₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Colonialism is not holding Nigeria back, B. It's your sort of !gnorance holding Nigeria back!

And it's the reason you think intelligent people will believe what you say about buda and ignore what buda says.

Continue to blame colonialism in 2026.

bayelsaowei:
Talk more about the upsides of the civil right acts rather than this jamboree.

Without the civil right acts would you or any other black person be talking family values?

You’d be a rag in the hands of a white man and won’t be able to keep a nice job, more or less raise a family.

And have you ever discussed about the family values of your white lords and gods? Are they wholesome today?

Oboy, you are still arguing against a position nobody is taking.

Nobody sai the civil Rights Act was not important. It was one of the most important legal victories in American history. We fully accept that.

But that does not mean every conversation about black outcomes must stop at civil rights was good.
It created legal freedom.

Family values, educatiom, crime reduction, economic discipljne, and community stability are about what people do with that freedom.

Your argument is like saying: because independence from colonial rule was good, nobody should discuss corruption, bad leadership, crime, or in nigeria after independence we should focus and talk more about the good of independence. That makes no sense at all. What is affecting Nigeria today should be discussed more.

And yes, white family breakdown should also be discussed. White communities also have fatherlessness, drug abuse, crime, divorce, suicide, and cultural decay. Nobody said only Black people have problems but the black community is the pinnacle of this issue. I have discussed about it time and time again. I talk about the drug issues. This discussion stems from deepsight accusation. So I didn't just start talking about it.

So, when the topic is black outcomes, discussing black family structure is not anti-Black. Obama discussed fatherless homes. Black pastors discuss it. Black conservatives discuss it. Even many ordinary Black parents discuss it. Are they all worshipping white lords too?

You keep trying to turn a social-policy discussion into racial loyalty politics. That is the real problem.

The Civil Rights Act was necessary and good. Jim Crow was evil. But after legal barriers are removed, it is still valid to ask why some communities struggle with crime, school failure, fatherlessness, drugs, and poverty.

That is not jamboree. That is how serious people talk about solutions. It is clear that you are not serious, you just want to blame white people for everything while black people shoot themselves to death every now and then.

This kind of thinking is why Africa is junk today. Instead of tackling the issue, we blame somebody else and attack people talking about it of worshipping white gods. It's a shameful way of thinking.

bayelsaowei:
What you are arguing about or proposing is a waste and adds no value to you or any other black person.

Instead of asking the questions you’re asking in a bid to support Kirk, you should rather overwhelmingly dwell on the upsides of the civil rights acts that paved the way for many of your kind to experience a good measure of freedom to excel and be successful in their own country and space.

Focus on the civil rights act of 1964 that ended illegal segregation, banned discrimination in jobs, and strengthened federal power to enforce equality.

What could be more of a wholesome topic to discuss than the act that allowed blacks to at least breathe well.

Instead you and other awful individuals are reminiscing the supposed “good times” when blacks were treated like animals.

You are being dishonest. this is yeyeah emotional blackmail, not an argument.

Nobody denied the upsides of the civil rights Act, it was necessary.

Ending legal segregation, banning employment discrimination, and enforcing equal treatment were historic achievements, etc.

celebrating civil rights does not mean we must pretend every post1960s social outcome improved.

Two things can be true at the same time:
Civil rights gave Black Americans legal dignity and freedom.

And

Some social problems later worsened: crime, fatherlessness, drugs, school failure, and urban breakdown.

Discussing the second point does not mean rejecting the first point.

You are trying to force a false choice here e no go work. either praise civil rights only, or you are reminiscing about Jim Crow - nonsense.

Nobody is reminiscing about Black people being treated like animals. Jim Crow was evil kirk said it but you are fixated on calling people racist. Segregation was evil he meant this too. Denying people equal rights was evil, etc.

family values are not a waste of time as you said. Obama talked about fatherlessness for a reason. Many Black leaders, pastors, educators, and community activists have talked about it for decades.

Were they all “anti-Black” too?

people can celebrate freedim and still discuss what is damaging the community today. In fact, if you actually care about Black people, you should be able to do both. But you like victimhood narrative it seems rather than tackling the problems

tctrills:
I honestly don't know what you are replying to. No one says blacks should return to when blacks had to step out the way for white people to walk past.

How about we just simplify it by asking blacks to return to having fathers at home and young black men not killing eachother.

