chosen04:

Is this editor not same person who was recently kicked out of Punch over corruption case?

I weep for this country!!!!

BetaThings:

Azu who was ED of Punch was the one that was sent out of Punch. He now writes a column in ThisDay. The person who wrote this is Simeon Kolawole who took over as editor of ThisDay from Segun Adeniyi (when the latter left ThisDay to become the spokesman to Yaradua). Kolawole is one of the hardest hitting of them. I am not saying he is a saint and will not turn if he gets a government appointment, but he is more likely to tell the truth in his writings than the others. When Segun Adeniyi was there, he was always hedging his position by smartly proposing hypotheses of both sides to an issue

sly-k:

Sir, i love how you potrayed the western democracies!

How i wish we Nigerians will start reading in between lines and stop trusting these white people. They are worse than a black in most cases.

Say more of this as often as possible.

cap28:

Can i ask you a question? do you think the carving up of africa by europe in 1885 was "absolute bollocks" ?

how about the amputation of limbs of congolese men, women and children by belgian colonial officers during belgium's colonial rule over Congo?

Are you aware that it was standard practice for belgian soldiers to cut off the hands of congolese men and the br.easts of their wives if their husbands came back from the forests without collecting enough rubber for the lucrative rubber exportation business that Belgium was engaged in at the time?

Are you also aware that german colonial soldiers massacred thousands of rebellious namibian tribes who refused to voluntarily give up their fertile land to make way for german settlers - did you know that many of these tribes were decimated almost into extinction and many were driven into the Namibian desert where they died of dehydration and starvation?

These are just a few of many atrocities that were comitted by white colonial soldiers in africa in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century all in a bid to get their hands on our land and the resources in the land.

Do you consider those incidents to be "relatively absolute bollocks"?

why does this sound like something a white south african or white zimbabwean would say and not a black african?
this argument sounds ominously identical to what white supremacists use in order to excuse their genocide and brutalisation of non white people, actually this argument is normally referred to as the "white man's burden argument" - this is an argument in which the white man states that he had to invade, annex and murder thousands and in some cases millions of blacks for their own good because blacks are naturally uncivilised and need to be brought up to the same standard of civilisation as the superior race (the white race). The argument goes something like this:

" Every abomination that we perpetrated against them was done "for their own good", had we not done what we did these heathen people would still be living in a primitive subhuman state.
At the end of the day they should be grateful that we allowed them to become "independent" states. So what if we handed power to a group of brutal puppet leaders, what does it matter that these puppets are merely our collaborators who are merely ripping off their own people, we couldnt care less, after all africans are not fully human and are used to living in a state of squalor and extreme poverty. The main thing is that we can continue to have access to cheap raw materials and cheap labour. Democracy does not apply when you are dealing with africans as they are too childlike and inferior to appreciate the benefits of such a system. The main thing is that we retain our position in the world and if it means a few million people have to suffer as a result so be it.
Lets face it, without us they wouldnt even know that they were sitting on billions of dollars worth of black gold".

This is the mindset of the average white supremacist - and it seems as if you and them look at black people in the same way.

The problem with your analysis is that it sees everything through the eyes of a white man, in your eyes the white man's way of looking at the world is the correct way, every other way is backward and primitive. According to you the black man should be grateful to the white man because left to his own devices he would not have appreciated the value of crude oil, i would argue that this is an incorrect way to judge a black man's world view, prior to the invasion from the white man the black man had a different civilisation which was serving the needs of his people adequately. The white man perceives the world in terms of money, plunder and exploitation ie capitalism, this is why he left his own country, there was a need for him to venture out into the world, his own countries were poor and therefore he had to explore, occupy and appropriate the wealth of other nations - this is what drives him, but this did not apply to the black man because he already had a land rich in resources, on this basis he had no need to think or behave like the white man. What you are trying to do here is blame the black man for not initially adopting a capitalist outlook which the white man had to adopt out of necessity but which was not necessary for the black man.

Prior to the discovery of crude oil in Oloibiri in 1958, people in the riverine areas were engaged in the palm oil trade with europeans, actually palm oil was one of south eastern nigeria's largest exports, the whites refined it and used it as a lubricant for machinery and also for soap products, did the white man teach us how to grow and harvest palm oil produce ?

i am forced to agree with you that we nigerians are unpatriotic, worship wealth etc etc however there is a reason for that and it is primarily because we have adopted an alien culture ie the white man's love for materialism and unadulterated consumerism. As a conquered race our culture was destroyed and replaced with christianity/islam and capitalism. We were brainwashed into beleiving that our own culture and religion was backward, heathen and primitive, we were told to aspire to be more like our masters, this mentality is now ingrained in the average nigerian and will take extensive re education and reprogramming in order to put us in a mental state where we are capable of thinking in a manner which is devoid of inferiority complex, greed, consumerist and materialistic obsessions and extreme selfishness.

