₦airaland Forum

gst101: so too if a nigerian get caught and put in jail, it is a good thing

If his guilty yes. One less crook in the world. Of course some counties don't have the best legal sytem. I would not put Nigerians courts in that list though. So if you guys put a SA crook in jail I fine with it.

gst101: majority of bad people in any given country are the locals SA inclusive. We also catch SA drug dealers in our airports. The difference between us and you is that we report all that has to do with us. We report that which happens to the nigerian in the most unlikely place. But do your media report the problems and successes of your people where ever they are

Not really. If they do it is a small piece in the news paper Or if they may be inocesent or suvring a death sentence. For the most part if a SA crook gets caught and put in a forghin jail it is a good thing.

ROSSIKE: For goodness sakes, Saudi Arabia's oil reserves are at least 3 times Nigeria's. She exports about 4 times more oil and gas than Nigeria per annum, and her population is 28 million, around the population of Lagos state! HOW IN THE HELL do you expect Nigeria to be ''at the same level or just below Saudi Arabia'' in living standards based on oil and gas earnings? You need to think things through and research a bit further before making these pronouncements of yours. And Italy is no different from other European nations in terms of their history of modern education.

I am just saying it could have been done. Would have been hard but not imposbil.

ROSSIKE: How do you expect it to be 'close' when we only got our first modern university in 1962, after the British were kicked out? Can you say the same about any European country? Even your country South Africa, had its first universities built as early as 1829 by invaders who happened to re-invest export proceeds in the country, unlike other seized territories in Africa like Nigeria, which were simply looted. Fact is Nigeria has not produced the mass of specialists over two or three of centuries like European nations or SA, and so has lacked the experience and personnel needed to create a modern, advanced nation by now. So we're really playing catch-up. Give us more time.

I don't mean UK france or germany(or scandvain countrys) but the less rich ones like itaily. Suadia Arbai is and the other gulf states are all very rich and while of. Nigeria could have been at that level or just under it by now if it where not for all the turmoil.

sheyie2007: SA peeps you mean...

Yes.

I have never been robbed by one or seen a nigrian drug pedlar. Have seen nigerian pimps they may doubel has drug pedlars some times.

Of course where I live and work there is somlians who own a shop and one congolease army captian(from the former regiem) who is now a securty gaurde

CAMEROONPRIDE: keep deluding yourself sooner or later u will go back where u rightly belong. camaroon what a mark of respect

Keep talking cameboon

DictatorZAR: Ja, the one abt Mugabe

They made one about forghners and how they should all leave. In the end there is only a khoi San guy.


And the farmers boerbull.

But the mugaby one was good.

gst101: exactly what came to my mind.

BTW @Andrewza why did you feel drawn to this topic to the point of commenting on it? Everybody pls take it easy with him. He is a bit more friendly than his compatroits.

It had a lot of good infomation in it. Nigeria is the fastest growing economy in africa no one is going to say other wise(if it can maintian that growth is a diffrent story). I am just pointing out that that growth means nothing if not used properly. Nigeria should be a masive global power it has every thing needed to rival a european country but it not even close.

MsDarkSkin: Cheers to u too and i like u too. Im just saying calling us "slaves" and then preaching black love is contradictory. But this kind of discussion will bring out the worst in anybody so,i understand and respect your feelings...

I am probably one of the most afrocentric ppl on here but i, like many WISE afro centrics before me, have come to the realization that what we want cant be achieved (black unified race in africa simply by us moving to an african country). Ppl with patrice lumumba posters, garveyism book, malcom x mentalities still wont go to africa to live...why? I said it so many times that we are a cell and africa is the nucleus...once the nucleus is ruptured there is no more cell.

I hope u dont get offended but africa is not right. Shes not!

There are lots of problems there...so there is no way western blacks can go there and try to assimilate with no worries..its not all peachy. That is why i support the idea of them having their own nation should they go to africa (instead of the islands). Once africa's children are ready to trade and build alliances within her own soil, and her children are ready to help each other succeed then repatriates and natives will benefit.

