₦airaland Forum

@ Eddy Tells
Catholics have been speaking in tongues looong before there were pentecostal churches. Your denomination is a new kid on the block of Christian spiritualitly

Part 6- Parents at last

My wife - being a good Nigerian - wanted to have a child asap. I wasn't all that sure about it at first, but events took over and I made a complete mindswitch. It was hard to imagine myself as a father, I had never given it much thought, but slowly and steadily we grew more an more into the role of future parents. We started to think about the decoration of the baby room, read books and watched videos on parenting, started looking for a name, ...

In the mean time we were able to go on our delayed honeymoon in London. By the time we got back, her pregnancy became rather hard to carry and this increased the stress for the both of us. Actually, at that time I didn't have a drivers license. i never wanted to go for the exam because I - rightly - thought that I would like driving too much and as cars are extremely money hungry. Of course, once my wife was expecting, using public transport wasn't that easy anymore and we had to compromise in many ways

About one week before the expected delivery date, my wife was sleeping badly at night. She had to get up frequently, but she dozed off and fell asleep again. Around down, she woke up an knew immediately that something was different that time/ the contractions had started. As it was 7:00 by the time we were ready. As the contractions were not continuous, we decided that we could take public transport to get to the hospital. We got there at about 8:00. The gynaecologist decided to keep her and at about 11:00 labour started. It all took extremely long and the pain got too much. She received an epidural, but unfortunately, it didn't help that much. A second epidural could relive most of the pain. By 18:40 she delivered our first son, Tom. We were both so happy. I was so proud that I could give him his first bath, he was so tiny, but o so beautiful

to be continued ...

@Vexxy
I truly hope your story isn't yet finished. I'm enjoying every letter of it

layi:
Which time fiki fiki turn to kuli kuli fabiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

tgress abi na lioness.u mean nferyn still had time to post while doing fiki fiki ?

Layi,

It's a little more than what you people are referring to. You bachelors are too singelminded But let's get on with it... I'm starting

part 6....

Sorry again for he delay.
My wife's just back from Nigeria. I'm [i]working [/i]on my marriage now, so I didn't have time to [i]write [/i]about it
Tomorrow. Promise

loveth:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I don't call any body an idol worshipper pleaseeeeeeeee
pleaseeeeeeeeee don't misunderstand me pleaseeeeeeeee

That's cool, just try to be a little less easy to minsunderstand next time

tolutope:
damygurl.. i guess a lot of people think charles darwin is d answer to all explanations,,, has anyone thot for a moment how is it possible for everything in this universe 2come from one cell and then it EVOLVED into everything we see? :- hellllooooo..... doesnt it sound.......?. think for a moment flowers ,animals, galaxy, moon stars all uniform, everything seems calculated and proprtionate and uniform.. and it just so happen that they evolved...? duh?

Please, try to inform yourself first on what the evolution theory actually is before talking about it.
The theory [/b]of evolution is a [b]scientific [/b]theory that explains the [b]fact [/b]of evolution and the [b]diversity of species we see today on our planet. It does not speak about the origin of life. Nor does it not speak about the origin of our universe. These things are outside the scope of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is perfectly capable of explaining the diversity, proportionality and beauty of the living world.

Please read:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
before forming any opinion about a subject you have little understanding about

tolutope:
western education.... ... all good... reality of life.... another thing.... study the universe and ull find out it didnt all come together to form one piece of master piece.. be realistic... we r more than just evolution...

Of course we are [b]more [/b]than just evolution. That does not invalidate evolution in the slightest. What is your point?

goodguy:
Wesley, you're talking based on what you were taught at school. Remember, these scientists that bring up these trash don't also believe in God. (only few of them do).
_{I wonder why no one said anything about my post}

I'm affraid you have no idea what you're talking about. Can you explain the evolution theory? if you can, can you tell us what's wrong with it?

And what's trashy about the theory of evolution?

whocares:
I think i'm a pretty tolerant person

I have/know gay friends/people who are wonderful

...but when i think about this i get goose bumps.

