₦airaland Forum

Factcheck0001:
so are u expecting the president alone to do all that?

If he can do all that then don't u think we don't need governors n all other people

Meaning u want the president to b omnipotent n omnipresent

Tell me

Do u expect the president to do the work of local government chairmen?..


Everything up there starts from me n u

Food security- it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the government supplied cheap fertilizers to farmers n when they harvest their crops they move it abroad to sell

Will u blame d president for that?

We talk about herdsmen menace n it is here d head of fulani herdsmen told us village chiefs do collect money from them n give them permission to graze anywhere they like, do u expect d president to tackle sabotage done by village chiefs?

U talk about poverty eradication, lete school u a bit
There's nothing like poverty eradication but poverty alleviation cos till the end of d world we will still have d poor among us

Here we have to tell ourselves d truth that our resources have been stolen beyond measures n our politicians are exploring this lapses a lot even your favourite politician is a thief n have once stolen our resources

Guy local man is tired here, I wish nairaland could give room for sending voice note it could have been better

I am tired of typing

My point to u is that the president can't do all, even obi can't do all

N it takes everyone to build d country n not only d president so forget this your childish propaganda

What's the work of the president?

Factcheck0001:
let's see how well u have held your
Councillors
LG chairmen
Senators
Reps
Governor

Accountable first before u can talk about d president, of all I listed up there which of them is not being paid on a monthly basis?

Which of them isn't getting money for projects?.

I don't blame people like u, u have been programmed that the president is your problem so u don't really care if your governor collects 200 billion as allocation

The president is the problem, you can't exonerate the presidency in Nigeria, everything revolves around the presidency,
The president determines the trajectory of the country. If Nigeria is doing well or not relies solely on the president.

No matter what the governors ,LGA chairmen ,senators do,if the presidency fails the whole country will fail

When is this TINUBU sacrificial economy going to end?

I don't know were else this sacrificial economy is practiced except maybe in China of 1969 were over 10 million died.

Is that what we should be expecting in Nigeria?

What will be the signs that the sacrifice of the masses are beginning to yield fruit?

What exactly will happen to the economy for the people to now realise their sacrifice as turned to harvest.

What is the timeline of this sacrifice?

They initially said when the dangote refinery comes on stream Nigerias problem will end but it looks like it's just beginning.

What is actually the end game of TINUBUs sacrificial economy.

Since TINUBU took office almost a year and a half ago.

whats are his achievements that are benefiting the masses.

We need a comprehensive list

Topman7:
MY MAN, I am a HISTORIAN.

I have been studying African history for the past 38 years!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU are a village historian.

You only know history from your narrow, parochial village perspective.

You need to broaden your horizon, and become an AFRICAN historian.

Here are some books I recommend:

THE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF CIVILISATION: MYTH OR REALITY, by Professor Cheikh Anta Diop

Free PDF:

https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/african-origin-of-civilization-complete.pdf


THE DESTRUCTION OF BLACK CIVILISATION, by Dr Chancellor Williams

Free PDF:

https://raggeduniversity.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/x_Chancellor-Williams-Destruction-of-Black-Civilization-_-Great-Issues-of-a-Race-from-4500-B.C-to-2000-A.D.-Third-World-Press-1974.pdf

........


I guarantee you: After reading these TWO books, YOUR EYES WILL CLEAR from this your white worship!!

The problem with our people is that we don't read our history!!

Have read these books, have studied,your not the only one with knowledge. I used to be like you,until I discovered the real truth of Africa.

I particularly studied my own village history to narrow my knowledge to my immediate context.

I'll advise you do the same,you'll discover the real truth about AFRICA.

I know about the wars,the defence etc of my village, I know about its greatness and downfalls etc.I know the good ,the bad ,and the ugly.

I use my village just as an example to tell you that atleast in my context,people were not forced to be Christians, my village people accepted Christianity willingly, it definitely came at some costs.eg,some of the young converts went to destroy a shrine and half of the village later got mysteriously burnt down,the people learnt their lesson and no one goes near the shrines to disturb them till today.

Conversion to Christianity came with a lot of loss of innate African abilities and systems but at the same time came with a lot of benefits.

European technology was way more advanced than African technology at the time of their contact, whatever Africans had developed in Egypt was lost or had declined by the time of the West African kingdoms.

India is no better ,even with their traditional religion.The Chinese and Japanese are no worse with their traditional religion, Koreans have a lot of Christians and are doing well.

My point is Africa may not have been any better with traditional religion today.

Indians have Muslims and Christians too,Pakistan is wholly Muslim, Iran( Persia) once a great state too gave up their Zoroastrian religion for Islam( though it came by force).

Indonesia is wholly Muslim
Srilanka is christain

Africans are not the only ones that gave up their original religion for Christianity and Islam.

Japan and China and most of East Asia were hardly touched by foreign campaigns that's why their religion remain intact.

Japan had to adopt Western ways before it started becoming prosperous.

I agree Africans have taken foreign religion too far,but my opinion is that even if they were with their traditional religion things might not be better for Africa.

btw, Benin destroyed itself through civil wars, Benin had terribly declined by the time of British invasions.

Oyo empire destroyed itself, the Yorubas fought a 16 year civil war prior to Christianity, that they had to call the British to mediate for them giving rise to British colonialism.

