in Nigeria? Where the structures are present but there is no accountability.”

This is Achebe for us, a world-acclaimed writer deeply concerned about his people and his country, Nigeria; an extra-ordinary person, very clear-headed but reticent. He is not given to frivolities. Consistency is his hallmark. Whenever he speaks, he is blunt, fearless and to the point, but always measures his words. At almost 82 years of age, he has spoken again that it is not too late for us to mend our ways and salvage our destiny. So fellow Nigerians, what are we waiting for? Let the national conversation begin on the way to truly transform Nigeria into a great nation.

• Concluded.

• Nwosu is a former Minister of Health, Federal Republic of Nigeria.

ow11:


You have no proof that Biafra would be a progressive country had Gowon chosen to not quash the rebellion. In fact all hard evidence (leaving the propaganda and hearsay stories aside), point to a paranoid dictator out to achieve his childish aims at any cost including millions of his kinsmen. Equatorial Guinea comes to mind.


Since we do not have Biafra anymore, a smart choice would be to build this country harnessing all its positives rather than seeking to re-establish an old ideology of smash and grab which will not be consistent with any modern progressive country.

The Irish fought for self determination in the early 20th century but in the early 21st century take orders from a central body which the so-called former overlords actually influence. Maybe this call for a new Biafra is caused by a refusal to awaken from a very bad dream OR inability to actually work with and collaborate with neighbours to build a symbiotic relationship.

Usually when a man attacks the messenger and carefully ignores the message, people usually tag said fellow with the metaphorical ostrich that buries its head in the sand as a means to avoid a predator. Can someone write a rebuttal of this really long article and save us the 'He is more accomplished than you' line. Which by the way is another chest beating excercise which the writer had identified as a problem.

I printed out Damola Awoyokun's review yesterday.
I could not look through during my office hour, but did on my way home.
Sentiments from the dissapointing prof,elder,father,leader has reduced to some extent the kind of respect I and some other Nigerian youths have for this man.
He actually should not have allowed emotion to becloud his judgement. However, TO ERR IS HUMAN.
It is just a proof that no matter how high he is in the literary world, He has his emotional part.
However, condemning others for everything bad, and praising your igbos for everything right can be likened to
A REFEREE JUBILATING WITH A PLAYING TEAM AFTER A GOAL WHEN HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL.
HE WROTE THE BOOK AS AN IGBO, NOT AS A LITERARY ICON. MY OPINION.

ow11:


You have no proof that Biafra would be a progressive country had Gowon chosen to not quash the rebellion. In fact all hard evidence (leaving the propaganda and hearsay stories aside), point to a paranoid dictator out to achieve his childish aims at any cost including millions of his kinsmen. Equatorial Guinea comes to mind.


Since we do not have Biafra anymore, a smart choice would be to build this country harnessing all its positives rather than seeking to re-establish an old ideology of smash and grab which will not be consistent with any modern progressive country.

The Irish fought for self determination in the early 20th century but in the early 21st century take orders from a central body which the so-called former overlords actually influence. Maybe this call for a new Biafra is caused by a refusal to awaken from a very bad dream OR inability to actually work with and collaborate with neighbours to build a symbiotic relationship.





Usually when a man attacks the messenger and carefully ignores the message, people usually tag said fellow with the metaphorical ostrich that buries its head in the sand as a means to avoid a predator. Can someone write a rebuttal of this really long article and save us the 'He is more accomplished than you' line. Which by the way is another chest beating excercise which the writer had identified as a problem.

I honestly do not think you are as bad as your stream of thoughts. What proof do you have Nigeria will be a progressive country when the so-called nationalists sought for its independence? I know sometimes you come across as a deluded and off-the-hinge irritant. If you think in your infinite wisdom, which seemed to be none in existence, think a group seeking for independent nation has to prove to be progressively viable before gaining sovereignty then you do not deserve any response.

I am not surprised you arrived at this jaundice and unintelligible conclusion that “Ojukwu was a paranoid dictator out to achieve his childish aims at any cost”. I knew people of real Ijo ancestry, unlike you, who fought and died for Biafra.

demmie1:

I answered ur innocent question, I think I hit something you have a guilt about. Or is it that you can't stop feeling miserable for your life?

Are you as deluded as you ancestral chap named Demola Awoyokun? You can not provide answers to questions not asked. I can not humanly pose a question to a rotten stump such as you.

[size=14pt]a word is enough for the wise......
minutes of the meeting between Awo and Ojukwu[/size]

Here is the true account of what took place as taken from scripts
of the discussion between Papa and Chief Ojukwu (the Ikemba). The
discussion was taped by the Ikemba and the recorder was captured after
Enugu fell.