Its not about wanting to separate or that we are better (not sure where u all got that from) but its a fact that xenophobia is real in africa. Look at zimbabwe and south africa. Both sister nations fought apartheid together. Both nations have been through a lot together throughout history yet zimbabwe migrants in SA are beaten, killed and blamed for anything that goes wrong in south africa.

Look at the hutu and tutsi situation which still goes on today!..if native africans have issues with each other why would they willingly accept us?

Thats what i mean. Its all good talks and sweet dreams but let 100 repatriates go to an african country and if any resentful group of natives who are mad just cause (such as pagan 9ja) feel the repatriates are being given an advantage over them na war! Smh.

So unless repatriates are given land to start and they along with other africans learn to get it right among themselves and learn to tolerate each other..its not going to work.

U guys have already expressed ur belief that u are more entitled to africa than we are (lol) so....why would it be ok to integrate immediately knowing "off gate" there will be resentment? It cant work.

Your views are narrow minded. The SA zim vilonce is located in only poor squater camps. Any body arriving from the USA will not be staying there. Has long has what ever buisnes you set up employs locals no one will care. Though you will be targeted for crim but that more because of your bank ballance than any thing else.

If you start a full on country you will have people targeting you because of your race(amrican). More so because you want to set up in Central Africa. The least stabel area with the most rebel groups. Even northern africa has rebels and other armend groups(nomads) who would target you. West africa is all so in the same list or the countries are stabel and won't give up rich minreal lands. East africa is all so got rebel groups. The most stabel area is down south but no countrie would sell land down here.

DictatorZAR: South Africa's political environment and economy was shaped by britain way before the afrikaner population started the Anglo-boer war which eventually led to the establishment
of SA as a sovereign Union state named the Union of South africa, in 1910. This also led to the creation of the ANC Africa's oldest liberation and political movement in 1912.

Subsequently this led to the 1913 "Native Land Act" which drove the majority of blacks, "coloreds" and indians(who were mostly freed slaves then) of there land. SA in 1910 was richer then most western nations due to newly found mineral wealth in Kimberley and Gauteng "joburg" respectively.

So the question of where SA would've been without "whites" is neither here or there, because all races the world over played a role in development of almost every society on the planet and the notion of "exclusive white" development don't really hold water. I can ask where would europe be without China's innovation of gun powder which eventually gave birth to the gun in europe which also led to the conquering of most of africa's colonization and its subsequent artificial land borders we see today.

This South,West,East,North african envy and dislikes is rather foolish.

There's only one race that can trully claim the lands of south africa from kalihari to Cape Point and that is the Khoi-San which today is mostly the mixed race or coloreds in SA terms. The bantu people of SA migrated to southern africa round about 500 b.c to round 1000 a.d.

The multicultural and racial dynamics of SA had a profound contribution to its development and I really think Nigeria lost out on that front.

Have you seen that nandos ad it was banded but still on youtube.

I never siad there was no one here. Just they where not bantu. Nore did I say the whites where here before the bantu

solomon111: SA has never been an obstacle to Nigeria,infact no african country is.
Most SA companies are service coys,and is definitely not what Nigeria needs now.
Nigeria needs a strong manufacturing base to satisfy the african market,as currently no african country manufacture enough goods for export.
The few companies in africa are only service providers.
Manufacturing is what will propel Nigeria and make it africa's china.
No country in africa has that much potential not even SA.

What you talking about. No African county comes close to SA in Manufacturing we make for exampil cars in Africa to sell to other countries.

sheyie2007: why would you be worried about the nigerians in SA?

People blame them for crime.

dotNaira: Industrialization, better infrastructures,... All these are results of good and thinking government which is where Nigeria is lacking.


When over 50% of Nigerians abode in Urban centers with drastic increment in Rural to Urban migration, your figures still tells you that "70% of Nigerias labor force work in agricultural sector"?!
Get your statistics straight.


This part cracked me up,
More market for SA if a strong Nigeria emerges?!