The other reason behind our current backward state is that we are not really a nation, we are merely just a group of diverse people who have been forcefully thrown together and who do not have a common purpose or goal , the northerners want a country governed under sharia law, the igbos do not want to live under such a system and i m pretty sure the non muslim yorubas and other ethnic groups dont want that either and yet we are told that in the interests of "unity" we must remain as one entity for better for worse. Where have you ever seen a country that can progress where all its citizens do not have a common purpose and vision for their country?

if nigeria were to split along ethnic lines i believe that this would engender a spirit of nationalism in each respective ethnic group, with each group wanting to work towards building up and developing their own country.
look at how resourceful the igbos were during the biafran war - they were able to make their own improvised weapons, run schools, courts and markets and even operate their own currency - all this acheived during a state of siege!!!! - it was that nationalistic spirit that kept the igbos going even in the face of so much adversity. Imagine what they would have acheived under normal circumstances.

You can not separate our humanity from our natural resources the two go hand in hand.
The thing you seem to be forgetting is that before the discovery of crude oil many of our people were fishermen or subsistence farmers, this land that has now been appropriated by the FGN in cahoots with the IOCs was owned by indigenous people, therefore by right any resources found underneath this land should remain the property of the landowner. If you appropriate land which was serving as a means of livelihood to a people without giving them any form of compensation and then to make matters worse pollute and devastate that land, surely you have taken away their humanity. Land is a form of wealth and anything in, under or on it is part of the land therefore taking it away from that person without compensating them is not only theft but an abuse of a person's basic human rights.

many of our people regard land as an integral part of their identity without access or rights over your land you are a dispossessed people, the first thing the apartheid south african govt did to the black south african people was disposses them of their land and "resettle" them in barren isolated townships, this also happened in kenya where the british stole fertile land from the kikuyu people and dumped them in overcrowded ghettos, zimbabwe - again the british farmers appropriated the most fertile land and again resettled the indigenous people in ghettos, these are all forms of human rights abuse and should not be defended.

ladej:

you should change your name to EL CAPITANO. your reasoning is sound, logical and sensible in this matter. its like saying 400 years of slavery should be wished away. while i agree its time to move on, doesnt mean one can wish away injustice, whether internally or externally. until we start to see ourselves as one nation, the benefits of modern democracy may never be realised.

ladej:

100% on point. add FELA to this list of people influenced by the radical african american thinkers of the 60s, but applied it to the Nigerian situation. well written bro.you know current and past affairs of the world.

ladej:

you should change your name to EL CAPITANO. your reasoning is sound, logical and sensible in this matter. its like saying 400 years of slavery should be wished away. while i agree its time to move on, doesnt mean one can wish away injustice, whether internally or externally. until we start to see ourselves as one nation, the benefits of modern democracy may never be realised.

ola olabiy:

This makes a lot more sense than those it-is-not-our-fault postulates from some quarters.

They say: "the West want us that way, they control our leaders ni".
But, does it have to remain like that? For how long do you have to loot your country just because foreign powers want it that way?

These oyinbos are in control of countries like Singapore as well. Besides, politicians in those countries steal too.

The difference is when we steal we do so with reckless abandon.
Also, when we steal we take the loot to another man's country something they seldom do in places like Singapore. They invest more in their country.

These leaders are a reflection of what we are as a people.
We lack REAL love. Chikena.

cap28:

Can i ask you a question? do you think the carving up of africa by europe in 1885 was "absolute bollocks" ?

how about the amputation of limbs of congolese men, women and children by belgian colonial officers during belgium's colonial rule over Congo?

Are you aware that it was standard practice for belgian soldiers to cut off the hands of congolese  men and the br.easts of their wives  if their husbands  came back from the forests without collecting enough rubber for the lucrative rubber exportation business that Belgium was engaged in at the time?

Are you also aware that german colonial soldiers massacred thousands of rebellious namibian tribes who refused to voluntarily give up their fertile land to make way for german settlers - did you know that many of these tribes were  decimated almost into extinction and many were driven into the Namibian desert where they died of dehydration and starvation?

These are just a few of many atrocities that were comitted by white colonial soldiers in africa in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century all in a bid to get their hands on our land and the resources in the land.