On Saturday, May 6, 1967, at 5.15 pm, a meeting began to take place,
at the State House, Enugu, between the then Excellency, Lt. Col.
Odumegwu Ojukwu (the Ikemba) and a delegation of the National
Conciliation Committee (Committee) led by the most Honorable Chief
Obafemi Awolowo. The Committee was represented by Professor Samuel
Aluko, Chief Mariere, Chief J.I. Onyia, while the Eastern Region was
represented by Lt. Col Imo, Lt. Col Effiong, Lt. Col. Kurubo, Mr. C.O
Mojekwu, Mr. N.U. Akpan, Professor Eni Njoku, Dr. Nwakanma Okoro,
Dr. P.N.C. Okigbo, Mr. C.A. Onyegbale and Mr. Ndem with the Ikemba
presiding over the meeting. The names are listed for the purpose
of verification of facts presented herein below with those of them who
may still be alive..............
.......
Papa: The main concern of these delegates is to ensure that Nigeria
does not disintegrate, and I would like to see Nigeria bound
together by any bond because it is better than breaking the
whole place up because each unit will be the loser for it.
The economy of the country is so integrated that it is too late
in the day to try and sever them without risking the death of
one or both of them. So we have come, therefore, to appeal
to you to let Eastern representatives attend the meeting of
the Committee (ON-GOING NATIONAL CONCILIATION MEETING)
I do not want to put myself in a position where I will be treated
as an advocate of the Eastern cause. Let the Eastern delegates
go there, make their case and then as a member of the Committee
I will get up and say I support this entirely. If at the meeting
the East and West present what they want for a new Nigeria
whether temporarily or permanently, and the North says "no,
we are not going to have it", I will go out and address a
World Press Conference and send our case to that body and say
this is what we have done and the North has turned it down.
I will then take any step that is necessary to bring into effect
what we want. The North needed to be in a position of being
presented with the United front of the South.

Ikemba: I started off this struggle in July with 120 rifles to defend
the entirety of the East. I took my stand knowing fully well
that by doing so, whilst carving my name in history, I was
signing also my death warrant. But I took it because I believe
that this stand is vital to the survival of the South. I
appealed for settlement quietly because I understood that
this was a Unclad struggle for power and that the only time
we can sit down and decide the future of Nigeria on basis
of equality will always be equality of arms. Quietly, I
built up. If you do not know it, I am proud, and my officers
are proud, that here in the East we possess the biggest
army in Black Africa. I am no longer speaking as an underdog,
I am speaking from a position of power. The only
way for the
South to present a united front is for the South to meet and
hammer out that united front. It is a point which must be
cleared first before proceeding to make a statement of whatever
it is. That is why to my mind, at the present stage of the
crisis the ideal thing is for the Southern people to meet
in any platform and discuss and hammer out any difference
they might have because I will have nothing to do with the North.
Then going further, it would then mean that to do this the South
to meet; because if we wait for their permission, we will
wait for ever. On the specific question of whether there is
a possibility of contract with the North, the answer is at the
battle field.

Papa: I do appreciate the points you have made, especially the suggestion
the South could take the bull by the horns, convene a meeting
of its leaders and work out its salvation. Well, I must say
that a number of factors have been overlooked in this regard.
I would be quite willing to attend any meeting convened by the
leaders of the South in the South, but it must be realized
that we in the West are in a very difficult position. All the
members of the bodyguard of the Military Governor of the Western
Region were Northerners; there were over 36,000 soldiers in
the whole of the West, most of whom were Northerners, and all of
them carry arms..... I led a delegation to Lt. Col. Gowon on the
7th and at that interview I made it clear on behalf of the West
that if the soldiers of Northern origin were not removed from
the West we would not attend any further meetings of the Ad Hoc
Committee. He said he would do something, of course he did not.
We passed our resolution (THAT THE NORTHERN SOLDIERS SHOULD BE
REMOVED FROM THE WEST) and Col. Adebayo did very well and give
us certain Yoruba officers with whom to go and deliver the
petition to Lt. Col. Gowon. I did give him an ultimatum up
to the 15th of May to remove these Northern soldiers from the
West. Of course, he agreed to remove them by the 31st of May
but the time we returned to Ibadan Northern soldiers had taken
up arms and wanted to kill me, to kill Adebayo and all others.
Just now Adebayo does not sleep in his house. Somebody told
me that he has not been sleeping in his house. I know why they
put two policemen with two rifles in front of my house the other
day. Of course, I rang up and said I wanted them removed. There
were policemen in front of Sardauna's house but they did not save
him. The populace, of course, turned against the Northern
soldiers. I don't know why Adebayo should issue the release
that soldiers should not be taunted. But this is the way we
have been doing our quiet fighting. You are remote from the
West; you have advantages which we do not possess. We cannot
rush without rushing to our death at the same time. We are not
cowards in the West but we have to move cautiously, because if
we do not do that you might not have us alive; you would only
have monuments all over the place.
And I may say in this connection of Southern solidarity -- I am
sorry to go into what has happened in the past -- in 1953 there
was an understanding between the banned NCNC and the banned
Action Group; we entered into an agreement, which I hope we will
use sometime, to the effect that if the North remained intransigent
we would declare a Southern Dominion. This was signed by myself
and Zik and I still stand by it; but we prefer that you should
send your delegates to this meeting, so that we should, known
to everyone, enter into negotiations among ourselves and present
a common front to the North. Then nobody can accuse us of
conspiracy or trying to divide the country into two parts. I
want you to look at it from our point of view. If there were
no Northern soldiers in the West the position would be different.
And even if by the time I return home the Northern soldiers have
gone I still do not want to be accused of perfidy. The issue
at hand is not enough for us to say that we do not like the North.
That is a negative approach. I think a positive approach will
be for us to meet. Unity will last only if it is based on common
understanding among us and the basis will start at this meeting.
As I said before, I want you to give me a chance of meeting
your people regularly. Let us reolve our differences and
get what we want and quickly too.