The igbos were selling themselves into SLAVERY with the long juju Aro religion.

You are the one that needs to read wide and snap out of this Egypt nonsenses.

It's like Europe continuing to dwell on past Greek glory instead of developing.

You need to snap out of this past Egypt nonsense and look toward the future.

Your leaders are destroying African economy
Enslaving Africans like many African LEADERS did prior to foreign religion

Topman7:
You are a shameless DISGRACE of a person inventing outright LIES out of your desperation to worship the white man, because you were placed under a spell to make you dumb and hate yourself.



You are a born liar traducing your ancestors. There was no civil war in Benin. According to AI:''In the 1880s, Benin was involved in the "Scramble for Africa", a period of intense competition between European nations for African territory, resources, and markets. The Kingdom of Benin, which prospered in western Africa from the 1200s to the 1800s, resisted signing a protectorate treaty with Great Britain for most of the 1880s and 1890s. However, the British eventually launched a punitive expedition against Benin in 1897, which resulted in the destruction of the city and the taking of thousands of objects, including the "Benin Bronzes"



Abused by whom, you liar? So you agree Christianity ''encouraged'' corruption?

Why should traditional religion not impose fear on criminals and potential criminals?

Ok, your christianity that says you can loot billions from the treasury and simply ''accept Christ'', and all is forgiven, HOW FAR HAS THAT GOTTEN YOU?

Is that not why Nigerians are suffering today?

TODAY, YOUR LEADERS TAKE OATHS ON USELESS BIBLES AND KORANS instead of the AFRICAN OATHS THAT ENSURE THEY STICK TO THE GOOD PATH OR RISK THE WRATH OF THE GODS.

And the result?

MASS LOOTING AND EMBEZZLEMENT.

Praise the Lord Jesus!!!!

Praise the lord Muhammed!!!

These USELESS foreign gods were imposed on you by OUTSIDERS because they KNEW it would CORRUPT YOU, and allow them to EXPLOIT YOUR resources.



ACCORDING TO ANCIENT EUROPEAN VISITORS, IT WAS.

READ THE BENIN ACCOUNTS REGARDING THE ABSENCE OF CRIME.

Today, under christianity, you can't even step outside your house after 7pm! Your fellow christians are looking to SCAM YOU at the slightest chance.



WHO OPPRESSED YOU DURING TRADITIONAL RULE, YOU LIAR?

We had LAWS protecting the citizenry from oppression.

We had CHECKS AND BALANCES holding the monarchs accountable.

In Yorubaland, if an OBA was useless, the OYO MESI council would depose him.



You are a LYING CHRISTIAN.

This was what your THIEVING colonial 'masters' went about demonising African religion and claiming they were sacrificing people everywhere. PURE LIES, because the PRE-COLONIAL European visitors of the 1500s and 1600s NEVER reported such atrocities.

It was only the COLONIAL ERA WHITE THIEVES OF THE 19TH CENTURY, to justify their invasions and theft, who started making outlandish claims of mass barbarism. AND YOU ARE THEIR SLAVE TOOL.




What is wrong with trading?



They weren't afraid of Islam. They were afraid of AFRICAN SPIRITUALITY.



THIS IS THE BIGGEST GARBAGE YOU HAVE TYPED SO FAR.

Africans have traded with the world for thousands of years!

What is wrong with TRADING?




Blasted dunce. THERE WERE NUMEROUS JOBS BESIDE FARMING BEFORE THE COLONIAL INVASIONS. Your people were COERCED into becoming christians through ECONOMIC BLACKMAIL.

Oh sure, the whites who came to steal and loot your land to enrich their country, were also desperate for you to become ''good people'', which was why they gave you ''the lord Jesus''.

DUMBITO.

THIEVES AND MASS KILLERS GAVE YOU ''SALVATION'' in your mumu head.



IGNORANT, LYING, CRETINOUS SLAVE WITH NO SHAME.

You have failed yourself by worshipIng a white European man as your saviour.

Enjoy your resultant mass corruption, mass poverty, kidnapping, bribery, banditry, prostitution, terrorism, armed robbery, fraud, drug trafficking, child trafficking, and mass emigration out of your country due to abandoning your heritage and trying to be a white man in black skin.

Thing is,you don't know African history, if you knew African history you'll understand.

It's not about fairy tales you read from few European excerpts,we talking about true African history as experienced by locals.

The Yorubas preached restructuring for ages,their greatest leader TINUBU was at the forefront of this call for restructuring, he has done LGA autonomy let's see what else they'll do.

If TINUBU fails to prosper Nigeria, the Yoruba will no longer have any rep in Nigeria.

Tinubu is the Yorubas greatest leader, the best they have to offer,if he can't prosper Nigeria, no Yoruba can't.

dinomalaiye:
Somebody already told you up there that written language was a major factor in why documented history about West Africa or Africa is only popular after the 11/12th century AD.

You saw Igodomigodo history with link to a list of their Kings well into the BC era. Another poster has shown you what is probably the oldest iron smelting slag in the World right there in Igbo land, but these things are all still less than the "Mighty European Greek and Roman history to you!

You either believe written history is greater than oral history or you just have a low self esteem as an African. Or maybe there is a very strong effect of colonialism on your educational background or learning process.