You are making it seem like if they return to having a sane society, they will again be segregated.

I don't see how returning to a sane community where they are no longer a community of murders, irresponsible fathers and abortionist women means a society that benefits whites only.
Trust me, if blacks stop killing blacks, it benefits blacks more than whites.

Budaatum is an expert in this. This is 2026 and he still thinks colonialism is holding us back

DeepSight:
So says someone. Its not been established.

Keep on defending the killer and continue to attack the dead person.

Tomorrow you will come with another nonsense and shout, "see, kirk racist"

THEDEEPSIGHT:
Can you stop lying and trying to claim the Kirk killer has been shown to have any political affiliation or motivation?

He killed charlie because of is transgender babe. That's not political right?

The same way you concur to IjeBos Charlottesville lie.

raumdeuter:
How did I change his words when I am posting exactly what you posted

This is from your post

He is just dishonest

TV01:
He also hates black people who don't join his hate parade for WP and Juice. Freely and gleefully throwing around slurs such as HN and cooon or variations thereof.

A really hateful person.



Oh yes, and this too. A spewer of tropes and canned ideology. Wrapped up in tantrums dressed as faux outrage .



TV

It is why I said he is like the south Africans you see chasing black people up and down the streets.

DeepSight:
Descending into outright lies should be beneath even you (if anything could be).
The bold are outright lies.

Its okay if you don't have self awareness.

You are a racist but you believe black people can't be racists

DeepSight:
Criticizing racists is not hatred. The hatred is being racist.
I dont expect any HN to understand this though.

You said crap about all white people, we point out that some fought and died to free black people from slavery.

You call house House N, make statements like white people or W Supreme won't love you etc.

You hate white people. That's confirmed

DeepSight:
Nonsensical and the presumptions about my life only rebound on you.

I hate neither Caucasians nor Jews.

However those who are enslaved to both would imagine so.

Oga you do.

GracieX3:
So, you acknowledged the fact that he didn't choose his words well. You agree that his words are provocative.

But somehow, his words are truth? A man that claims that prowling blacks are coming to your neighbourhood...

Maybe, but he does not have to. Jesus was also provocative.

When speaking, you can just be blunt and spew the truth or you can carefully refine your words to sound more inclusive. Either way, you can't be racist for speaking the truth

Raumdeuter, Basilico 😂😂🤣

Deepsight see your UN

Is this real or Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest movie?

Only in the United Nations would you see IRAN sitting on UN boards for women's rights, nuclear nonproliferation, and counterterrorism.@RepBrianMast exposes the @UN's hypocrisy: pic.twitter.com/pjBUsewfdt

— House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority (@HouseForeignGOP) April 29, 2026

GracieX3:
Ogbeni, why were Charlie Kirk's words provocative?

Truth is provocative. Why is truth provocative?

Saying there are only 2 genders is provocative.

GracieX3:
And why were Kirk's words provocative?

Because they were racist. Stop defending nonsense

Provocative words does not mean racism. That's the point. He is discussing a data, he has a point. Not everything is racist or racism. Make una rest

DeepSight:
The improvement of the lot of a people is obviously a gradual process which takes generations - especially when that set of people have been subject to centuries of deprivation and subjugaton!

This is not rocket science!

I don't know, if they were better than compared to now it is not an improvement abi?

No be the same argument they talk about Nigeria?
Nowhere in the country do you find a waterboard serving a city or village with clean drinking water. That used to be the case. So are we actually improving in this country or?

DeepSight:
If you truly want full context you should also factor in the fact that he said less murder and less break ins "before they had equal rights. Therefore in context, he was tying "better behavior" to having less rights.

When asked if he is saying suppression is good for them, he says no, its evil, but goes ahead to affirm that they were better under that suppression.

What do you think he was driving at?

Any half wit can see what he was saying. Especially given that this is the same man who argued that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.
Thats real context for u.

I conceded that Kirk's words are provocative. So I don't know for you.
But you are still pretending the wording is suspicious, means the only possible meaning is racist.

No. The sentence can be badly framed and still be raising a legitimate issue:
why did some Black social indicators worsen after legal rights improved?
If you want to argue that Kirk’s framing was irresponsible, fine. If you want to argue that his Civil Rights Act views make him suspect, fine. We have addressed you on that as well.