Do you consider those incidents to be "relatively absolute bollocks"?

why does this sound like something a white south african or white zimbabwean would say and not a black african?
this argument sounds ominously identical to what white supremacists use in order to excuse their genocide and brutalisation of non white people, actually this argument is normally referred to as the "white man's burden argument" - this is an argument in which the white man states that he had to invade, annex and murder thousands and in some cases millions of blacks for their own good because blacks are naturally uncivilised and need to be brought up to the same standard of civilisation as the superior race (the white race).   The argument goes something like this:

" Every abomination that we perpetrated against them was done "for their own good", had we not done what we did these heathen people would still be living in a primitive subhuman state. 
At the end of the day they should be grateful that we allowed them to become "independent" states.  So what if we handed power to a group of brutal puppet leaders, what does it matter that these puppets are merely our collaborators who are merely ripping off their own people, we couldnt care less, after all africans are not fully human and are used to living in a state of squalor and extreme poverty.  The main thing is that we can continue to have access to cheap raw materials and cheap labour.  Democracy does not apply when you are dealing with africans as they are too childlike and inferior to appreciate the benefits of such a system.  The main thing is that we retain our position in the world and if it means a few million people have to suffer as a result so be it.
Lets face it,  without us they wouldnt even know that they were sitting on billions of dollars worth of black gold".

This is the mindset of the average white supremacist - and it seems as if you and them look at black people in the same way.

The problem with your analysis is that it sees everything through the eyes of a white man, in your eyes the white man's way of looking at the world is the correct way, every other way is backward and primitive.  According to you the black man should be grateful to the white man because left to his own devices he would not have appreciated the value of crude oil, i would argue that this is an incorrect way to judge a black man's world view,  prior to the invasion from the white man the black man had a different civilisation which was serving the needs of his people adequately.  The white man perceives the world in terms of money, plunder and exploitation ie capitalism, this is why he left his own country, there was a need for him to  venture out into the world, his own countries were poor and therefore he had to explore, occupy and appropriate the wealth of other nations  - this is what drives him, but this did not apply to the black man because he already had a land rich in resources, on this basis he had no need to think or behave like the white man.  What you are trying to do here is blame the black man for not initially adopting a capitalist outlook which the white man had to adopt out of necessity but which was not necessary for the black man.

Prior to the discovery of crude oil in Oloibiri in 1958, people in the riverine areas were engaged in the palm oil trade with europeans, actually palm oil was one of south eastern nigeria's largest exports, the whites refined it and used it as a  lubricant for machinery and also for soap products, did the white man teach us how to grow and harvest palm oil produce ?

i am forced to agree with you that we nigerians are unpatriotic, worship wealth etc etc however there is a reason for that and it is primarily because we have adopted an alien culture ie the white man's love for materialism and unadulterated consumerism.  As a conquered race our culture was destroyed and replaced with christianity/islam  and capitalism.  We were brainwashed into beleiving that our own culture and religion was backward, heathen and primitive, we were told to aspire to be more like our masters, this mentality is now ingrained in the average nigerian and will take extensive re education and reprogramming in order to put us in a mental state where we are capable of thinking in a manner which is devoid of inferiority complex, greed, consumerist and materialistic obsessions and extreme selfishness.

The other reason behind our current backward state is that we are not really a nation, we are merely just a group of diverse people who have been forcefully thrown together and who do not have a common purpose or goal , the northerners want a country governed under sharia law, the igbos do not want to live under such a system and i m pretty sure the non muslim yorubas and other ethnic groups dont want that either and yet we are told that in the interests of "unity" we must remain as one entity for better for worse.  Where have you ever seen a country that can progress where all its citizens do not have a common purpose and vision for their country?

if nigeria were to split along ethnic lines i believe that this would engender a spirit of nationalism in each respective ethnic group, with each group wanting to work towards building up and developing their own  country.
look at how resourceful the igbos were during the biafran war - they were able to make their own improvised weapons, run schools, courts and markets and even operate their own currency - all this acheived during a state of siege!!!! - it was that nationalistic spirit that kept the igbos going even in the face of so much adversity.  Imagine what they would have acheived under normal circumstances.