No fact, no data, no logic.just me

Then you're probably not as tolerant as you think you were.
Keeping an open mind is a constant struggle against your own demons. Tolerance is a learned behaviour

@Anton

Could you also address the questions I asked before? I really would like to know your position on them.

anton:
From what i have read of Ayitty (from his postings on various online mediums and this passage) it clear, to me at least, that one could compare him to a Clarance Thomas, Armstrong Williams, and Thomas Sowell. These individuals are not servants of the African people. They are, judging from their actions, anti-black and anti-African. A term I use to describe individuals such as them is "Africidal", which is a play of the noun Africa, and the suffix -cidal, which means: 1) of a killer or killing and 2) that can kill. So, someone who is Africidal is one who is in the act of killing Africa.

I have only read two of his books and I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Can you explain why he is anti-black and anti-African? And to conclude that he is Africidal? I really don't get it. Can you enlighten me? And comparing him to Clarence Thomas? That's like comparing Rosa Luxemburg to Stalin. You truly got me puzzled her.

anton:
I have also heard Nigerians dismiss him as silly and nonrelevant. If anybody wants to know what is in my head regarding the geo-political structure of the planet, then they should ask. One of the reasons I am here is to get first hand intelligence of the situation. That being said, I am also quite able to analyse world history and come to conclusion as to what is the problem. I will also tell any African anything I have knowledge of about my experience here. There is alot of confusion in the mix. Now, I will admit that he [Ayitty] is describing so called black leadership to a key. Of course, the so called black leadership in america is in no place say that they speak for anybody but themselves, if that. So overall, very clever on your behalf, but Ayitty has no idea what is in my head or the Elders at whose feet I sit.

Ok, I can understand that you don't want to be put in the same bag as the so called black leadership in America. What then is your position? Do you deny the impact of tribalism and bad leadership in Africa on the development of the continent?

anton:
Let me apologize if you feel uncomfortable when I use the term European. I don't mean you, persay, every single time, but I understand if you could have taken every statement as personal. But surely you can understand that I feel it would greatly benefit the dialogue if you, as a European, express some of the things that you feel Europe and Europeans could do to correct some of the problems they created (in regards to Africa), instead of quoting ideas and theories about the African's role in The African Problem. Would I be incorrect in asking that?

You can certainly ask that. As I have stated in other threads before. The first thing Europe (the EU) should do, is to get rid of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), as this is creating a dependence on imported foods in Africa. It would also reduce the rural flight and the pressure on the big African cities and most importantly, it would make Africa self-sufficient again regarding food production.

But to get concrete again, what exactly is wrong with the quote I provided? If you disagree, explain what is wrong with it, so that at least we can understand your position.

anton:
Alos, let's get back to this issue right here, since this is the starting point of the ongoing confusion in the dialogue.
Quote from: anton on Today at 07:55:04 PM[i]
One can only conclude logically that you were ascribing my statement that "the"1st world" got their wealth not from hard work but from the wanton rape and destruction of the so called "developing world", including our collective people, but including indegious people around the planet. Therefore, to be on par means to be able to compete with and defend ourselves effectively from "1st world" or "western" agression, whether it be in an economic, political, or military in nature." as a 'crap racist argument'. Am I right, because I could be wrong?

You are wrong. You have not understood what I was implying when I was making that statement. The crap racist argument referred to using inherited racial characteristics as a basis to explain different levels of development. That is a crap racist argumentt. There is no biological basis for race, you could just as well use short and tall as racial determinants, it would be just as useless. Race is just a sociological construct, used as vehicle and justification for oppression[/i]

Where, in the posts above my second post, did anyone say anything about "using inherited racial characteristics as a basis to explain different levels of development"?