Even oral history doesn't go far back,only igodomigodo has some narratives going back to the BC era,however the oral history of that time is not as clear as from the era of the obas in AD.

Ile-ife for example doesn't have BC era oral history, likewise the Hausa ,Nupe,jukun,IDAH,even Igbo okwu is not clear.

Yujin:
Before making an assertion and starting a discussion using that assertion, endeavour to confirm if your assertion is right else you'll end on a wrong foundation.
Firstly, the Igbo Ukwu bronze castings were dated to around the 9th century which means 800CE. It means a flourishing society has been established at least few hundreds of years before that time. If you read about the Iron slag deposits in Lejja community-Nsukka, you'll see that it was dated to around 2000BC. This is probably the oldest iron smelting site in the whole world yet very few people in Nigeria know about it. It isn't taught in schools within Nigeria for obvious reasons. Nok was dated to around 4BC but is much more popular. This proves that communities had existed south of the Sahara since the B.C period.
Secondly, the Great Bantu migration was dated to have happened between 1500BC to 500CE and the place they originated was said to be around Eastern Nigeria and Western Cameroon. Does it ring a bell?
My findings about Africa is summarized below.
All parts of Africa seemed to have been occupied by people for over thousands of years. The people were all negroids but had different lifestyles and somewhat different stages of social development.
Back in the BCs, most present day West Africans were in North Africa. West Africa was occupied by a people that have been subsumed into those who fled North Africa and came down to it. Those West Africans were not of Bantu origin. I'm yet to get a good description of them but they were mostly very dark people because most West Africans are very dark. They are of the same stock as those who first travelled to the American continent. The Bantus were occupying Eastern Nigeria and Western Cameroon up to upper areas of Central Africa. With the coming of new people from Egypt and Sudan, many of them left to lower Central Africa. Central Africa by the BC was occupied by mostly pygmies which is why it retained its vast forests and vegetation. The Bantus subsumed the pygmies and it in turn reduced their average size which was initially same like those of other West Africans. Present day Bantus especially Central, Eastern and Southern are comparatively smaller in physique to West Africans except some few groups in the Congo. The pygmies couldn't leave Central Africa and were almost entirely subsumed by the Bantus who went on to move further into Southern Africa and encountered the Khoi and San people.
Southern Africa was entirely peopled by the Khoi and San people who were mostly hunter-gatherers and semi-nomadic people with barely no knowledge of metal smelting. They were more light skin than the Bantus but were also smaller in physique with some shrubby hairs on their head. They weren't a hairy people. The Bantus who encountered them intermarried with them but couldn't subsume them. Those Bantus borrowed a good deal from them like the 'clicky' sounds when talking and parts of their genes too. The closer a bantu group is to the Khoi and San people, the more they looked like them.
East Africa at the BCs was occupied by the Nilotic and Cushitic people. The Bantus who went there mixed with some of them especially with the Nilotics. The Cushitic were more conservative and thus retained most of their original form.

The conclusion is that in all subsaharan Africa, you'll always find traces of societal existence back to the BC era. West Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa. Only Central Africa is where I'm yet to find. Recall that the pygmies who occupied this part were limited by nature already.

My point is not that Africa wasn't occupied by the bc era,but that known kingdoms which had happenings etc weren't there,this is because they are few records of events that happened in West Africa for example in the BC era,it seems those BC era kingdoms in West Africa like nok and Igbo okwu were destroyed by unknown reasons and new kingdoms had to be rebuilt late in the AD, because some of the earliest remembered Africans states,like Mali,ile-ife, Benin etc only trace their remembered history to after 1000AD.

Unlike Europe and Asia which have recorded history to the early BC era,only the Egyptian/ Ethiopian kingdoms have BC era history in Africa

dinomalaiye:
Not true.

Igodomigodo Kingdom (succeeded by Bini Kingdom)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igodomigodo

Nok (succeeded by Kwararafa)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nok_culture


Read wide bro

As for nok,there are no records of personalities or events,the nok culture was probably destroyed by something, that's why I mentioned that Africans were probably at a rebuilding stage at the time other races were already done building and consolidating.

The nok is projected to have come from somewhere else,unlike other ancient kingdoms like chiña,greece,Persia etc African kingdoms seemed to constantly be on the move and were not stable in the BC era.

Stability only seemed to start emerging after 1000AD,just 400 years later,the whites were came into the scene.

It's all too clear Africans were not ready for the encounter and were already at a disadvantage

Even igodomido, there's no proper record of events of the era,unlike by the oba era

Topman7:
You are reacting like a brainless SLAVE.

Using your purported ''village example'' to explain the reason the entire southern Nigeria turned christian.

What ''freed slaves'' preached christianity in Africa?

You are a born LIAR.

Christianity did not spread in Africa because it was ''preached'' by anybody.

The colonialists invaded your territory, massacred your ancestors, and seized your resources. ACCESS to those resources became dependent on your ancestors receiving a 'western education' for which they had to relinquish their religion at the doorstep and get baptised in missionary schools. IT WAS CONVERSION BY ECONOMIC BLACKMAIL. COERCED CONVERSION.

Benin Kingdom under its traditional religion for example was a functional place with NO CRIME.

THEIR TRADITIONAL EDO RELIGION WAS THE STATE RELIGION.