Ikemba: If the reason is to get a platform for a meeting between the
Southern leaders, I agree very much that we should try and find
a platform and here we seem to be presented with a fait accompli.
The Southern leaders are here now, so the main thing is to go
on and discuss.

Papa: It will be something near fraud for us to sit down here and
discuss in terms of the South especially as this delegation was
sent here by a body consisting of the Northern delegation....

Ikemba: Now coming to the wider question of the East attending, if it
is a Reconciliation COmmittee then it must be reconciling warring
parties. A Reconciliation Committee can not have the parties
within, somehow, it does not work, unless, of course, they have
already agreed on the major issues, because reconciliation
is to stay in the middle of the warring parties. And one thing
is so clear in the Nigerian situation: certainly the North
and the East are warring. For any Reconciliation Committee to
do justice to the East, it should not have Easterners and
Northerners
in it. That is one point. How does the Reconciliation Committee
expect us to go to Lagos ? Can you, Sir, imagine Sir Kashim
Ibrahim coming to the East to meet and discuss ? The critical
point of the Eastern stand is that the East cannot go to any place
where there are Northern troops. That tells his own story.
The North has made it abundantly clear that no association
if they are not controlling the central machinery, is acceptable
to them. Even in the face of the resolutions of the South,
the Emirs, feudalist Emirs, had the audacity to dictate to the
South; first that they will not allow the Northern troops to leave
the West until they are satisfied that the West has got sufficient
troops.

Papa: You have talked about Easterners and Northerners trying to go to
the same meeting and bringing about reconciliation because they
are the two warring parties. I do not think the fight is between
the East and the North alone. It affects all other parts of the
country save that there is no quarrel between the East and the
West and Mid-West. The fight involves all of us. The West
at this moment, has its own complaints against the North. The fact
that we went there particularly so soon after my withdrawal
from the Ad Hoc Constitutional Committee, which I observed was
set up by the Federal Government to wage war against the East
instead of trying to put things in check, must assure you that
we are resolved to find a solution to this.
You have also spoken about Lagos or anywhere in the West as
unsafe for the Easterners to hold a meeting. Nobody can
tell when life will be lost, but I think, speaking the minds of
entire people of Western Nigeria and Mid-Western Nigeria, that if
anybody can at this stage take the life of an Ibo man or an
Easterner, or if any outstanding Eastern loses his life by the
act of someone else, the whole of the Western Region and the
Mid-Western Region will take it as the end of Nigeria. I
can give that assurance on behalf of Western Nigeria and Lagos."

[End of all the Awo-Ojukwu quotations in the excerpt - Mr. Lanre
Banjo continues:]

This meeting was concluded on Sunday, 7th of May at about 2.15 pm with the
hope to reconvene and with the Ikemba maintaining that the South must
first meet. Before I go further, it would be noted that the Ikemba's view
was maintained due to hindsight (sic: LACK OF FORESIGHT). First, Papa
has just been released from prison for a charge of treasonable felony.
Secondly, he was in Enugu representing the Nigerian National Conciliation
Committee. How could Ikemba expect him to chage and focus on Southern
plan of pulling out of Nigeria ? Papa was more principled than that.
Even prior to his meeting with the Ikemba, he had been falsely accused
of having teamed up with the Ikemba in his campaign against the Federal
Military Government by being in regular touch with him by phone calls
and personal visits to Enugu, to perfect their joint plans. That he had
been sending Professor Aluko and others to Enugu for illegal guerrilla
training. Given this situation, a sudden change to discuss how the South
will unite against the North will definitely confirm the dreadful
and blatant accusations already levelled against him............."

kunlekunle: [size=14pt]a word is enough for the wise......
minutes of the meeting between Awo and Ojukwu[/size]

Here is the true account of what took place as taken from scripts
of the discussion between Papa and Chief Ojukwu (the Ikemba). The
discussion was taped by the Ikemba and the recorder was captured after
Enugu fell.

