₦airaland Forum

What is my position?

Did you even ask me what my position is before you started ranting?

I insist that you only read my comment one way, and still haven't got the other meaning of it, and yet you continue with the spiels.

Edit: As for the references to 'hate, jealousy and genocide', really that's low of you . What I really have is a deep disgust for the dishonesty, distortion and misrepresentation of some of the historical events by you above. It is so deliberate and yet so callously dishonest that it's shocking and off-putting.

Onlytruth: I've basically meditated on Nigeria's history (especially the pre civil war and the civil war history); what I see shows a pattern of mental retardation.
From the North, if you read what Ahmadu Bello thought about Southerners, Easterners and Igbo, you would see that he was convinced that the North was being dominated by Southerners. The same goes to groups in the West that had to carpet-cross to ensure that they were not "dominated in their own land", never mind that the dominators are technocrats and seasoned politicians who could have elevated the average living standards of people in that region. The same happened in SW Camerouns (which led to their historic mistake of joining a French country), and to a great extent also happened (though partially) with Mid western and Eastern groups in the war against Biafra.
Some minority groups alleged the same "domination".
I personally believe that if Igbo were asked to form a country of their own with only Igboland, the Biafran war wouldn't have been fought at all, talkless of it lasting for almost three years.

So, why don't "the dominated" want their dominators to secede? Why do the dominated still panic at any signs of activities suggesting that the "dominating group" is planning to secede? We see it in Nairaland constantly.

So, what is going on?

I think you have a deep misunderstanding of some of the history you've read, but whatever. I initially thought the purpose of this thread was to actually have a real discussion, not to just repeat the same naive tripe that is constantly repeated on this forum over and over again.

You can just continue the discussion along the lines of your agenda with those operating under the same mentality. I don't think I have the time to squabble over interpretations of this part of Nigeria's history right now. Later.

I think you need to revisit the political history of Nigeria even up to the present if you think that only those that tried to secede were ever accused of "domination" or if you think that only those that were accused of "domination" wanted autonomy.

First, my comment can be read two ways, and I meant for it to be interpreted both ways. I think you've figured out one of the interpretations based on the knee jerk reaction and the spiel that followed my suggestion that Africans are currently more nepotistic than other groups.

Second, Europe is divided mostly (but not exclusively or perfectly) along "ethnic" lines. So apparently those "inter-ethnic" wars you're referring to were for a reason.

Nigeria.

lol, I think you and Ms Darkskin should be required to put a disclaimer on your posts or the topics you start stressing that you're not Nigerian or West African. Just so people don't get the wrong idea.

Deep Sight: Let's simplify.

1. The Big Ban.g refers to an expansion - no? Yes, it does.

Of course.

2. Does nothingness "expand"? - No, because "nothingness" does not exist - by definition.

Right. But I only introduced the issue of nothingness to point out that if there was only nothingness, there would be no need for time and no reason to assume that there was time.

3. As such, referring to an expansion, necessarily indicates a reference to something that expanded. This is not obviated by referring to a "point" that contained all matter and energy - that is STILL SOMETHING - - - > Which must necessarily pre-exist, for us to be able to speak about it BEGINNING TO EXPAND.

Okay. Here's the real problem.

You assert that it must necessarily "pre-exist" before expansion for whatever reason, but you don't say anything about this period of time over which it "pre-exists" or what the singularity is doing while "pre-existing" prior to expansion.

Even if I accept that there was ever a period of time during which this point was not expanding (which I don't because I prefer the opposite assumption), I find it strange that you're willing to posit that there was such a specific period of time when there is no particular reason to make that assumption and when you seem unwilling to state how long this period of time would be.

4. It is thus apt to ask - what THAT thing was - that expanded.

I don't see how the issue of "what" it was arises. I mean I've already explained that you're in THAT thing right now so I don't see how there's a question of "what" it was that expanded.

5. For it to expand [whatever it was] it must have pre-existed its expansion - no? - Yes.

Well, no.

I mean, in your imagination, did it just "pop" into existence, sit around for a while, and then gain spatial extent (expand) later?

But let's assume for the sake of argument, that it was just sitting around for a while before expanding even though there is no more reason to go with that assumption than with the assumption that it was never was.

Let's then ask, what if it was sitting around for about 10^-9999999999^-99999999999^-999999999^-99999999^-9999999. . .^-999999 femtoseconds or better yet, a duration of time many times shorter than that before expanding. What would be the effective difference between it sitting around in stasis for that period of time and it never sitting around in stasis at all? None.