But if your argument is that nobody can compare Black outcomes across time without being racist, then you are just avoiding the question.

bayelsaowei:
So what is your proposal?

That the reforms that happened beyond the 1960’s should be rolled back and blacks revert to the times of extreme racism, just to retain certain metrics?

What is your point? If you’re not delusional, please tell me what point you’re trying to make.

It’s seems we have to curse and blame the folks who fought for the rights of blacks, all for shameless people like you to bad mouth the efforts.

You’re a disgrace.

My proposa is not to roll back rights. My proposal is to stop pretending civil rights and social outcomes are the same issue.

Civil rights fix legal injustice. It did not automatically fix crime, family breakdown, urban poverty, bad schools, drugs, or cultural decay.

The question is not should Blacks go back to Jim Crow? Of course not.

The question is: after legal discrimination was reduced, why some indicators get worse instead of better?

That question is not anti-Black. It is the kind of question you ask if you actually care about solving the problem.

The hip hop culture promotes a lot of what is wrong with the black community. Obama talked about Fatherless homes.

Be here and pretend like there is nothing to talk about while you call people disgrace for no reason.

Don't understand what kirk was talking about, just go along and call him a racist because it makes you feel good.

GracieX3:
As usual, Charlie Kirk and his defenders twist statistics to propagate their anti-black propaganda.

In the 1940s, burglariesand homicides dropped GENERALLY in the USA because of the draft and industrialisation at the time.

Charlie kirk had no point talking about outcomes for black people in 1940s. He is a racist

See the problem with this people. You are comparing 1940 to another Jim crow era. Kirk was comparing then to now. It shows you have no clue what we are talking about.

Wahala

DeepSight:
You did amend what he said. You in fact comepletely changed it. Adding the words "some" and maybe" are a huge change.

What he said -

"they were better in the 40s"

What you said he said -

" Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true "

These are completely different and anyone can see the massive difference.

Besides, you are not a baby - do I have to explain to you that when he says people were better behaved when they had less rights, he is drawing a link between having less rights and better behavior?



I have no respect for his intellect, self respect, or moral compass.

You are still isolating one phrase from the subject being discussed.

Kirk did not start with oh, Black people were better off in the 1940s as a general statement.

He started with specific claims: less murder, less break-ins, etc. Then he said the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

In context, the word better refers to the data points he just mentioned. That is not an amendment; that is basic reading comprehension. Don't let LordReed give you that infection.

If I say: In the 1980s, Port Harcourt had less robbery, less murder, less drug abuse the city was better then, you do not automatically assume i mean every single thing about life was better. You understand I meant better on the issue being discussed.

GracieX3:
Please, which data shows that blacks had better outcomes in the 1940s?

You are talking about a period before 1964 where.

1. Blacks did not have rights
2. Blacks could be and were rejected from jobs based on racial discrimination, legally.
3. Blacks could not vote.
4. Segregation against Blacks was real.

So blacks could not build wealth or own banks. Even when they tried to build wealth in 1921, there was the Tulsa race massacre where black businesses and neighbourhoods were shot up by racist people.

You and Charlie Kirk have some anti-black bias.

Another dishonest post.

Read this discussion in full before you chime in

DeepSight:
He provided a clarification right there and it was terrible. In his clarification he said blacks were better off in the 40s.

Wrong.

That's your bad understanding

DeepSight:
Argue with Kirk, not me -

KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”


You are amending what he said. As a loyal follower, you are refining it for him. In red above are his words. He clearly said blacks were better off in the 40s, word for word, even in his clarification.

No, I am not amending anything. I am providing the context.

The question being discussed was crime and behaviour.

Kirk said:
There were less break-ins, less murderous, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

So “better” refers to the specific data he was discussing. crime/social outcomes, not Black people were better off overall under Jim Crow.

You are deliberately changing the meaning of better here.

If I say, Nigeria’s railway system was better in the 1960s, nobody serious thinks I mean Nigerians were better off under colonialism. It means that specific thing being discussed was better.

Kirk even immediately said the era was bad and evil. So how can you honestly claim he meant Black people were better off under that evil system?

The fair criticism is: “Kirk should have phrased it more carefully.” Fine like is said before, provocative words != racism

The dishonest criticism is: “Kirk said Black people were better off oppressed.” He did not. He said some data points were better in that era, while also calling the era evil.