On Saturday, May 6, 1967, at 5.15 pm, a meeting began to take place,
at the State House, Enugu, between the then Excellency, Lt. Col.
Odumegwu Ojukwu (the Ikemba) and a delegation of the National
Conciliation Committee (Committee) led by the most Honorable Chief
Obafemi Awolowo. The Committee was represented by Professor Samuel
Aluko, Chief Mariere, Chief J.I. Onyia, while the Eastern Region was
represented by Lt. Col Imo, Lt. Col Effiong, Lt. Col. Kurubo, Mr. C.O
Mojekwu, Mr. N.U. Akpan, Professor Eni Njoku, Dr. Nwakanma Okoro,
Dr. P.N.C. Okigbo, Mr. C.A. Onyegbale and Mr. Ndem with the Ikemba
presiding over the meeting. The names are listed for the purpose
of verification of facts presented herein below with those of them who
may still be alive..............
.......
Papa: The main concern of these delegates is to ensure that Nigeria
does not disintegrate, and I would like to see Nigeria bound
together by any bond because it is better than breaking the
whole place up because each unit will be the loser for it.
The economy of the country is so integrated that it is too late
in the day to try and sever them without risking the death of
one or both of them. So we have come, therefore, to appeal
to you to let Eastern representatives attend the meeting of
the Committee (ON-GOING NATIONAL CONCILIATION MEETING)
I do not want to put myself in a position where I will be treated
as an advocate of the Eastern cause. Let the Eastern delegates
go there, make their case and then as a member of the Committee
I will get up and say I support this entirely. If at the meeting
the East and West present what they want for a new Nigeria
whether temporarily or permanently, and the North says "no,
we are not going to have it", I will go out and address a
World Press Conference and send our case to that body and say
this is what we have done and the North has turned it down.
I will then take any step that is necessary to bring into effect
what we want. The North needed to be in a position of being
presented with the United front of the South.

Ikemba: I started off this struggle in July with 120 rifles to defend
the entirety of the East. I took my stand knowing fully well
that by doing so, whilst carving my name in history, I was
signing also my death warrant. But I took it because I believe
that this stand is vital to the survival of the South. I
appealed for settlement quietly because I understood that
this was a Unclad struggle for power and that the only time
we can sit down and decide the future of Nigeria on basis
of equality will always be equality of arms. Quietly, I
built up. If you do not know it, I am proud, and my officers
are proud, that here in the East we possess the biggest
army in Black Africa. I am no longer speaking as an underdog,
I am speaking from a position of power. The only
way for the
South to present a united front is for the South to meet and
hammer out that united front. It is a point which must be
cleared first before proceeding to make a statement of whatever
it is. That is why to my mind, at the present stage of the
crisis the ideal thing is for the Southern people to meet
in any platform and discuss and hammer out any difference
they might have because I will have nothing to do with the North.
Then going further, it would then mean that to do this the South
to meet; because if we wait for their permission, we will
wait for ever. On the specific question of whether there is
a possibility of contract with the North, the answer is at the
battle field.