6. Otherwise you refer to something coming into existence out of nothing at the precise moment that the very same thing begins to expand? No? - YES.

7. As such, if something existed which expanded, then there must have existed a timeline for its existence.

You've decided to separate time from the the object itself so that there is some kind of external absolute Newtonian timeline in which it is operating. This particular mental/cognitive abstraction you've introduced is basically just an assumption. It was a popular assumption in the past, but it's a relic now.

This "timeline" for its existence is predicated on the idea of time existing "prior to" the thing (the singularity) existing, which is an assumption that I don't have any particular reason to support. As I said in the other thread, time can only be measured in relation to some thing. Otherwise it is meaningless.

8. Thus time as a whole, could not have commenced with the Big Ban.g.

Well, I really don't see why you're certain about this, but it's getting boring repeating the same stuff over again, so I'll just leave you with your belief in this. I'm not even 100% certain of what current science holds, but I thought it would be better to at least explain how it's different from what you sometimes misrepresent it as in order to argue against it.

You seem to be a die hard proponent of the old "time precedes existence" assumption for whatever reason, and I can't seem to convince you otherwise, so obviously we're never going to agree and we're probably just wasting each other's time.

The problem is, Africans, for whatever reason, are currently more nepotistic than other groups. Some people just can't play by the rules.

I'm going to post this article in its entirety and see what conclusions others come to about the indigenization policy after seeing the additional information provided by the article:

The Nigerian Indigenization Policy: Nationalism or Pragmatism?
Author(s): Chibuzo S. A. Ogbuagu
Source: African Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 327 (Apr., 1983), pp. 241-266
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal African Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/721406

This article goes into much more detail on the indigenization policy specifically than the other article from 1986 that I referenced, which comments on the policy in only part of the article while the rest of it is about economic nationalism in general and also mostly only talks about the policy's failure to deliver real economic nationalism for Nigeria.

I wasn't going to post the whole article initially because it's 26 pages and the pdf file is too big to upload as an attachment to my post, but I can actually just capture an image of each page of the article and post it that way.

Prof Corruption: What amount would you have considered fair? Was the government mandated by law or any convention to even give out such a largess? Do you know the total amount expended and the value of £20 pounds in the 70s? What was the cost of the war to Nigeria to even have the magnanimity in victory of giving such?

The thing is, one can actually ask people and consult with them on what it would take for them to recover.

As for the worth of 20 pounds in 1970: http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/result.php?use[]=CPI&use[]=NOMINALEARN&year_early=1970&pound71=20&shilling71=&pence71=&amount=20&year_source=1970&year_result=2012

(If the link doesn't work, just go to http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/ and enter in the numbers and dates yourself.)

I think that if Nigeria even needed to take out a loan to give a more reasonable amount than 20 pounds, they should have done so, since they were taking out other developmental loans even with the oil money starting to flow in in the 70s.

I don't think there was anything magnanimous about it. The 20 pounds thing is one thing you'll never see me arguing about with anybody when discussing history because I've never thought it made sense. That's just my opinion though and obviously some people will think differently.

ACM10: I'm yet to see a proof that Awo asked for nationalisation of foreign companies prior to war. Give me a concrete proof. Don't bother to post falsified article from obscure site.

"On the other hand, there were also influential Nigerian leaders such as Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and S. G. Ikoku who thought that a programme of Nigerianization of the economy alone would not lead to the indigenous businessmen taking over the 'commanding heights' of the nation's economy from foreign investors. This group of politicians was in favour of a more aggressive policy that would make it mandatory for all foreign enterprises established in Nigeria to be owned from the outset in joint partnership with the Government and/or the local entrepreneurs. Initially Chief Awolowo in particular advocated a significant Nigerian participation, public or private, in any new economic venture established in the country. In support of this viewpoint, in 1957 he stressed in a presidential speech to an emergency meeting of his party, the Action Group, that:

We must not allow foreign monopoly in any field of industrial venture. By this I mean that we must not allow a foreign investor to go it alone. Experience has shown that once a foreign investor has entered a particular field of industrial venture, that field is forever close [sic] to Nigerian entrepreneurs... What we are anxious about is that a foreign investor should always take into partnership in any new venture, either the Government or any of its agencies or private indigenous investors. We all know that the latter class of investors is almost non-existent just now and, until they are forthcoming, it is only fair that the Government, as the trustee of our people, should insist on financial participation in any new industrial venture. ... We hope that.., the federal Government will see to it that no industrial venture is launched in this country in the future unless there is a substantial indigenous financial participation either by the Government or its agencies, or by private individuals. Unless this is done now, we would be creating a situation which might lead to serious consequences in the future.[/i]20