The visiting Portuguese and Dutch said that the people in Benin built no front doors to their houses because it was unheard of for somebody to enter another person's house to steal..

According to the UK Guardian newspaper talking about 1500s Benin kingdom:

''Benin City was also one of the first cities to have a semblance of street lighting. Huge metal lamps, many feet high, were built and placed around the city, especially near the king’s palace. Fuelled by palm oil, their burning wicks were lit at night to provide illumination for traffic to and from the palace.

When the Portuguese first “discovered” the city in 1485, they were stunned to find this vast kingdom made of hundreds of interlocked cities and villages in the middle of the African jungle. They called it the “Great City of Benin”.... Indeed, they classified Benin City as one of the most beautiful and best planned cities in the world.

In 1691, the Portuguese ship captain Lourenco Pinto observed: “Great Benin, where the king resides, is larger than Lisbon; all the streets run straight and as far as the eye can see. The houses are large, especially that of the king, which is richly decorated and has fine columns. The city is wealthy and industrious. It is so well governed that theft is unknown and the people live in such security that they have no doors to their houses.”

In contrast, London at the same time is described by Bruce Holsinger, professor of English at the University of Virginia, as being a city of “thievery, prostitution, murder, bribery and a thriving black market made the medieval city ripe for exploitation by those with a skill for the quick blade or picking a pocket”.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/18/story-of-cities-5-benin-city-edo-nigeria-mighty-medieval-capital-lost-without-trace

Benin was invaded in 1897 and the people massacred, and the Oba exiled.

Today, Benin is christian.

Armed robbery and kidnapping, prostitution and fraud are what Benin is known for today. You DARE NOT build a house in Benin today without a big gate and barbed wire fencing.

COURTESY OF CHRISTIANITY.

THEY TURNED CHRISTIAN NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THEIR TRADITIONAL RELIGION.

But because they had NO CHOICE but to become christian due to their military conquest, and subsequent colonial demonisation of their religion, and the requirement that they DROP their traditional religion to be admitted into the new colonial schools.

So you can lie to yourself as much as you want in order to remain a SLAVE worshiping the gods of people who invaded, burned down your cities, and murdered and raped your ancestors.

Disgusting person.

You are just exhibiting your bitter soul,

Your talking Benin,Benin that was already a shadow of itself by the time of the British invasions, Benin had destroyed itself in civil war.

Christianity came with freedom was living which also encouraged corruption, truly there might have been less evil under traditional religion but it was with immense fear which was many times abused.

You people just talk like Africa was Uhuru prior to the British or Europeans.

There was a lot of oppression by those that wielded power, things were not as rosy in Africa as people like you paint.

In my village( I use my village as a typical case study) there were scattering of peoples due to wicked oppressive brutal kings,traditional religion aided their power, were they could sacrifice humans at will

What about the fact that oba esigie accepted planting of churches in benin to get access to guns.

Or the itsheriki kings accepting a form of Christianity to have increased access to Portuguese trade.

Read history from a neutral perspective you'll get to see the true picture.

Which resources did the British seize,when African rulers were falling over themselves to trade with the British.

Why did the British not impose Christianity on the Islamic north? Don't tell me they didn't have resources. ( they traded kola,nuts etc with the British).

Cocoa trade was introduced by the British and Yoruba leaders were falling over themselves to trade with the British in cocoa and it made many of them rich.

The missionaries were the ones that spread Christianity, what the British force did was to protect the missionaries and prevent any attack or persecution of Christians by local leaders.

If African leaders( prior to Christianity) refused to trade with the British they won't have been able to invade AFRICA.African leaders opened their territory to the British unlike Japan.in my village, the leaders refused to entertain entry to the British,eventually it was locals that brought Christianity and education.

Dahomey favoured selling slaves even when they were compelled to stop.Dahomey invaded Abeokuta to capture SLAVES ( this was a traditional worshipping state)

African leaders over eagerness to trade with the Europeans facilitated the eventual fall of African kingdoms.

Ajayi crowther was a big force that spread Christianity in the southern Nigeria as well as others,check the history of most villages it was returned slaves from Sierra Leone that spread Christianity in their villages.

In my village it was a trader that brought Christianity through trying to learn to read and write.

Christianity was never imposed on southern Nigeria, however it was protected and privileged. Most people accepted Christianity as young people, it was a trendy thing in that era,unlike the Muslim states were Islam was imposed through the rulers or by force.

Note some areas in Edo were Islam was allowed to thrive,why did the British not force the people to be Christians?

Why are people in kogi Muslims?

There was no record of forced conversion in NIGERIA. Many people willingly converted because of the opportunity it provided with education and prospect of working a more lucrative job than ordinary laborious farming.

You are just a bitter soul.

Africa failed itself prior to Christianity

In most other parts of the world, there are many records of happenings during the BC era.

Chinese had happenings in the BC era,
The Greeks,Romans, maybe not northern Europe
The Indians etc

But there's something strange in AFRICA
It's like subsaharan Africa was empty during this period of the BC and early AD except in Egypt and Ethiopia area.

Even the earliest records of kingdoms in subsaharan Africa seemed to occur after 1000 AD.

The British have happenings going far back as 100AD.