Papa: I do appreciate the points you have made, especially the suggestion
the South could take the bull by the horns, convene a meeting
of its leaders and work out its salvation. Well, I must say
that a number of factors have been overlooked in this regard.
I would be quite willing to attend any meeting convened by the
leaders of the South in the South, but it must be realized
that we in the West are in a very difficult position. All the
members of the bodyguard of the Military Governor of the Western
Region were Northerners; there were over 36,000 soldiers in
the whole of the West, most of whom were Northerners, and all of
them carry arms..... I led a delegation to Lt. Col. Gowon on the
7th and at that interview I made it clear on behalf of the West
that if the soldiers of Northern origin were not removed from
the West we would not attend any further meetings of the Ad Hoc
Committee. He said he would do something, of course he did not.
We passed our resolution (THAT THE NORTHERN SOLDIERS SHOULD BE
REMOVED FROM THE WEST) and Col. Adebayo did very well and give
us certain Yoruba officers with whom to go and deliver the
petition to Lt. Col. Gowon. I did give him an ultimatum up
to the 15th of May to remove these Northern soldiers from the
West. Of course, he agreed to remove them by the 31st of May
but the time we returned to Ibadan Northern soldiers had taken
up arms and wanted to kill me, to kill Adebayo and all others.
Just now Adebayo does not sleep in his house. Somebody told
me that he has not been sleeping in his house. I know why they
put two policemen with two rifles in front of my house the other
day. Of course, I rang up and said I wanted them removed. There
were policemen in front of Sardauna's house but they did not save
him. The populace, of course, turned against the Northern
soldiers. I don't know why Adebayo should issue the release
that soldiers should not be taunted. But this is the way we
have been doing our quiet fighting. You are remote from the
West; you have advantages which we do not possess. We cannot
rush without rushing to our death at the same time. We are not
cowards in the West but we have to move cautiously, because if
we do not do that you might not have us alive; you would only
have monuments all over the place.
And I may say in this connection of Southern solidarity -- I am
sorry to go into what has happened in the past -- in 1953 there
was an understanding between the banned NCNC and the banned
Action Group; we entered into an agreement, which I hope we will
use sometime, to the effect that if the North remained intransigent
we would declare a Southern Dominion. This was signed by myself
and Zik and I still stand by it; but we prefer that you should
send your delegates to this meeting, so that we should, known
to everyone, enter into negotiations among ourselves and present
a common front to the North. Then nobody can accuse us of
conspiracy or trying to divide the country into two parts. I
want you to look at it from our point of view. If there were
no Northern soldiers in the West the position would be different.
And even if by the time I return home the Northern soldiers have
gone I still do not want to be accused of perfidy. The issue
at hand is not enough for us to say that we do not like the North.
That is a negative approach. I think a positive approach will
be for us to meet. Unity will last only if it is based on common
understanding among us and the basis will start at this meeting.
As I said before, I want you to give me a chance of meeting
your people regularly. Let us reolve our differences and
get what we want and quickly too.

Ikemba: If the reason is to get a platform for a meeting between the
Southern leaders, I agree very much that we should try and find
a platform and here we seem to be presented with a fait accompli.
The Southern leaders are here now, so the main thing is to go
on and discuss.

Papa: It will be something near fraud for us to sit down here and
discuss in terms of the South especially as this delegation was
sent here by a body consisting of the Northern delegation....

Ikemba: Now coming to the wider question of the East attending, if it
is a Reconciliation COmmittee then it must be reconciling warring
parties. A Reconciliation Committee can not have the parties
within, somehow, it does not work, unless, of course, they have
already agreed on the major issues, because reconciliation
is to stay in the middle of the warring parties. And one thing
is so clear in the Nigerian situation: certainly the North
and the East are warring. For any Reconciliation Committee to
do justice to the East, it should not have Easterners and
Northerners
in it. That is one point. How does the Reconciliation Committee
expect us to go to Lagos ? Can you, Sir, imagine Sir Kashim
Ibrahim coming to the East to meet and discuss ? The critical
point of the Eastern stand is that the East cannot go to any place
where there are Northern troops. That tells his own story.
The North has made it abundantly clear that no association
if they are not controlling the central machinery, is acceptable
to them. Even in the face of the resolutions of the South,
the Emirs, feudalist Emirs, had the audacity to dictate to the
South; first that they will not allow the Northern troops to leave
the West until they are satisfied that the West has got sufficient
troops.

Papa: You have talked about Easterners and Northerners trying to go to
the same meeting and bringing about reconciliation because they
are the two warring parties. I do not think the fight is between
the East and the North alone. It affects all other parts of the
country save that there is no quarrel between the East and the
West and Mid-West. The fight involves all of us. The West
at this moment, has its own complaints against the North. The fact
that we went there particularly so soon after my withdrawal
from the Ad Hoc Constitutional Committee, which I observed was
set up by the Federal Government to wage war against the East
instead of trying to put things in check, must assure you that
we are resolved to find a solution to this.
You have also spoken about Lagos or anywhere in the West as
unsafe for the Easterners to hold a meeting. Nobody can
tell when life will be lost, but I think, speaking the minds of
entire people of Western Nigeria and Mid-Western Nigeria, that if
anybody can at this stage take the life of an Ibo man or an
Easterner, or if any outstanding Eastern loses his life by the
act of someone else, the whole of the Western Region and the
Mid-Western Region will take it as the end of Nigeria. I
can give that assurance on behalf of Western Nigeria and Lagos."