You can not separate our humanity from our natural resources the two go hand in hand. 
The thing you seem to be forgetting is that before the discovery of crude oil many of our people were fishermen or subsistence farmers, this land that has now been appropriated by the FGN in cahoots with the IOCs was owned by indigenous people, therefore by right any resources found underneath this land should remain the property of the landowner.  If you appropriate land which was serving as a means of livelihood to a people without giving them any form of compensation and then to make matters worse pollute and devastate that land, surely you have taken away their humanity.  Land is a form of wealth and anything in, under or on it is part of the land therefore taking it away from that person without compensating them is not only theft but an abuse of a person's basic human rights.
 
many of our people regard land as an integral part of their identity without access or rights over your land you are a dispossessed people, the first thing the apartheid south african govt did to the black south african people was disposses them of their land and "resettle" them in barren isolated townships, this also happened in kenya where the british stole fertile land from the kikuyu people and dumped them in overcrowded ghettos, zimbabwe - again the british farmers appropriated the most fertile land and again resettled the indigenous people in ghettos, these are all forms of human rights abuse and should not be defended.

buzugee:

you know i totally feel you on all the atrocities and brutality of white people but if it makes you feel any better, the black zimbabweans and south africans are returning the favor. http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C1SKPC_enUS333US333&biw=1398&bih=942&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=white+farmers+killed&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

but thats besides the point. that was a different era. this is a new era. other parts of the world have experienced meteoric rise in the span of less than 50 years while we keep retrogressing not because of the white man but because the black man loves himself too much and loves his wealth too much. thats the bottom-line.

cap28:

no , you've got it wrong - that era of exploitation and appropriation of our wealth and resources is still very much with us, albeit under a different name.  Instead of colonialism what we have now is "globalisation" do not be misled or deceived into thinking anything has changed.  Instead of the in your face era of white supremacy and african subjugation you now have white men in business suits with fake smiles and handshakes  who are officials of the world bank, imf , shell, chevron, exxon mobil, total and elf coercing african nations into the devaluation of their currencies, the cutting of their public spending on social services, the taking on of loans at crippling interest rates and the selling off of their entire public sector at bargain basement rates to predatory multinational corporations.

The slave master has merely undergone cosmetic surgery, the outward appearance has been upgraded but the intentions and objectives remain the same.

The black zimbabweans and south africans have not yet returned the favour - in order to return the favour they would have to kick out all whites from south africa and redistribute the wealth and natural resources of their respective countries and then nationalise the whole of the mining industry, has that happened yet - of course not.

Similarly the zimbabweans would have to completely take back ALL of the land currently in the hands of white farmers who stole it from them - has this happened? i think not

Look at what happened to Mugabe when he started the process of land redistribution - look at how he was dealt with - the US in collaboration with the EU froze zimbabwe's access to international credit facilities, froze their export markets, preventing zimbabwe from trading with the outside world and forced zimbabwe into economic meltdown.

buzugee:

dude, the mistake you are making is in thinking this is a black and white issue. this is a rich vs poor issue. the rich elite who control the world. countries like iceland, argentina, greece, and ireland have all fallen victim to this covert subjugation of the world by the rich elite controlling the world. these are all white countries that have being seized by the banks. argentina belongs to the banks now. iceland belongs to the bank. thats the NEW WORLD ORDER bruh. not a black or a white thing. but still within this new world order you can thrive if you work as a cohesive unit, plan wisely, and use your money wisely. stop stealing all the money and taking it to foreign banks. bruh ? i think you need a lesson in how the world runs. black man is black mans problem.

read up on the rotschilds. the big jewish banking family that owns like nearly all the world lol (ok maybe a slight exaggeration but you get the point )

cap28:

what you have said regarding the international banking elite is correct, yes the banking elite do  control sovereign nations and have actually been in control of the US congress and its economy for over 100 years, however the situation with regard to africa takes on a particularly sinister twist mainly because there are other agendas at play.  The banking elite have always been advocates of eugenics which is the beleif in a master race (the white race) who they beleive are destined to rule the world till eternity.  In that regard africa and its people have been regarded as expendable, if you look at US and european foreign policy there is a common thread running through it - one of domination, subjugation and oppression of african people and our resources.  I would advise you to read a declassified memorandum prepared by the former national security advisor during the Nixon administration which highlighted US concerns in respect of several emerging economies in the so called third world - all of these nations shared similar characteristics - they had high populations of non white people, they  were rich in natural resources and were regarded as possible economic competitiors to the US, for these very reasons these nations were deemed national security threats to the interest of the US.  The plan was to "neutralise" the development of these emerging economies.  VArious methods of neutralisation were discussed and recommended - some included: internal wars, famine, economic sanctions, biological warfare or all out external military intervention.  I woudl advise you to read this memo its called NSSM 200 and it was declassified in 1989 - it lists several countries of concern - nigeria is one of those countries.

funny you should mention the  Rothschilds, i was reading about how they have been manipulating and controlling the US congress, sovereign nations and the international  banking system for centuries.  No its not a slight exaggeration they actually DO own the world, according to an article i read they are worth in the region of
USD $500 trillion!!!