Even early kingdoms such as ile-ife, NRI and Benin were formed after 1000AD .
The records of Oduduwa goes back only at 1200AD,when England was already a settled kingdom( William the conqueror, united England in 1000AD).

It therefore means that contrary to popular belief, African kingdoms especially ( Niger-Congo ) subsaharan are quite young and that subsaharan Africans maybe have just recently entered deep into Africa from the Egyptian/ Ethiopian region plus the once fertile Sahara ( the Sahara might hold a lot of secrets of ancient Africa).

Africans might just have been in the rebuilding or building stage in their new location when they encountered the entry of Europeans and Arabs,this might have been the reason for the disadvantaged Africans seem to have had as compared to others.

In all,its no excuse, African men especially of the major tribes, who are numerous for nothing, need to rise up to the occasion.

Other races are conquering space for goodness sake.

Topman7:
You are talking rubbish based on your inferiority complex and self hatred.

There was no slavery when the British were colonising Nigeria. The slave trade was abolished in 1833, nearly 70 years before the British invaded Nigeria.

So what RUBBISH are you saying?

In India where they practiced and still practice the barbaric caste system of 'Untouchables', it hasn't caused the 150 million oppressed 'Untouchables' there, who are treated worse than animals, to abandon their Hinduism and become christians.

All the muslim countries that have been bombed, invaded and oppressed by westerners and their own leaders, how many muslims has that caused to change their religion?

NEXT TO ZERO.

When Biafra was bombed and millions of Igbos killed, how many Igbos changed their religion as a result?

ZERO.

So this whole RUBBISH you are saying about Africans abandoning their religion en masse because they saw something wrong with it is LIES AND GARBAGE.

There is NOTHING in history that supports that.

People only CHANGE their religious beliefs en masse when they are FORCED OR COERCED TO DO SO.

So get rid of your inferiority complex and self hatred.

IN BRAZIL, CUBA ETC, there are MILLIONS of people of Yoruba descent whose ancestors were shipped there to be slaves, and guess what?

THEY EVEN PRACTICE TRADITIONAL YORUBA RELIGION THERE TODAY, MORE THAN PEOPLE IN NIGERIA.

These are people that should be the LAST people to embrace their African religion if your point was true.

SO STOP LYING TO JUSTIFY YOU COLONIAL MENTALITY AND WORSHIP OF WHITE PEOPLE WHOM YOUR ANCESTORS CIVILISED.

You are just reacting emotionally,
It was mostly freed slaves that preached Christianity in AFRICA.

Also Africans saw something in it for them,take for example Islam, it came into my village first and it came with war sponsored by the Nupe, but my village people never went into Islam enmasse because there was not much benefits, meanwhile, Christianity came and people embraced it because it came with ability to read and write and access to better trade opportunities.

Christianity also lured people in my village by paying of debts of many of them who were enmeshed in debts due to a system of our traditional religion were there was a costly festival that had to be done every year.many people fell into debt,but the missionaries used the technique of paying off peoples debt to lure them into Christianity, again there was benefits to it,that's why people moved into it,

China and Japan were not really colonised by Europeans, that is why they didn't accept Christianity.

As for Indians,they had a form of state religion just like Islam,and the British didn't tamper with that,just like the British didn't tamper with the Islamic north of NIGERIA religion. In the south and Middlebelt, there weren't state religions ,people practiced whatever the wished.

In my village for example ,there are over 20 shrines and systems of worship, each clan worshipped differently despite we being very small,there was no much of state religion ,the shrines that encompasses all the clans,were worshipped by selected few( national shrines,) and their descedants still worship it till today.


Non Muslim subsaharan Africa was very susceptible to religious change just like europe

The PDP keep ignoring LP arrogantly, the PDP are at fault

Topman7:
Nonsensical reasoning.

If you are invaded by a foreign country today, would that make you give up christianity on the basis that 'Jesus' did not help you defeat the conquerors? NO.

The ONLY reason the Japanese, Indians and Chinese maintained their religions was because they were not forced to abandon them by colonial invaders.

They were ALLOWED to observe their traditional faiths even while attending colonial schools.

The Europeans saw Africa as a source of massive amounts of raw materials for EXPLOITATION. They felt the need to psychologically manipulate Africans to make them more compliant for that program, and they feared the power of traditional African spirituality which was uncompromising in its adherence to JUSTICE.

So they forced Christianity unto Africans to make them submissive to white invaders.

RELIGION does not give you weapons to fight war.

So you cannot blame African spirituality which is about human values, and GOODNESS.

What really made Africans to abandon their traditional religion unlike Asians was really the deep practice of slavery that Africans engaged in,selling fellows into slavery, Christianity and Islam was boosted in Africa by the need to escape slavery by many enslaved people's. Many freed slaves practiced Christianity and preached it,others were actually drawn to the message of Christianity by these former slave preachers.

I get your point but my point is,given the way Christianity came to our village, from what was written, people voluntarily took to Christianity because of what it offered,it might have had an hidden motive but they didn't recognise it then because Christianity offered a lot,with access to education they could get to afford European quality of life,etc.people actually took to Christianity mainly because of what it offered they weren't necessarily forced. So if people that knew traditional religion could easily abandon, how do you expect modern people to now go back to it.

In essence, I do not think the religion you practice determine much,or is determining much for Africa,after all,Europeans also abadoned their traditional religions for Christianity.