Four years later, Chief Awolowo, as leader of the Opposition party in the federal legislature, took a more extreme position. He moved a motion that called for a programme of nationalization. The motion read: '[i]That this House approve in principle the nationalization of basic industries and commercial undertakings of vital importance to the economy of Nigeria'.21 In specific terms he resented foreign domination of the country's extractive and secondary industries, commerce and small scale distributive trade and shipping activities." - Chibuzo S.A. Ogbuagu, "The Nigerian Indigenization Policy: Nationalism or Pragmatism?"


[20. Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Presidential Address at an emergency meeting of the Action Group, Ibadan, 12 October 1957. See also Richard L. Sklar, Nigerian Political Parties: power in an emergent African nation, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 262n.

21. Federation of Nigeria, Hansard (House of Representatives Debates, Session 1961-62; Lagos: Federal Government Printer, 29 November 1961).]

Even if one doesn't read Ogbuagu's article, a simple google search will come up with other sources that mention Awolowo's 1961 motion. Anyway, it wasn't adopted because the government of the day was cautious and conservative about things like this and they knew that the risk that full or partial nationalization posed to foreign investment might be greater than the rewards.

ACM10: I might not argue convincinly that the Indigenization/nationalization policy was a "deliberate conspiracy", but I can say that it is a "subtle opportunistic conspiracy". You might use "bad timing" to refer to the policy, but I choose "opportunism". Awolowo decided to kill two birds with one stone by enforcing the policy when his rival tribe was economically incapacitated. I can't say for sure that Awolowo had indigenisation policy in mind when he enacted the £20 policy. I will defend my use of "subtle opportunistic conspiracy" by starting with £20 policy.

1. The 20 pound policy was crafted in the context of the power struggles that wrecked our nation. These power struggles had, above all, an ETHNIC coloration, especially between the Hausa-Fulani, the Yoruba and the Igbo. That struggles were the reason, above all, why the Biafran war of brother against brother was fought in such an utterly barbaric and wicked way. When the war ended, the players did not change. They did not convert into saints overnight. Ethnic warlords merely pursued their Power agenda in different ways, using, for example, the 20 pound policy and the indigenization decree.

2. Biafra was NOT a Banana Republic. It may have lost the war, but it was not a lawless entity. It had a functional Government. It had functional institutions. It had an Economic and Monetary Framework. Above all, it had a Central Bank that issued and controlled legal tender. Before they announced the 20 pound policy, they DID ask people to deposit ALL the money -including Biafran Pounds, in banks, abi? This were now Nigerian Banks, not Biafran banks, remember? So they know how much money that was in circulation. Remember that they insisted on only exchanging the money in the banks deposited before the deadline.

3. Biafran currency was NOT printed inside Biafra. They were printed in Portugal and Switzerland. The same way that Nigeria prints Naira in France. Therefore there was no rogue money in circulation.
Biafran money was a SCARCE commodity in Biafra! Sometimes, Biafran Banks were closed for days on end , because, they had no Biafran cash to dispense. When they did open, they often had to ration withdrawals. Everybody knew this. The Economists on the Federal side knew this

4. Awolowo's argument that Biafran money will overwhelm the Nigerian economy does not hold water. When the war ended, the Nigerian nation acquired another 16 million citizens -who were already using some form of money. Its like the EU absorbing Greece or Turkey. You do a straightforward currency exchange, however determined. Is it rocket science ?? This fake difficulty was invented by Awolowo and his gangs to justify £20 policy.

5. At the end of the war, people DID expect Nigeria to exchange the Biafran Pound with the Nigerian Pound. Now, most people thought that the Feds would use some ridiculous exchange -something like 20 Biafran Pounds to one Nigerian Pound. Greedy and opportunistic speculators expected the Government to be wicked, but even they, they prepared to make a kill, and in anticipation of an exchange, they purchased Biafran Pounds at the rate of £50 Biafran Pounds to £1 Nigerian Pound. Guess what? Awolowo and his Economists broke the ALL the record and expectations - even the one set by uber-greedy speculators!!! They delivered a fiat 20 pound policy to the priviledged few who had bank accounts!!! Even the speculators went broke!