Here is the weak Nigeria
*gives MTN warrant over the detriment of capable indigenous telecommunication network of Glo.
*brings down hi tv to strengthen DSTV even when DSTV market relies exclusively on Nollywood which they pay little or nothing to.
*handling things that affect her citizens internationally in a careless manner.
*extremely poor maintenance culture.
*tribalism at it peak
*clueless government
*and countless

The reverse is the case if a strong Nigeria should emerge. You and I know it's not what you pray for my brother.

Have a lovely day, I will be back later in day. Need to go.

I got 70% from a number of sources. Has far has I know it is 70% of the working population. And with 160 million people that mean 70million in urban areas. Are we talkint cities or littel towns here.

Those are the 2 most public of South africas companys in SA but not the only. There are a larger number of them doing buisness there either dirctly or thruw backing local companys. Then there are internastionl companys that operate in SA that contribute to SA economy. Exampil mercieds, ford, extra. A strong nigeria is not a threat to SA we more worried about the nigerians in SA than the Nigerians in Nigeria.

[quote author=.Nairaland]Correct.
One vital thing still holding Nigeria down is the political instability and shortage of power(electricity). If these key aspects should be as they should have been, I tell you Nigeria will be an untouchable force in Africa and major player in the world economy.
What has South Africa gotten that Nigeria doesn't have in multiple fold: human resources, mineral & natural resources? Name it.
But poor management and bad leadership has made Nigeria lost her God given position

Upon these challenges, it is believed that Nigerias economy will overtake that of SA to top Africas economy in 5 to 8 years time even with the present poor stage.

Wonder what it will be if the management team is efficient and right person is in charge to govern the country.

God bless Nigeria.[/quote]Other than a stronger industrial base and better infustructet nigeria has more than SA. The problem is how it is been used. With out change in the higher ups nigeria will no succsed.

Has for taking over SA has a stronger econmy. In some areas yes. But your size is your biggest strengh and wekness in this matter. With a larg population it means more tax but there more that needs to be looked after with that tax. This is why sweden with it smaller economy is better of than the USA. Each persone gets a big piece of the cake.

Currently about 70% of Nigerias labour force work in agriculter most of whom are subsistent or small scall farmers. So there tax is much lower. Compare to SA where only 9% of the labour force is in farming. Nigeria needs to industrilse it's farms.

Nigeria has 4 oil refinries and all are down. SA has no oil yet refines more than nigeria. Actualy SA has some of the largest refinries in africa and is planing on building the largset.

Nigeria has a lot of securty issues that scare of forghine investors. While SA has riots and strikes these don't endanger the company. Where nigeria has Islamic terrorists in the north, kindnaping in the south. And a real big danger. Pirats. Soon the threat of biening attacked will be great in the west coast than the horn.

Corruption is bad for the country. Even if you get the wealth if it gets stolen by corrupt officials what is the point. A bunch of rich guys on top to rull over the poor.

Any case a strong nigeria is good for SA. Means one more market for our goods.

morpheus24: Khoisan blood and undercover miscegenating from early settlers not Bantu blood!

The Bantu came down from the north so have only been at most a 1000years in all of southern africa. And less for south africa.

Blyss: There's absolutely no desire to obtain land from Nigeria. It's too crowded and, extremist.

You don't want to buy land in nigeria because it full of extremist but you want to move to centrel africa? Do you know any thing about africa.

Blyss: Humm, if people want to think in such a way, then that's fine. It'll be no more of a colony than any other nation in which receives US federal investment into their economies or military for whatever reason the US gov. sees fit. If the US gov. wants to invest, then that's perfectly fine.

Diffrence is there where around before the Aid. Even isreal was founded with out any out side help (I mean frome countries not privet people) and in some cases at to phiscally steal things auch has aircraft. You would be backed from the start by the US and thus seen has part of the US.

Blyss: Humm, well hopefully if such a nation ever comes about, we'll see how such rebels make out. It should be interesting.

My money is on the rebels forcing you to leave. They may not destroy you in open battel but yjey could easy make it uneconmical to stay. And that if they don't work togethere. There are more rebel groupes in central africa than US states. Some are just bandits who rob civlians others are threats to nations like the LRA was and the M23 is. And don't think they fools. Some if not most are unedcated (M23 a not included) but most(at least those that are still around) are led by intelgent people who know there streghth and weakness and that of there enemy.