Oga move on from this agend. tctrills have explained to you and you are still burying your head in the sand.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
The point is of course that a bound man's behavior is always pleasing to he who bound him.
I am not surprised that you missed my inverted commas around the words "behaving better."

I saw your inverted commas. But e no save the argument.

Kirk was talkin about measurable outcomes like crime, break ins, family struct.

You changed “better outcomes” into “pleasing to the master.”
That is you dodging.

If you think his data is wrong, challenge the data.

If you think his causation is wrong, challenge the causation.

But saying “a bound man’s behaviour is pleasing to the one who bound him” does not answer the question.

Nobody here said Black people were better off under Jim Crow. kir called that era bad and evil.

The issue is whether some specific social indicators were better then than later. Those are not the same claim.

You are mixing moral status with social indicators. Black Americans were morally and legally worse off under Jim Crow.

Bottom line is:

Black people were better off under Jim Crow is false

Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true

Charlie was arguing the second point. You keep pretending he argued the first. That is the dishonesty.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
By the way, it is human to have emotions especially against injustice and malevolence. Those very passions are the root of the inspiration of all freedom fighters throughout history. Therefore you waste your time thinking that you insult me in this matter by calling me emotional. Every right thinking and sober human should be emotional about subjects like this.

@ cococandy on behalf of human beings and gentlemen of respect, accept my apologies for the utterance of the barbarian slave.

When Charlie called that era and Jim Crow evil in your own post, was it enough for you to know that he does not support it?

Why do you want to label everything racist instead of understanding the arguments or point?

Where did he say that era was good for them or that they were better with Jim Crow? It is an argument you just made making you the racist you accused Kirk of.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
It is absolutely understandable for people in bondage to "behave better" than free men. Because bound people have no choice. Their behaviour will always be "better" especially in the eyes of the master.

So they were behaving better because they have no choice. Bondage is what was making them behave better?
You sound more of a racist than Charlie.

tctrills:
Ok
I really don't understand why you brought up a topic you are not capable of handling.

His emotions are everywhere

THEDEEPSIGHT:
The so called clarification did nothing and it did not in fact address the first statement. It addressed the specific wording of the question after the first statement. And it affirmed the view in the first statement.

As to the question why black crime was supposedly lower, does it not stand to reason that an enshackled population will be less capable of anything including crime? Yet, for Charlie, that was a better state of affairs - he explicitly said in his so called clarification that blacks were better in the 40s.

Listen a population which is more or less enslaved cannot be better off, crime rate or not, more baby daddies or not.

I dont have to read between the lines for any of you before you see that he was saying that blacks behave better when deprived of equal rights. But your oppressor can say anything to you and you will defend it for him.

What did Charlie call evil?

You are deep in dishonesty.

Move on

The data actually shows what Charlie was saying. They were bonded together as a family, they were well behaved.

Charlie called the era evil for how they were treated. Nowhere did he imply less right is good or was the reason they were better. He is talking about an era and how they were doing when they have less right.

tctrills:
He is a sad and sick fault-finder. Charlie has been dead for months now, but he is still trying to dig up skeletons. What kind of crazy person does this?

They are full of hate.

anonimi:
Could you please explain how welfare programmes attacked the family structure

Read this
https://bhroberts.org/records/0DRmec-8PclBb/murray_discusses_the_impact_of_welfare_on_marriage_and_child_bearing_decisions_1984

tctrills:
Deepsight has a sick and dark mind. He is always hunting for whom to hate. I am sure he is a very sad person. People like him should be avoided in the real world.

I have been telling him. The blacks who tend to move away from this victimhood and blaming all the time are attacked and hated by the likes of deepsight, the ones who always subscribe to victimhood often close their eyes on black on black crimes, hatred on their own and losts of degenerate things coming from the black culture in the US.

Charlie explicitly called that era evil in deepsight's own post, he clarified when asked but deepsight does not care.

tctrills:
Lol
When you can't face the truth, you pretend to be sickened. If you are not capable of handling the facts, you should have learnt not to mention me because you know I will always give you truth bombs.
You can play to the emotions of your fellow race police with words like revolting, pathetic, and sickening, but we know it's just a show. You guys are just show guys, pretending to know what's best and giving you useless morals that haven't helped anyone, to the rest of us.
Please do not ever mention me unless you have the capacity to engage.

That's why I have been saying it's people like him attacking other Africans in South Africa. They are always looking for what to blame for their problems