Topman7:
What books?

It had nothing to do with books.

Shintoism, the Japanese religion, has no religious texts.

African spirituality did not need a ''holy book' because it was a lifestyle not a ''religion'' per se.

What happened was that the British seized power, and basically seized the resources of our territory.

Access to those resources became dependent on your getting a British style 'western' education, to get a job like a clerk, secretary, translator etc.

To be accepted in the ''missionary schools'' you had to ABANDON your traditional religion and get BAPTISED, and given an English name.

This forced people to DROP their religion or essentially remain PAUPERS.

Even powerful chiefs sent their wards to the English schools to avoid famiiy poverty etc.

While this was happening the British colonial officers were demonising our religion, telling lies about it and calling it 'savage and barbaric'' etc etc.

Eventually, a stigma was attached to traditional religion, as all but a tiny few came to ''ACCEPT JESUS'' as their ''personal saviour and lord'' or whatever rubbish you people say.

What's now the purpose of the traditional religion when it couldn't give the "Nigerians" the power to successfully counter the British, it didn't give them any great solution that the British were able to successfully hoodwink them, why should it now give blacks solution if they go back to it?

Maybe the Japanese religion or Chinese religion has some solutions but the African own clearly did not cos it couldn't save them from the hands of the whites

Dalohad:
A high population of Nigerians are short-sighted buffoons.

It is a trap sharing the same nationality with them, because they are so many and there is no way you can kill them off, to have only sane people with voting powers remain without committing genocide.

The demented buffoons voted same way THREE TIMES...in 2015, 2019, 2023

Exactly, that's why it's best to break up Nigeria, Nigeria is filled with high number of low IQ populace, the huge population is a big setback

Topman7:
I just told you that they DID NOT ACCEPT ''JESUS'' back then.

Most of them fought and were massacred and many fled.

Can't you read or make sense of what you read?

Many accepted,in OGORI history, Christianity was brought in by the locals not even white men through their desire to learn to read and write, Christianity came in through education not through force

Topman7:
OH PLEASE, SHUT THE HELL UP.

You can ONLY dismiss scholarly research with CONTRARY SCHOLARLY RESEARCH AND FINDINGS disproving theIr thesis.

It's not by saying ''Oh I read their stuff and they are talking rubbish''.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS IN TE ACADEMIC OF KNOWLEDGE.

Such a response might work in a BEER PARLOUR SETTING, but not in the academic/scholarly research community.

So present YOUR EVIDENCE disproving their findings, or keep quiet.

I dnt have the means to post counter research, as I don't save them.the history of the Yoruba book by prof adebanjo Akintoye counters this Egyptian narrative, also the book,the Yoruba a new history by I think faniran or so also counters the Egyptian narrative

Topman7:
Now here is the twist.

The 'Jesus' invention came about afte the ROMANS invaded their region - Israel and the Levant, and were oppressing the people for centuries.

They were awaiting a messiah that would save them from the Roman oppressors.

To curb this rebellion and discontent, the Romans started claimig that theiMessiah had AREADY arrive 100 years earlier, and that his mamew was ''JESUS''.

''Jesus'' told his people in the Roman-invented 'New Testamnent' to ''GIVE UNTO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESAR'S''.

Told them to ''TURN THE OTHER CHEEK'' if somebody slaps them etc.

In other words ''JESUS'' was invented by the Romans to PACIFY YOUR ANCESTORS BACK THEN.

That is why we have the information that the Israelites NEVER accepted ''Jesus'', and even till today, those who took over their history after they had fled into inner Africa - the white Kazarians, who became 'Jews' by conversion (not by blood) followed the tradition of REJECTING 'Jesus'', the Roman invention.

TILL TODAY.

NOW BECAUSE YOU WERE INVADED BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE (IE THE RECONSTRUCTED ROMAN EMPIRE) A CENTURY AGO, they came again with their 'JESUS', story, and because they wiped out your historical knowledge and trashed it as ''barbaric, savage'' etc, YOU now ACCEPTED ''JESUS''.

And they are so so happy that they GOT YOU at last.

But the Europeans also gave up their traditional religion for Christianity, it's was not easy for the East Asians to give up their traditional religion because it was written in books unlike African religion, if African religion was written down,Africa wud also not have given up their religion too

Topman7:
Now here is the twist.

The 'Jesus' invention came about afte the ROMANS invaded their region - Israel and the Levant, and were oppressing the people for centuries.

They were awaiting a messiah that would save them from the Roman oppressors.

To curb this rebellion and discontent, the Romans started claimig that theiMessiah had AREADY arrive 100 years earlier, and that his mamew was ''JESUS''.

''Jesus'' told his people in the Roman-invented 'New Testamnent' to ''GIVE UNTO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESAR'S''.

Told them to ''TURN THE OTHER CHEEK'' if somebody slaps them etc.

In other words ''JESUS'' was invented by the Romans to PACIFY YOUR ANCESTORS BACK THEN.

That is why we have the information that the Israelites NEVER accepted ''Jesus'', and even till today, those who took over their history after they had fled into inner Africa - the white Kazarians, who became 'Jews' by conversion (not by blood) followed the tradition of REJECTING 'Jesus'', the Roman invention.

TILL TODAY.