Blyss: Most likely yes, the US gov. would want to make to have their hand in on the situation.. which is ok, to an extent. The goal isn't to shatter our connection to the US, we'd obviously would want to maintain a strong connection to our homeland, where many of the citizens' family and friends and more will still be present, but such investment will only be supplementary to the greater form of investment in which will be independently obtained.

you would be seen by many has a American colony

Blyss: You know as well as I do that such will be ok up to the point when large communities of AA start taking over the economics of an are via pure numbers and economic strength, then as usually is the case in Africa, the natives of these areas will go tribal and claim we are trying to overlord them and push them out of certain areas, and next thing you know... they're gonna want to try and terrorize our presence and push us out by force, in which will simply lead to us Bleep-ing them up and us looking like the bad guys for picking on the poor natives; from there things spiral in to mayhem. It's just how Africa works; it's extremely tribal to a fault, and this is why I say that for any large AA presence to exist without conflict, it'll have to be done in our own nation, and from their we'd be able to help push economic growth throughout the continent.

your plan will make more conflict not less.

morpheus24: ^^^
They are there basically because of weather. Countries close or on the equator are harsh for people who evolved in areas with low sunlight.

even blacks downs south are lighter.

Blyss: LOL. No use of the resources of the area in which is obtained, is an obvious end factor of the greater goal of simply obtaining an independent nation, obviously. The effort won't be for some land grab effort to obtain natural resources but rather for the acquisition of an independent state. I'd consider it a right obtained in the name of our ancestors stolen from the continent centuries ago by both fellow African and European captures.



I wouldn't say that. I and many other AA have great interest in such, and many other don't, but neither has any regard in the effort of discussion.. in that it is totally focused on the interest and preservation obtained as an independent people of African descent in America. We will not come to become indoctrinated, but rather to come and remain as we are, and share in what ever we can offer to fellow african nations and take in from them whatever we see as viable to our own growth. Same as any other relationship between separate peoples and nations the world round.



Well we are Americans, so it's only common sense that we would build a nation in which will highly resemble the land in which we come from. This has been the case with the migration of people throughout time. If you go to German settled areas of the US, you'll notice that a lot of the homes and other structures are built in typical German style, same as if you were to go to a traditional Italian, Spanish or French area of the nation.



Humm, somewhat but not totally. They actually came to steal the land and in time have little to nothing to do with any Africans anywhere on the continent. This is not what is proposed in this plan. What is proposed is, for an African nation to either voluntarily give up a piece of land free of charge, and or to sell it off to the migrants. All those who legitimately own land in the area given will be compensated, and if the area just has maybe a several thousand natives living there they may even be allowed to just stay in the nation as citizens with all the rights, and means as the rest. No Liberia repeat.



Not really, a major difference is that there wont be any natives in this nation preferably, but if it comes to incorporating some few thousand who live on the land into the nation then it'll obviously be done so to the fullest, via compensation for the land in which is documented as being of the ownership of any single individual(s); full rights under the established constitution will be given to them, though that ((maybe)) short of actually being able to obtain some certain levels of government, such as president, vice president, secretary of State and other critically high positions. That is in regard to the fact of the matter of that the nation is being established as an "AA/Diaspora nation".. PERIOD, in which such natives will given rights to remain in as citizens, for the simple fact of that they were there prior to the establishment of the nation... such is to be assessed and voted on by the a judicial and congressional body in the establishment of constitutional law for the nation. Other than that, immigration to and visa entry into the nation will be very strictly regulated and monitored.

I envision a nation in were it'll be virtually impossible to obtain citizenship unless you are an AA or other Diaspora and are coming upon being recruited in your nation by a operating company in the new nation, or you've obtained your college education here, and now seek to become a citizen, or you are a spouse and or direct dependent of a citizen in the nation. Illegal immigration into the nation will be virtually impossible, do to the presence of strictly secured entry points and robust security apparatuses along the boarders in which will also be in place for our security, do to the fact of that we'd know that many groups would not like our presence on the continent, and will possibly attempt to due us harm. This is clearly evident by just reading many of the comments here on this thread.