You didn't, and I was not referring to anything you said at all. I was clarifying why I used the words crap racist argument. You thought I described your argument
One can only conclude logically that you were ascribing my statement that "the"1st world" got their wealth not from hard work but from the wanton rape and destruction of the so called "developing world", including our collective people, but including indegious people around the planet. Therefore, to be on par means to be able to compete with and defend ourselves effectively from "1st world" or "western" agression, whether it be in an economic, political, or military in nature." as a crap racist argument. Something I did not do.

@Ka

I understand what you're saying, but I'm surely not seeing the fight for equal opportunities as one defined by the boundaries that men face. Ultimately, we have an organisation of society that is catering to specific needs and wants of men. the fight for equal gender opportunities does not limit itself to women being able to do everything men can do, but rather to ensure that women have all opportunities to be their best.

At this stage, we're so far removed from that ultimate goal that some basic legal equality would already be a big step forward.

tolutope:
well i guess since there is noGod or spirits.. u all must be genetically created.. i wonder why u guys havent evolved into smthin else or has anythin else?

What are you trying to say? I don't understand your argument.

Sorry for keeping you all waiting, but I got caught up in another thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-2840.0.html .

I will try to post tomorrow.

Meanwhile, my wife is back from Nigeria tomorrow - my days as a lonely part-time single dad with two kids are over

Ka:
Nferyn,

Why should feminists fight for only equal opportunities? Why not fight for total opportunity? What if the opportunities available to men in a particular society (which are the same opportunities that feminists want women to have) aren't enough to guarantee anyone's happiness?

It's better to think in terms of absolutes rather than relatives. This is one of the reasons I'm somewhat suspicious of feminists when they use the word 'equality'. Why not fight your own fight? Why define what you want in terms of what other groups have?

Ka,

It just happens to be that women have to deal with a legacy of extreme oppression all over the globe. If you only fight for enlarging the cake without fighting for equal gender opportunities, women are still going to be left with the crumbs, and that only if they're allowed at the table at all.. Happiness is a relative phenomenon: you look at your immediate peers and if the equation is positive, you'll be happy, even if you have much less than the person you'll never be in contact with..

I don't really understand your second paragraph. Can you ellaborate the argument a little?

goodguy:
That's because there are only 2 GODLY beliefs: Christianity and Islam. So it's either you go to a church or a mosque (if you truely believe in God).

So Judaism [b]is not [/b]a godly belief? You've got me puzzled here. Those people wrote the Torah (what Christians refer to as the old testament)

Thank you, I think that now we're getting somewhere. At least the arguments are more explicit.

anton:
nferyn qoute
You don't need to look at the Native Americans for examples of effective societal organisations. There are plenty of examples thereof in pre colonial Africa.

It's quite apparent that you did not understand the premise of my argument against the term "tribalism". Or maybe you did, but you are attempting to add further confusion. I thought that my explaination for using Native American organizations as an example was adequately explained with the following quote:

I'm not on the Continent (not yet, anyway Grin), but I can tell you about this land over here. Europeans are eager to downplay other people's systems.

I could be wrong, of course.

So what you are saying is that my use of the term tribalism [/i]is an attempt by me to downplay other people's systems?
Let me quote George B.N. Ayittey on the issue of tribalism and the disconnect between African Americans and Africans:

[i]... A large part of the problem derives from the differences in perception, attitudes and historical experiences. there are four such differences between black
Americans and black Africans. First, black Americans - throughout their history and experience - have always seen their oppressors and exploiters to be white. Black Africans, on the other hand have seen both black and white oppressors and exploiters. As such, they have no difficulty condemning the architects of apartheid in South Africa with as much venom as they would the tyrannical regimes elsewhere in Africa. Black Americans have never lived under black tyrannical regimes and therefore cannot relate to black tyranny.