PhysicsMHD:

I can't even begin to comprehend how one can say that we "have to totally put ethnic differences to one side" and from the other side of one's mouth attack the Hausa-Fulani oligarchy. The Hausa-Fulani oligarchy might be part of the reason (but not even the main reason) for the backwardness of much of the North, but the military is the main reason for Nigeria's ills and only a minute number of the major characters in that structure were of Hausa-Fulani oligarchic extraction. The rest, whether Gowon or Obasanjo or IBB were commoners.

And if Thomas Sankara had been born in Nigeria, we would be calling him a Hausa-Fulani, the same way Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was considered one. The North is a burden, but not for ethnic reasons.

Kobojunkie:

What 400 years of slavery?  And what has slavery to do with wikileak?

buzugee:

on the contrary my friend, africa means very little to them. all africa is, is a place to get raw materials. nothing more nothing less. africa is not a threat. like i said the first cards to fall in the game are all white countries. nobody cares about africa. the few people you see infiltrating african govts are only doing this to protect their interests. nothing sinister. just to make sure somebody does not flip the script on them and decide to increase the price or to supply someone else (like say china ). the people in control are not necessarily whites. they are jews.

ladej:

dear kobo, i suggest you read what i was responding to first, before posting. of cos slavery has nothing to do with wikileaks. who said it did?

cap28:

i dont agree - if africa meant nothing to the  west the US govt would not have spent billions of dollars setting up AFRICOM  - the US is now so desperate to keep China out of Africa that it is now prepared to deploy troops to the region - it doesnt get anymore desperate than that bro

China has surpassed the US in becoming africa's greatest trading partner and the US are very unhappy about this, they've tried economic threats against offending african countries and that hasnt worked now they're resorting to military force.

http://www1.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/clin-a17.shtml

buzugee:

have you noticed the recent trend going on all over the world ? countrys that were once all white are now getting a huge influx of black africans and other people of color into them ? places like italy, sweden, denmark, switzerland,luxembourg, hungary etc etc etc ? who do you think is in charge of this ? the jewish rulers of the world. they are using africans and other people of color as pawns to weaken the homogenous european countrys because what this creates is a situation like america where there is so much infighting between the races and this creates a diversion. the more you see, the less you know.

Kobojunkie:

I read it and I ask again, what 400 years of slavery?

If you at least admit what you were responding to has abso-f'ing-lutely nothing to do with the topic in this case, then fine, I am with you there but if you attempt to pretend [b]that [/b]whole sh-peel has something to do with any of the topics raised in the main article or by anyone else, I would like to know where exactly the connection comes in.

cap28:

i dont think theres a deliberate effort on the part of powerful jews to encourage migration of africans to europe in order to weaken the racial dominance of one particular group, it would take a huge number of african immigrants to have any significant impact on the racial make up of any european nation and the chances of that ever happening are equal to zero based on the stringent immigration laws operated by european nations.

i think whats happening is that the economic destabalisation and enslavment of africa has created extreme poverty and suffering for many africans, this in turn has led to many africans having to seek (supposedly)  greener pastures  abroad.  The europeans have not exactly welcomed africans with open arms, despite masterminding many of the economic problems which plague africa, the EU has responded by building a fortress around europe designed for the specific purpose of keeping africans out.  this is why i said you should read that memorandum NSSM 200 it gives you an insight into western foreign policy with regard to africa.

Kobojunkie:

^^ He hijacked the thread to post unrelated logs and you say nothing wrong with that?? ROFLMAO!!!

I was actually enjoying some of the discussions before the diversion. . . now I am wondering what slavery and timbuktu got to do with anything.

Reminds me of a conversation I had some time ago with a conspiracy theorist pal of mine. She spoke of how scientists are working daily to control our lives with gadgets like the TV, the cellphone, computers etc and tried explaining to me how it would be best for me to get rid of all the gadgets and live without/off the grid as she does. While she was talking, she walked over the to kitchen to get out a pack of popcorn. She popped it in the microwave and could not wait for the corn to pop so she could munch on it. I then asked her why she was not serious enough to get rid of the microwave, she essentially ignored me. I knew then and then she probably had some nuts loose and likely best for me to move on. ROFLMAO!!

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-567854.96.html#msg7336558