(to be continued)

This is a pretty good argument for your position. 20 pounds is a completely arbitrary figure and I have never seen a rational justification for it. After reading this, while I still don't consider the indigenization process an ethnic conspiracy simply because I think those accused of the conspiracy just wanted to carry it out by all means, regardless of who was in control, I do think that enacting it at that time shows that the political leaders at the time had a complete disregard for the plight of those recovering from the war.

mpumalanga: We are not going to agree because there is nothing to agree on.Justifying it because awo called for nationalization earlier
can not hold to me because even if it was done by NPC and NCNC,they will not limit the financial capacity of any group so that they
will not participate but the gurus and sages did it first before embarking on such policy.Iam surprised that you will call
your well adored tacticians and geniuses incompetent and blind to the plight of others just to reduce their covert intentions
to a mere oversight.Ok, let us say that in one nigeria which you represent fiercely,there are many oversight geniuses that can
only apply it in IGBO matters.lol

lol, when I have really called Awolowo or Gowon a genius? I don't think you're familiar with my post history, but whatever. . .obviously you'll say anything to make your point regardless of how far off the mark it is.

The point is, the conspiracy angle/interpretation looks weak when the apparent political leader of the apparently conspiratorial group and the supposed master conspirator singled out in the article posted in the opening part of the thread actually wanted the nationalization to begin as soon as possible, regardless of who was ruling or whether the opposing political parties had control of government. That doesn't mean that embarking on the policy right after the war was actually sensible though.

Noiseless2: You can clearly see how you yourself is finding it very difficult to fit in your argument on this topic since you decided to come to the rescue. But one thing you still haven't explained or you ignored is how a people whose entire savings were confiscated and handed to few of them only bloody 20pounds by the same government regardless of tens of thousands or millions they had in the nigerian banks be able to participate in the program? Not even mentioning those who were murdered in cold blood or while trying to escape for their dear lives, bear in mind they were not able to take their savings to igboland as tens of thousands of them could not even make it to igboland alive, let alone taking their lives savings or properties with them. Your effort to try to make sense on this topic really has reduced you to zero am afraid, this people were only asking their individual sweats (savings)which they left in banks to escape for their dear lives before the war. Why is it that nigerians are so evil minded that they can't help but to look for a way to always twist everything about the war in order to justify their act of shame? Yet you would rather want Igbos forget about the war,but you won't be courageous enough to be honest about it.

You're confused. First, I didn't come in with any argument much less "come to the rescue" especially considering that I pointed out that the ethnic concerns raised by the article from the opening part of this thread were also raised by a relatively contemporary study of the indigenization process in 1983. I actually referenced two articles which I said the starter of this thread should consult and use to reach his own conclusion on whether there was a conspiracy or a failure and an oversight. I only made the later comment you just quoted after mpumalanga made a snide/sarcastic remark about my comment. If not for his comment, I would have just watched as ACM reached his own conclusion and made his own comments on the articles I referenced without justifying my interpretation.

Now to the rest of your comment, I don't know if you have difficulty reading or something, but I actually acknowledged in multiple places that the process was unfair so I don't know what it is you think your comment is saying that is corrective to or contrary to my position.

mpumalanga: There is nothing snidely in my intention as i was touching each parts of the comments.
Was it not the same government that took the decisions that made those that were recovering
from the war to be incapable of participating in the policy?Are you saying that the same experts
that some of you hails as gurus and sages can not comprehend the implications of certain decision
among the different population divide as at that time.I like it more when i hear that they deserve it just as usual.

Look, as far as I'm concerned, it was bad timing or if you like, incompetence and blindness to the plight of others - but the conspiracy aspect of things only holds water if you believe that carrying out the nationalization was predicated only on things ending up the way they did after the war. But after reading up on the background of this drive to indigenization, I genuinely don't believe that the war had to happen for it to happen. For example, Awolowo called for nationalization (indigenization) while in the opposition in the federal legislature in 1961. If the ruling coalition had adopted his more extreme position even back then, instead of the more moderate approach they were pursuing, nobody would even be discussing this right now. I simply don't see the nationalization process as being predicated on or carried out because of the economic downfall of the eastern region, especially since the alleged principal conspirator (Awolowo) didn't even care if the NPC and NCNC were in control of government while nationalization was carried out. That's my point of view. Clearly you have your own view of things and we're not going to agree, so let's leave it at that.

onye ego: that's a very SENSEless thing to say to parents who are mourning

He just called his own recently murdered daughter stup[i]i[/i]d (he didn't just call her "silly"; this forum changes "stup[i]i[/i]d" to "silly" unless you put one of the letters in italics).