Second, black Americans analyze their problems - often justifyably - in a black/white or racialist paradigm, which they tend to use for Africa's problems as well. Unfortunately, the model is unsuitable because in black Africa, racism is not the issue, except in Kenya, Mauritania,South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Rather,
it is tribalism - for example tribal apartheid in Burundi, Nigeria and Rwanda - that is the problem, a fact that black Americans have difficulty grasping. In Sudan and Mauritania, black Africans are still enslaved by Arab masters. But black Americans pay no attention

George B.N. Ayittey, Africa in Chaos, 1998, St. Martin's Press, New York, ISBN 0-312-16400-9, pp.287-288.

Now, you can continue to say that the very use of the word tribalism is a ploy by Europeans to downplay other people's systems. Most Black Africans would disagree.

anton:
nerfyn qoute
You don't need to look at the Native Americans for examples of effective societal organisations. There are plenty of examples thereof in pre colonial Africa. The Kingdom of Benin (where my wife is from) is an excellent example.

Of course, there were. It should be obvious to all who are reading that I never said there was not.

Indeed, but you use an example from another continent to make a point. Why is that?

anton:
Lets's get to the marrow of this matter. This merry-go-round is unproductive.

True, Africans have many internal problems that need to be solved amoungst each other. But the bickering will go nowhere until the total problem is assessed in its entirety. That includes an honest assessment of past events that have created present conditions.

Could you be more concrete, because I don't see where your train of thought is leading you.

anton:
True, Africans the world over, when one assesses the totality of our experience, have several symtomatic problems that stem from the past interreaction with Europeans. It would be unfair and one sided to even attempt to attribute all African problems to African people.

I never, ever said such a thing, on the contrary.

anton:
One can only conclude logically that you were ascribing my statement that "the"1st world" got their wealth not from hard work but from the wanton rape and destruction of the so called "developing world", including our collective people, but including indegious people around the planet. Therefore, to be on par means to be able to compete with and defend ourselves effectively from "1st world" or "western" agression, whether it be in an economic, political, or military in nature." as a 'crap racist argument'. Am I right, because I could be wrong?

You are wrong. You have not understood what I was implying when I was making that statement. The crap racist argument referred to using inherited racial characteristics as a basis to explain different levels of development. That is a crap racist argument[/i]t. There is no biological basis for [i]race, you could just as well use short [/i]and [i]tall [/i]as racial determinants, it would be just as useless. Race is just a sociological construct, used as vehicle and justification for oppression

I actually agree with what you are writing here, only that is is not sufficient as an explanation. The first world (for lack of a better term) indeed got a lot of it's wealth and position from the wanton rape and destruction of the so called developing world, but there is no racial basis for that fact. It is only the unfortunate outcome of bio-geographic factors (e.g. if the geographical orientation of Africa would have been East-West instead of North-South, the outcome could have been reversed). This thesis is explained in [i]Guns, Germs and Steel.
There is no innate difference between peoples, people are no better or worse than others depending on their origins. The displacement and near genocide of the Khoisan hunter gatherers in Soutern Africa by Bantu Farmers is a testament to that fact.

anton:
anton qoute:
We have to look at the economics and who are controlling the economics. Follow the money. For instance, the African people of South Africa have political control of the country, but who controls the wealth of the nation?

As if I disagree with that fact

anton:
There are very sophisticated arguments being put forth by people who don't want us to look at the root problems of the matter. These arguments are designed to create guilt and shame in Africans to get you reacting on an emotional level, instead of thinking logically.

Could you explain to me who you are addressing, because I certainly do no such thing.

anton:
To be quite frank and totally honest, it was not for you to understand. I don't mean to be discourtious, but Belgium and Europe has achieved greatness. Now, it is time for Nigeria and Africa to achieve greatness.

I can't really see where the greatness is, but maybe you can explain.

anton:
The specific exploitation of Africa and her people is an actual reality. For you to even pretend to understand the dynamics of oppression from the viewpoint of an oppressed individual is a mockery. To even hint that the experience of a Jamaican, American, Columbian, Nigerian, or Australian Black Man is somehow unconnected is laughable, ludacris even. To make an attempt to say that the experience of Black Women in Belgium, Sierra Leone, Canada, or the U.K. doesn't have anything in common or are unconnected goes a long way to show exactly where you stand. I believe that the tactic is called 'Divide and Conquer".