[End of all the Awo-Ojukwu quotations in the excerpt - Mr. Lanre
Banjo continues:]

This meeting was concluded on Sunday, 7th of May at about 2.15 pm with the
hope to reconvene and with the Ikemba maintaining that the South must
first meet. Before I go further, it would be noted that the Ikemba's view
was maintained due to hindsight (sic: LACK OF FORESIGHT). First, Papa
has just been released from prison for a charge of treasonable felony.
Secondly, he was in Enugu representing the Nigerian National Conciliation
Committee. How could Ikemba expect him to chage and focus on Southern
plan of pulling out of Nigeria ? Papa was more principled than that.
Even prior to his meeting with the Ikemba, he had been falsely accused
of having teamed up with the Ikemba in his campaign against the Federal
Military Government by being in regular touch with him by phone calls
and personal visits to Enugu, to perfect their joint plans. That he had
been sending Professor Aluko and others to Enugu for illegal guerrilla
training. Given this situation, a sudden change to discuss how the South
will unite against the North will definitely confirm the dreadful
and blatant accusations already levelled against him............."

The above post is one of the series of conjectural craps cull from Nowa Omoigiu's figments of imagination. Is it not inherently moronic to term anything that mainly consisted of imaginary figures from western, midwestern and eastern regions without even a doorman from northern region as “National Conciliation Committee”?

demmie1:

It's the truth...only to the Igbos. Did you know Achebe called Igbos ibos in the book?

So friggn what?

Dendemoron displaying his chronic stupidity like a child displaying his Xmas clothes

Technically, There Was A Country, though not very original in content, is vintage Achebe. It draws you in and never lets go till you are through. It is a fine work. And for much of the textual quality, it excels.

It provides a clear and impassioned viewpoint of the biafran struggle from the viewpoint of an eminent participant. It is well researched, as balanced as a personal piece written from a point of painful remembrance can be. But that is where its beauty ends.

Achebe called it a personal history so he has the right to state every opinion or fact he wrote in it. And i have a right to disagree respectfully.

1. Achebe somehow contrived to make it seem as if all of of Nigeria had and has a visceral hatred for the Igbos. That is not true. Biafra may have had an Igbo majority yet Ijaws, Efiks, Ibibios etc were part of that state. He made mention of this fact a few times, agreed, but his general tone and even a line about all of Nigeria's tribe hating the Igbos speaks more of his opinion.

2. The hoopla about Achebe on Awo has been overblown but yet the point must be made that Achebe over reached. Achebe declared Awolowo a murderously malicious criminal without giving evidence for that. Awolowo advocated Starvation as a weapon of war, but it was not the first resort for him. It was a confluence of bad decisions by Dim Ojukwu, irrational expectations and misplaced priority by biafra, external influences and admittedly an ammoral decision by Awo that led to it. Does this absolve Awo from the responsibility of that policy and its consequences or defend the policy? Definitely not, but available facts, historical antecedents do not back up Achebe's claims as well. As to the fact that Achebe had earlier made this same allegation in the 80's does not make it any more true, it only tells of the age of that impression of Achebe.

Achebe lived through the times, suffered career and personal loses. We can say he’s even lucky to survive. What he did here was write a private memoir. A memoir is not necessarily a work of inviolable truth. It is one man’s recollection and opinion which most times is coloured by his own emotions. I accept it as another account by another notable Nigerian and choose not to make a judgment. Some of us have read Awolowo’s own defence of some of those charges. And just like Achebe’s, I’ve accepted such as his own account of the time.

However, outside individual accounts, I can perfectly make up my mind about what I think happened during the war. Having ploughed through countless historical documents and accounts, I have concluded that it was caused by the immaturity, political inexperience, over-ambition and the lack of patriotism of the military class that took over from the civilians of the First Republic. Every crime committed by one side was equally committed by the other during the war. There are dozens of officers on both sides I would gladly arraign for genocide.

As for such civilian operatives as Awolowo, I really have nothing against them as far as they acted in support of their side by providing ideas that won them the war. That is okay. No matter what anyone believes about Awolowo and the idea to starve Biafra, it’s not anything covered under international law. He was not a military commander. He was an economic planner who had to determine how to use the resources of the state to prosecute a war successfully. If he were a Biafran who used his intellect and management acumen to win the war for Biafra, no one on the Igbo side would have anything bad to say about him. He did what he needed to do as a member of the Federal Executive Council of Nigeria at the time. It has nothing to do with him wanting to belong or wanting to be President, because, no matter what anyone says, that is mere speculation. Awolowo had never hidden his political desire to be Prime Minister or President neither did Zik. It would be churlish to accuse Zik of crossing to the Federal side because he wanted to belong or be President and so on. We are talking a war here and everyone with influence did their bit to avoid it to no avail. Even Awolowo was the only national leader that went to Enugu to see Ojukwu with the aim of averting the war. People should simply accept the reality of the day. Awolowo could have been a Fulani or Hausa General or political leader. He had a side in the war and provided ideas to win that war. To single him out as some demon is to miss the historical reality of the times. The problem as I see it is people getting bogged down in emotional and personal minutiae to the detriment of the issue as a national affair.