NOW BECAUSE YOU WERE INVADED BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE (IE THE RECONSTRUCTED ROMAN EMPIRE) A CENTURY AGO, they came again with their 'JESUS', story, and because they wiped out your historical knowledge and trashed it as ''barbaric, savage'' etc, YOU now ACCEPTED ''JESUS''.

And they are so so happy that they GOT YOU at last.

The people of that era,who were adept with historical knowledge were the ones that accepted Jesus,why don't you blame them,why did they give up their knowledge and you now expect this generation that aren't aware of traditional knowledge to go back to what the people that were aware of it abadoned

Topman7:
Can you see what I'm saying?

You are a Yoruba man, mixed with maybe Edo or another group. That is what Ogori is.

According to Yoruba oral tradition, they migrated from ''the East'' in antiquity due to heavy wars caused by foreign invaders. ''East'' meaning the REAL EAST of Nile Valley/Arabia etc.

THAT IS UNDISPUTED YORUBA ORAL TRADITION.

Now let me tell you the origin of the Yorubas, according to scholars, including ancient Arab scholars:

''The earliest record known to have been written about Yoruba history was that documented by Mohamed Belo, the son of Uthman dan Fodio. Uthman dan Fodio was the founder of Islamic jihad in Nigeria. Mohammed Belo was born on 03 November 1781.... In Belo's book Infaqul-maysur fi ta rich biladit-Takrur or Infaqul-Maysur, probably written around 1812 in Arabic, he associated the Yoruba origin with Iraq or Arabia, popularly known to be a Muslim region (Lange 2011):

''The Yoruba were remnants of the Canaanites of the tribe of Nimrūd who were expelled from Iraq by Yaˤub b. Qahtān and who fled to the west before they proceeded via Egypt and Ethiopia until they came to Yoruba'' (p. 583)2


''However, Johnson argued that the Yoruba concept of 'East' does not mean Mecca, but Egypt. He believed that the Yoruba culture and the Egyptian culture are similar in many ways and that the ancestors of the Yoruba could have been the Egyptians. He said (Johnson 1921):

That the Yorubas came originally from the East there cannot be the slightest doubt, as their habit, manners and customs, etc., all go to prove … the Yorubas are certainly not of the Arabian family and could not have come from Mecca universally known in history, and no such accounts as the above are to be found in the records of Arabian writers of any kings of Mecca … (p. 50)''

According to Samuel Johnson:

(Johnson 1921):

''[T]he inhabitants of this province (Yarba) it is supposed originated [sic] from the remnant of the children of Canaan, who were of the tribe of Nimrod. The cause of their establishment in the West of Africa was, as it is stated, in consequence of their being driven by Yar-rooba, son of Kahtan, out of Arabia to the Western Coast between Egypt and Abyssinia. From that spot they advanced into the interior of Africa, till they reached Yarba where they fixed their residence. On their way they left in every place they stopped at, a tribe of their own people. Thus it is supposed that all the tribes of the Soudan who inhabit the mountains are originated from them as also are the inhabitants of Ya-ory. Upon the whole, the people of Yarba are nearly of the same description as those of Noofee (Nupe). (pp. 5-6)3''

https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222020000400020

You can read the full debates on that link..

The ONLY argument in scholarly circles is whether the Yorubas came from Mecca or from Egypt.

Eminent Yoruba historians, Samuel Johnson, as well as Olumide Lucas, state that they came from EGYPT.

HAVE YOU HEARD OF NIMROD?

ARE YOU AWARE THAT NIMROD IS THE LAMURUDU OF YORUBA HISTORY?

Look, you people need to enlighten yourselves.

You have no idea who you are.

Your history did not start in Nigeria.

YOU ARE DESCENDANTS OF MIGRANTS FROM THE NORTH EAST IN ANTIQUITY, IE NILE VALLEY, EGYPT, ISRAEL, ETC.

Who do you think are the 'HEBREWS', 'EDOMITES' and 'JEBUSITES' of the old testament?

Those are the ancestors of the IGBO, EDO and IJEBU people, prior to their migration southwards.

You have an awful lot to learn.

Fabulous tales and fiction, have read all these trash,they aren't new to me.

By the way ogori is not Yoruba mixed with Edo,OGORI is oko-,oko- is ogori,we are a distinct ethnic group

Topman7:
What ethnic group are you from?

I will link you to Egypt, right here, right now, with evidence.

Tell me your ethnic group.

Lol,u can never,my ethnic group is oko,( OGORI)

Topman7:
Mr Man, you do NOT know what your ancestors knew.

Did you interrogate them?

NO.

When your elders told you about the migration to your village, did you ask them about the prior history and the prior one before that one?

NO.

So you don’t KNOW what they know.

To inquire into your deep history, you would speak to traditional griots or cult initiates.

You would need to sit down with them and go all the way back in history, to the LIMIT of their recollection.

Have you ever done that?

NO, YOU HAVE NOT.

The history of my village was written down by indigenes not long after they learnt to write from other Africans not even whites.

The first writers of my village history weren't Christians and they also got their sources from people who were not particularly Christian and in all they remember ( I must admit they cudnt have remembered up to a point) they didn't really know Egypt,atleast not as you are presenting it.it wasn't whites that made them abandoned Egypt, they didn't know Egypt even before the coming of the whites.