You are again putting words in my mouth I have not uttered. Never did I or would I say that these experiences are unconnected. What I meant to say is better explained by George B.N. Ayittey in his quote above than I ever could.

Regarding my understanding of the dynamics of oppression, let me try an analogy: I can study the movements of the fish while swimming, I can even make specific predictions on how the fish will swim, but I never, ever will be able to feel the sensation of swimming as a fish.
Of course I cannot understand it from the viewpoint of an oppressed individual if I'm not the one oppressed. I can understand it from another viewpoint, which gives me a different view on things that can extend the understanding of the phenomenon.

But can you please stop attributing intentions to me that I don't have. I do not want to divide and conquer. I want to understand to the best of my abilities

anton:
The bottom line is it will it be done within this generation. A lot of people will have to take responsibility for our individual and collective actions. So called leaders will have to be held accountable, and a lot of eurocentric nonsense will have to be thrown out the window and burned in the open for all to see it for the nonsense that it is. I'm not here to bash Africans or Europeans, but we have to start thinking intelligently about this problem if we want to find the solution before another Angola War, Rawanda, or Biafra. That's a fact.

Can you be a little more concrete as to what you mean?
I agree that a lot of eurocentric nonsense needs to go out of the window, but which nonsense are you talking about?
How do you want to hold these so called leaders responsible?
How do you want to prevent another Angolan War, another Rwandan Genocide or another Biafra war?

vexxy:
If one is a Christian, one refers to the assembly as church.

Why bring in a mosque then? The implication was either you're in (and go to church) or you're out (and go to the mosque). By defining the boundaries of the debate, you're determining the outcome. It's an appeal to exclusiveness.

goodguy:
@IAH, concerning loveth's post, what she's simply trying to say is that God doesnt like lukewarm people. It's either you're hot or cold. It's either you're in or you're out. It's either you go to church or you go to mosque.

Capische?

Yes, that's the exclusive choice one has: either a church or a mosque. What about a synagogue, a buddhist or shinto temple, a temple for Shiva, a srcular communal centre, ... ?

mckaycee:
NFERYN "How dare you be so judgemental? What do you know about my marriage to tell me I don't really love my wife?

You probably were in the first row when the stones were being distributed for casting, weren't you?"

I wouldn't blame you for using such words on me. I am not being jugdemental on this issue, but factual.
But tell me, will you allow your own sister to be WELL SAMPLED before she gets married? Tell me.

If you think you are factual, you are indeed saying that I don't truly love my wife. Kindly retract this insult and we'll leave it at that.

I don't have a sister and if I were to have one, I wouldn't want to impose my morality on her. It really doesn't matter whether or not she had sex before her marriage. Your portrayal of someone have pre-marital sex as being WELL SAMPLED is not very kind to those that don't follow your morality.

anton:
[SNIP]
You know, I am not a big fan of the term "tribalism". I'm not on the Continent (not yet, anyway ), but I can tell you about this land over here. Europeans are eager to downplay other people's systems. Look the people who were already here: The Cherokee, the Souix, the Navajo, Washita, the Inuit, the Taino, etc, etc. Let's look at the facts. These were not "tribes". These were nations. They had they own judicial systems, economic systems, political systems, customs, and cosmological and cosmogonical structures. The tribe terminology was put in place to further reinforce the illusion of it being "OK" for them to be exterminated because they are just savages. As a matter of fact, many of the political ideas of the Iroquois Confederation (which comprised the Seneca, Tuscororas, and Mohawk to name a few) were used in the creation of either the Declaration of Indepence or the Constitution, (maybe both...).