So, for me, people should respect what Achebe has done by recalling his own experience in his own way and expressing his opinion of personalities of the time along the line. It is immaterial that he criticizes Awolowo or that he has a view about why Awolowo did this or that. After all, he expresses not so charitable views too about Gowon and Ojukwu as well. We can disagree with his opinion of Awolowo and anybody without turning it into some kind of ethnic war. We can do so without questioning his motive or attributing it to ethnic reasons. Achebe has paid his dues and has shown over the years that he is not beholden to ethnicity. Yes, he didn’t say what he said about Awolowo only because he is Igbo, but also because that is the way he honestly saw it. Of course, he and Awolowo fought on opposite sides and that may have played into his recollection, but that is not exactly disqualifying. An account is just an account. It need not be accepted as the full fact, but should be welcomed as another great addition to Civil War literature. Unfortunately, Awolowo is not alive to defend himself, but he has responded enough to the type of criticism Achebe is putting forward and any good student of history should read all accounts in the context of others. This has just presented the ethnic jingoists on both sides an opportunity to jump and shout, but the two great personalities would not have seen anything ethnic in their criticism or defence respectively.

Well all these discussions haven't stop the book from becoming a number 1 bestseller on Amazon's Nigerian history category. So maybe most people just don't care as much as Nairaland claims?

Did this guy actually read the book before his rebutal? His writeup was too convoluted to make heads or tails of at times. Ot is this another one og these rebutals that relies on 1/64 th of the novel to make a point?

I just got my copy from Amazon (sold out at the bookstores in my area) and I'm going to read it from cover to cover before making my judgement.

^^^^^^ Akpu story.

Eko Ile: ^^^^^^ Akpu story.

Like your mother. Next.

Go and use your fake Lagos broadband internet and go to Amazon lmao.

Fashola's paid b1tch

dayokanu: Dendemoron displaying his chronic stupidity like a child displaying his Xmas clothes

Dayolodo,

You have finally staggered back to life from delusional slumber.

On an internet forum i-e NAIRALAND where many Nigerians (at home and in the Diaspora) identify themselves more by their ethnic affiliations and where trading abuses, curses and hate-speech has become the usual fare, something dramatic happened last Sunday afternoon. The moment the match between Cote D’Voire and Nigeria ended with the Super Eagles coming out victorious against popular prediction, there was a ‘ceasefire’ with everybody suddenly becoming proud to be Nigerian.Segun Adeniyi of Thisday Newspaper[size=8pt][font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font][color=#990000][/color]

modicum: On an internet forum i-e NAIRALAND where many Nigerians (at home and in the Diaspora) identify themselves more by their ethnic affiliations and where trading abuses, curses and hate-speech has become the usual fare, something dramatic happened last Sunday afternoon. The moment the match between Cote D’Voire and Nigeria ended with the Super Eagles coming out victorious against popular prediction, there was a ‘ceasefire’ with everybody suddenly becoming proud to be Nigerian.Segun Adeniyi of Thisday Newspaper[size=8pt][font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font][color=#990000][/color]

Na lie, what happened that day was that the igbo were shouting in joy "we know we can do it if left alone by bigots!" and the rest of the country (especially yoruba) were crying "it is better we lost than allow these igbo boys to dominate the team"

That an article is too long, self indulgent and full of drama doesn't mean it makes any real point. Abeg can someone enlighten me on the said Decree 40 of 1966 and the story that azikiwe's personal bodyguard made up ifeajuna's team.

I smell BS but I stand to be corrected

joeyfire: That an article is too long, self indulgent and full of drama doesn't mean it makes any real point. Abeg can someone enlighten me on the said Decree 40 of 1966 and the story that azikiwe's personal bodyguard made up ifeajuna's team.

I smell BS but I stand to be corrected

Decree 40 was passed by Ironsi’s regime against distribution of leaflets, any form of taunting or dancing to songs regarded as offensive to any group. The original author is a basement fool. By the time I have finished with him\her, a floor moping job would be hard to come by talk less executive editor at PwC Review. The author totally displayed his\her ignorance on military issues. Major Ifeajuna, as the BM (Brigade Major) of 2nd Brigade, Lagos did not need the sentries at Azikiwe’s resident to kill the prime minister. Major Ifeajuna had entire Brigade to himself.

