I've been wondering why Nigerian government realistically believes that the terrorist tag could stick on a man fighting to pull out of a union formed by terrorists. Yes, by terrorists.

I excuse the traditional African mindset of inability to think matters through critically and strategically. I've never heard the Nigerian government or the government of any former British colony in Africa refer to Britain as a terrorist country - which they were and perhaps, still are.

African tribes did not wake up one day and decided to form countries. Countries of Africa are ALL products of the whiteman's terrorism. Tribes and ethnic groups were killed, terrorized, dehumanized, cowed and subjugated before they were herded together into artificial contraptions of people who in some cases had never even heard of one another.

So the question is, if no one designates the British, the French, the Germans, Portuguese Spanish, Dutch and Belgians, who forged tribes into countries through bloodshed as terrorists, why do you designate a man or people who want to end what was formed through terror, oppression and bloodshed as terrorists?

Perhaps it is the same old African psyche of deference that whatever the whiteman has decreed is sacrosanct. That mental laziness of the African that keeps him bound in a cycle of opinion formed in the heart of other races whom he considers superior.

Who says that what the whiteman has done cannot be undone, irrespective of how disfunctional it is? Who says Tutsis must be in Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi? And who says the Hutus must be in Congo, Burundi and Rwanda?

Who says Africa's resources of silver, gold, copper ivory or oil must be exchanged for paper? Who says the African must not have a mind of his own?

So between the colonialists who bound people through bloodshed and the people seeking to be unbound, who should be the terrorist?