Yeah, one last thing. A military force VERY capable of addressing and handling covertly and or openly any threat to our sovereign statehood once established, and the security of our citizens THROUGHOUT the continent... will be established via direct transfer of professionals from throughout the American security apparatus to this new nation. The nation'll seek a friendly successful interaction with fellow African nations for the benefit of all, but their will be no Fu-cking around when it comes to it's security. Any threat will be met PROMPTLY and COMPLETELY by all means necessary, and make no mistake that the means obtained to act will run VERY deep. With this nation's economic standings it could be your best partner or it could be one of your worst threats.

sounds like apartheid/oranje state set up to me. And i still think that the rebels in the area you want to set up will have you has a target. There are rebel groups in the DRC that sole objective is to stop out siders robbing there land. I doubt you could muster enough military force if you brought only middle class educated BA and getho gang bangers will only make it become another Liberia

Why not seems like agood way to make a point. Would hate to try and rob that place

[quote author=Dudu_Negro]you guys must live in the ghetto in America because all your perspectives are limited to the possible importation of ghetto customs into Africa. Africa is the way it is with all its wars and hunger and poverty and negative image because the people are robbed of democratic power to produce a different outcome for the land. power is concentrated in the hands of a few who use it to oppress than liberate.

well, this is exactly the same barrier and hardship that the african americans face. even though they live in a democratic government theyr are disempowered and their voice and productivity is herded toward a dead end outcome that continue the orbit of destruction.

if you look in the music and the pictures and videos and movies of african americans between 60s and 80s you will see a very ideal family and houshold and community progress. they dressed well and were well mannered...but gradually the government fvckd it up for them.

same here in africa......go and look at the pictures of any african city between 50s and 80s, very serene and calm and well groomed with aesthetic forms in the landscape. it is different now, we have decay and chaos all around most african cities and the people themselves are infected by it in the way we relate with one another.

how would you feel for all countries of the world to deny africans entry to their land because of the condition of our communities and way of living in africa?[/quote]What you talking about.

The only real thing that has come from black amrica to africa is the getho gangsta culter and things related to it. Not somthing to proud of if all you seen has is crimnals.

AjanleKoko: Yeah. Maybe they think they're Jews, and will get support from somewhere.
Not gonna happen. East Africa is the hotbed of rebel groups. From Congo to Rwanda, Uganda to Kenya. Well-armed and dangerous.

Why do I have this image of a ghetho gang banger holding his tech 9 side ways shooting a M 23 tank.

Lol a bunch of rich amricans setting up shop in centrail africa will fall prey to any number of rebel groups.

The fact is no african countie will give up land for your return. And even if you did you assume that the land will become some massive success. Why I mean look what happend last time you where given land in africa. That place is still a mess.

Dose greeting him with machin gun fire count.

Any case I may say hello but I say hi to every body I see.

safarigirl: Things are not looking good for this guy. Cos there's a lot against him.

First off, hope the gun he used is authorised.
Secondly, did he not hear her scream at the first or second shot or something?
Thirdly, if he was hiding behind the bathroom door, how did he get a clear aim to shoot four times?

Most importantly, if it truly was a burglar, does that give him the right to take human life?

A man who should be worth millions, the hope of many disabled people of the world, the role model miLlions looked up to, both abled and disabled, throws everything away in a moment of pure stewpidity, just cos he doesn't want some poor dude to take a few wrist watches and cuff-links?


His and Lance Armstrong's stories will make for best-selling biographies, that's for sure.

They where legal. He had a number of guns actualy according to some media reports.

Indeed. To point 2 and 3

Yes. If you can proof your live is in danger or anothers life is in danger you may use minnime force. This means shoot until the threat is gone not until you think they dead. The 4 shots is what gets me. Unless you high on some really messed up drugs 1 to 2 shots will stop you. Yet he fired 4 frome a semi auto wepaon.

chucky234: I prefer Northern Rhodesia to Zambia,why did they had to chnage the name.

Because it like being named after the first whit guy to step foot inside nigeria