It is documented and on record the cities that witnessed joyous jubilation at the hearing of January 15, 1966 were Lagos and Ibadan.

Crayola1: Well all these discussions haven't stop the book from becoming a number 1 bestseller on Amazon's Nigerian history category. So maybe most people just don't care as much as Nairaland claims?

Did this guy actually read the book before his rebutal? His writeup was too convoluted to make heads or tails of at times. Ot is this another one og these rebutals that relies on 1/64 th of the novel to make a point?

I just got my copy from Amazon (sold out at the bookstores in my area) and I'm going to read it from cover to cover before making my judgement.

please where in Lagos can i get the book?

it is obvious... (going by our NL political brainiacs) as a people we have hardly risen above vain ethnic bigotry. We are like ethno-racist parasites leeching on socially-honest Nigerians; Nigerians who truly seek a Unifying Ideology of Nationhood. It is this sort of acrimonious discourse that quickly fogs the mind and psyche of any unfortunate person who is ill-opportuned to soak up the dribble on this thread (no offense to non-bigots).
This generation is truly tainted by the misdeeds of our founding fathers. We have not made any attempt at reconciliation, rather we continue to fan the flames of ethnic-bigotry, blissfully ignorant of history, earnestly stupid in our hypocritical attempts at social justification and painfully wasteful at building a worthy legacy having risen from the ashes of our unfortunate colonial origins.
We need to unshackle ourselves from the selfish yearnings of figures fast-waning with the painful nuances of history. if it does not make you your brother's keeper, it will make you your brother's killer. The sooner we get off this train-ride to civil conflict, the better (otherwise it will be us on CNN)

truth is always truth and facts are timeless.

Dede1:

Decree 40 was passed by Ironsi’s regime against distribution of leaflets, any form of taunting or dancing to songs regarded as offensive to any group. The original author is a basement fool. By the time I have finished with him\her, a floor moping job would be hard to come by talk less executive editor at PwC Review. The author totally displayed his\her ignorance on military issues. Major Ifeajuna, as the BM (Brigade Major) of 2nd Brigade, Lagos did not need the sentries at Azikiwe’s resident to kill the prime minister. Major Ifeajuna had entire Brigade to himself.

It is documented and on record the cities that witnessed joyous jubilation at the hearing of January 15, 1966 were Lagos and Ibadan.

Dende Mor.on why do you engage in CONSISTENT LYING?
Decree 40 was because of the taunting of the North by the chest beating ibos. Your penchant for concocting lies is unprecedented on this forum.
As for making the Author's life miserable by dealing with him, i laugh in your stvpidity, the guy get brain pass the whole ibos in this world.

Dede1:

Decree 40 was passed by Ironsi’s regime against distribution of leaflets, any form of taunting or dancing to songs regarded as offensive to any group. The original author is a basement fool. By the time I have finished with him\her, a floor moping job would be hard to come by talk less executive editor at PwC Review. The author totally displayed his\her ignorance on military issues. Major Ifeajuna, as the BM (Brigade Major) of 2nd Brigade, Lagos did not need the sentries at Azikiwe’s resident to kill the prime minister. Major Ifeajuna had entire Brigade to himself.

It is documented and on record the cities that witnessed joyous jubilation at the hearing of January 15, 1966 were Lagos and Ibadan.

Dende Mor.on why do you engage in CONSISTENT LYING?
Decree 40 was because of the taunting of the North by the chest beating ibos. Your penchant for concocting lies is unprecedented on this forum.
As for making the Author's life miserable by dealing with him, i laugh in your stvpidity, the guy get brain pass the whole ibos in this world.

seanet01: Dende Mor.on why do you engage in CONSISTENT LYING?
Decree 40 was because of the taunting of the North by the chest beating ibos. Your penchant for concocting lies is unprecedented on this forum.
As for making the Author's life miserable by dealing with him, i laugh in your stvpidity, the guy get brain pass the whole ibos in this world.

seanetolodo1

Please do not convince me that stupidity is a mainstay among certain group of people in Nigeria. The leaflets in discussion were distributed by New Nigerian Newspaper based in Kaduna in order to incite political unrest in northern region after the January 15, 1966 coup.

The song allegedly branded as the handiwork of Celestine Ukwu turned out to be Ijo’s. The two cities that witnessed joyous jubilations were Lagos and Ibadan.

Only a celebrated airhead will remotely insinuate that decree 40 was promulgated because of taunting by a particular group in Nigeria. It has never occurred to me or anyone else I know that a brazen plagiarizer has any brain. Anyway, in Yoruba land the reverse could be the case. What a dunce.