Considering that he and his wife raised her, how does that reflect on them? Some wisdom and common sense can be taught, after all.

mpumalanga: We have survived all those deliberate brutal decisions standing alone and
i think we can employ the experience to benefit from the present nigeria situation
especially now that the war coalition is in disarray and each group(s) are desperately
looking for alliance for salvation.

Some are trying to call it oversight lol.Everything that happened to the igbos were
either caused by them or done by oversight according to some nigerians.Even up till today,
similar thing are practiced by some churches and some igbos can't see that earlier.

How can somebody explain a situation where some people have to waste their money and risk their life to go and
see God in cannan land,redeem land and mountain of fire land and they can never come to Elijah land in ELELE
or lands Uyo or Gboko.Even my LORD JESUS was going around doing his good.

Igbos are now stimulating the economy of other people in the name of religion
and after some years,we will come back to blame CHURCH POLICY.We were helpless during the indigenization and other
policies but the MESSAGE is that you rally round your own because in nigeria,no decision is irrational.

I would appreciate it if you could just address me directly rather than just making some snide remark. Considering that every part of Nigeria, including the region that would later become Biafra, had some elites that were pushing for indigenization prior to the civil war and the idea was being promoted as early as the 50s, I'm not really convinced that it was mainly or intentionally some "Yoruba wealth bolstering conspiracy" against Igbos or people from what was Biafra in particular. I think that those that were recovering from the war did unfortunately get sidelined by not having comparable economic means at the time, but after what I read, I find it rather hard to believe that some kind of nationalization program wouldn't have been carried out soon after independence (if not for the increasing political chaos from 1966 onward) regardless of which section of the country was "ruling" as long as the conservative Balewa administration was replaced militarily or defeated in elections. I see the argument for Igbos being sidelined by the process, but what I'm skeptical of is the "deliberate conspiracy" aspect. Considering that Gowon established the Expatriate Quota Allocation Board in 1966 ( before Aburi, decree 8 and the rejection of decree 8 ), after the Balewa administration had taken the first, much less radical, step toward indigenization in 1962, I don't see indigenization in the 70s as a consequence or outgrowth of the civil war, but something that would have happened anyway as a natural outgrowth of earlier policies. As far as I can tell, Nigeria was heading toward indigenization, civil war or no civil war. That the indigenization process favored some more than others is unfortunate, but I don't see some kind of grand ethnic plot/scheme as being behind it.

oyb: It is st[i]u[/i]pid to travel to go meet someone you've only been chatting with on social media- Cynthia's dad

Damn. Definitely a military man.

Anyway, he and his wife raised her, so maybe they didn't instil her with enough common sense or fear when she was growing up.

Pagan 9ja, do you think you could engage in more self-censorship if you suspect that what you're about to say might offend some people unnecessarily?

I write offensive stuff as well sometimes, but occasionally some of your comments make it seem like you aren't aware that you (like me and everyone else) need to censor your more offensive thoughts.

ACM, I would recommend reading two old articles that comment significantly on this indigenization process:

"The Nigerian Indigenization Policy: Nationalism or Pragmatism?" (1983) by Chibuzo S. A. Ogbuagu and "Towards Authentic Economic Nationalism in Nigeria" (1986) by Chibuzo N. Nwoke.

Both articles provide important context (important in determining whether there was a deliberate "Yoruba wealth bolstering conspiracy" or an oversight and failure to consider the plight of those groups trying to recover from the civil war - and the distinction is important) and a lot of analysis of the process. The 1983 article by Ogbuagu also raises some of the ethnic problems/concerns mentioned by the author of the article you posted at the beginning of this thread.

Deep Sight: Its getting very boring reading your pseudo intellectual and perfectly nonsensical gibberish.



Staggtering gibberish. The last line in bold above particularly ranks as perhaps the most irrational, self-delusory and silly statement I have ever read on this forum. I suppose there was no expansion, or "nothingness" expanded. Your very statemenmt denies the occurence of the Big Bang. You are into voodoo Son, if you can seek to claim that the question - "WHAT EXPANDED?" - is not an apt scientific and philosophical/ logical question.

I sensed this from your very first write ups and am just glad i did not waste my energy on such nonsense.

I'm disappointed in your response.

If you ask "what" expanded, then it means you basically didn't comprehend much of what we were talking about in that speed of light thread and just seem to have, for whatever reason, some immense conceptual difficulty wrapping your mind around the idea of the big b.ang.

All the mass that currently exists in the universe - everything - was contained in one infinitesimally small point. Where you are getting this stuff about "no expansion" or "nothingness expanding" from is beyond me.