You don't need to look at the Native Americans for examples of effective societal organisations. There are plenty of examples thereof in pre colonial Africa. The Kingdom of Benin (where my wife is from) is an excellent example.
The genocide of the Native Americans aside, tribalism [/i]is a very specific social organisation that sprung up after the independence of the African nations. It is a perversion of the original organisations of kinship within a societal structure that was imported and imposed, the [i]nation state. The Nation-State experiment of social and political organisation was doomed to fail as it requires a strong and independent middle class and a unity of peoples within the territory of the Nation-State. There was no such thing in post-colonial Africa.
This failure is eloquently explained in T[i]he Black Man's Burden - Africa and the Curse of the Nation-State[/i] by Basil Davidson. This book looks at the different indigenous forms of societal organisation in Africa (among others the Asante of current Ghana) and looks at how they were replaced with an alien form of political organisation.
Another book worth reading is Africa Betrayed by George B.N. Ayittey. It's a razor sharp portrait of the effect of [i]tribalism [/i]and the cleptocratic elites on present day Africa

anton:
However, I feel it is very short sighted and shallow to say that "tribalism" is racism in any way or form, or that tribalism is the primary woe of the Continent. The political structures have to be redesigned by Africans according to African research, stemming from African ideas, as a result of Africans living in Africa.

Tribalism is infested with racism, both in its application and in its consequences. Just look at what's happening in current day Zimbabwe. There are already enough successful examples, but this would require a shift of power back to the traditional communcal political unities, most of whom were either decapitated or destroyed during colonialism

anton:
We have to look at the economics and who are controlling the economics. Follow the money. For instance, the African people of South Africa have political control of the country, but who controls the wealth of the nation?

There are very sophisticated arguments being put forth by people who don't want us to look at the root problems of the matter. These arguments are designed to create guilt and shame in Africans to get you reacting on an emotional level, instead of thinking logically.
[SNIP]

I don't understand you here. Are you accusing me of trying to create guilt and shame in Africans? I think you're extrapolating the specific plight and suffering of African Americans too much on the African Continent - or maybe I just misunderstand you?

mckaycee:
some guyz really do not know what they want in life. If you really love your wife, you wouldn't let her be "the sampled".
Big apology to ladies.

How dare you be so judgemental? What do you know about my marriage to tell me I don't really love my wife?

You probably were in the first row when the stones were being distributed for casting, weren't you?

Although you are 100% correct about the underlying motivations, this portrayal is not as innocent as it seems. The continued use of stereotypes in movies gives the more gullible part of the audience (the majority) the impression that these portrayals are accurate, especially when a group external to their immediate life circle is portrayed, because they cannot see the nuance in the lives of these strangers.

This image perpetuates commonly held stereotypes and reinforces certain racist attitudes. Attitudes that they are usually not even aware of. This has a profound effect on how Africans are treated and regarded in the diaspora

And using distortion to fight distortion is not really the answer either. The fake image of Europe in many African minds is doing already enough damage

@ whocares
I commend you for showing a true spirit of openness, understanding and compassion. You are looking for truth and though our paths may differ your method is commendable

Respect

Seun:
Why is a snake found with pictures in it's belly? For goodness' sake, because it swallowed the pictures!

Isn't that so obvious? you don't know that snakes sometimes swallow various objects?

Snakes always swallow stuff entirely. They don't chew their food.
Of course some rather turn to the supernatural than to natural explanations. Usually because they have either not been introduced to the natural evidence or because their limited logical capabilities makes the natural argument too difficult to swallow. Even when there is no natural explanation for a phenomenon, you can always do the wise thing and say: I don't know instead of making up a supernatural explanation.

Look, maybe I should do a moon dance every night at 6. Saying that my moon dance makes the moon appear every night. Makes sense, doesn't it? After all, the moon appears every time I do my moon dance. And if it doesn't appear because it's too cloudy, I'll say that you all made the gods angry. You should sacriffice a goat, let the blood wash away your sins. Don't forget to bring the meat to the high priest (me) afterwards. After all it was me who saved your soul from eternal torment.

Will the first shots in the Nigerian religious wars be fired on Nairaland?

Stay tuned for the latest updates...