If they left Egypt,they should have come with many knowledge of the workings of Egypt or they developed new knowledge, whatever the particular case,Egypt has you are presenting it was irrelevant to them

Topman7:
How many of your ancestors did you speak to? You don’t KNOW, so keep quiet.

Plus the migration from Egypt was a very long time ago. The 7th century is over 1,500 years ago.

So it would not be expected that your local village elder would have first hand knowledge of Egypt. That is where RESEARCH and INVESTIGATION comes in.

Your history is not simply what your local village elders can remember.

They can't remember because it wasn't useful to them,my village had long years of history before encounter with whites,infact my village only encountered whites probably a 120 years ago, whites did not make us forget our past,we know our past and Egypt was not in it,atleast in most of the recorded or retold events.why should Egypt now be relevant to me now

Topman7:
That’s a very small-minded, illiterate view.

If your village is all that matters, why are you worshiping a “saviour” that was invented in Europe, thousands of miles away from your village?

What happened to your village deities?

The truth is that that you are suffering from British brainwashing which limited your history to your little village, after they lied to you that your continent and race has no history, and were just jungle dwellers, and all that mattered was to worship them, via their fake, non-existent white “saviour”.

The average European, even the one who lives in remote villages in Serbia, believes that his history is Greece and Rome.

So stop reasoning like a mosquito.

Your history is about far more than your little village.

The history of my village is greater than the history of Egypt to me,our ancestors told us not about Egypt,even our earliest ancestors know nothing about Egypt, why should I then be concerned about Egypt today.

Topman7:
Stop disgracing yourself, you blasted mumu.

Should I flood this thread with images of the black PHARAOHS and BLACK Egyptians?

Can you handle it, because it will crash this forum.

Go on CHATGPT and ask AI the race of the ancient Egyptians.

It will tell you they were BLACK AFRICANS and that Egypt was a BLACK AFRICAN civilisation.

AI can access billions of volumes of historical texts and data, and tell you what was what, devoid of racist lies and obfuscation.

In fact you can go on ChatGPT now and tell it to give you an essay on the WHITEWASHING of African history, and it will tell you all the activities that whites have engaged in to deceive the world that the ancient Egyptians were whites, including smashing off the noses of statues and replacing them with pointy noses, and other acts of deceit and manipulation of facts.

You will also learn that ALL the Ancient Greek scholars who visited Egypt, from Plato to Herodotus to Aristotle, wrote that the Egyptians were BLACKS.

Ignorant people.

In this day and age you still don’t know your African history.

You are an utter disgrace.

That’s how these whites whom your ancestors raised from the dust are able to bamboozle and deceive you like children, because you refuse to read, research and learn.

They definitely cast a spell on you people.

OH SURE, white people left Europe 6000 years ago and went to Africa to build pyramids and temples that they could not build in Europe.

Meanwhile there are over 250 pyramids in SUDAN, many older than any in Egypt.

SHEER COMMON SENSE should tell you that it must have been the same black Africans who migrated up to Egypt and continued the pyramid building tradition there.

Tufia.

Do you know the history of your village? The history of my village is more relevant to me than the history of Egypt

The Yoruba brought this upon us,we must say it has it is.the Yoruba brought BUHARI and now this

thesolutions:
Every one that occupied the seats of leadership in this country has an agenda. They can not tell you their agenda because you won't consider them as an option if they do. So the make public campaign promises to please the media even though they do not expect to win from those campaigns but by preplanned poling heist.

The African leaders are doing well as long as their tenet is concerned.
How many of them is complaining of hardships and inflation?
How many of them look sad and actually visit the people they govern in an open space?

The goal is self settling and creating mechanism for continuity, or at least, constant flow of the nations resources to themselves and families.

The problem is not the president. It is everyone involved in governance. It is not about major tribe or minor tribes. It is a program. It is little of fear of the unknown and major of the maximum utilization of power.

Why can't these tribes not utilize power properly?

African are virtually the poorest men in the world

All the time Nigeria has been ruled by minority Christian rulers,Nigeria makes strides and times are good.

But anytime a majority tribes man comes in we are led into hard times.

In most African countries almost everything major thing is owned by white skinned foreigners.

Why are African men so poor as a group?

Is it mindset?

Why are African men rulers so incompetent and cruel like the one on seat in NIGERIA today.

Why are men from the majority African tribes perpetuating such an aggressive system of incompetent governance and cruel public mismanagement.

Topman7:
If you are still wondering if the ancient Egyptians were blacks, that just shows the tragic level of ignorance and wretched miseducation you are suffering from.

Disgusting and Pathetic.

Africans did NOT and DO NOT practice “different religions”, as far as traditional religion is concerned.

It’s the SAME religion, but with a variety of ‘denominations’.

Just like christianity has Catholic, Methodist, etc, is the same way Yoruba religion is a different denomination from Igbo religion, but they observe the same fundamental principles of ATR. African Traditional Religion.

There's still no concrete proof if dey were blacks,atleast West African blacks, why do blacks never talk about Meroe or Kush which they are concretly linked with but only Egypt where there's still no concrete proof.

The so called Egyptians and their systems wasn't practiced by all blacks if indeed they were blacks.blacks practiced different religions right from time immemorial, some adopted or borrowed,some original