₦airaland Forum

Vivly should have won this. Hands down the best contestant all round imo.

Congratulations to the winner though.

Exactly! Some just don't get it!

Don't give up yet, though. It's people like you that we need to get out of this mess.

milychocs:
Nah
You have it all wrong
English is the construct of colonialism
I would not judge anyone's intelligence (an African) by their ablity to speak, or write good English

But I would totally judge anyone and see them as without class, cruel and even still with slave mentality..(did anyone ever read those books on slavery?) if they judged people or treated them unkindly in real life or online because of simple inability to speak or write good English

During slavery in America, the slave in charge of the others (usually chosen cos he learnt the language of domination first, or better)
would be treated a bit more nicely, and then, what happens is that he feels better than other slaves, treats them with disrespect, gets uppity and starts feeling like the master

But you know what? He was still a slave, he knew it, the other slaves knew it, and their master knew it

So what gives?
(I give up, at us!)

Lmao...of all time?

Joke list. Only one song on there is worthy of an "of all time" accolade. This is MTV insulting Nigeria lol.

Uhmm...am I reading about prostitution here? *scratches head*

Man - If I pay bills, you must get down.
Woman - If you don't give me an allowance, no naughty for you.

The logic behind the original thread and this copy is baffling...sheesh!!!

What kind of man will marry a woman who's got no dreams and ambitions of her own? Nothing wrong with a lady getting married after her education (degree, masters or whatever level she aspires) The problem is not using the education afterwards. I detest the term "housewife". Get off the couch, get out of the house and use your education.

Housewife = waste of space/unnecessary liability in my opinion

Good idea from the government. However, the Nigerian government is always full of good ideas but very poor on practicability.

Yes we would like to see the local manufacturing industry grow but has the government informed the public on how this will happen? You might say it is common sense that the local industry will grow if importation is expensive but Nigeria is not really a nation that functions with common sense. Comparing SA and Nigeria is not wise either....two very different countries.

Before the implementation of this levy, has the government researched and made public the affordability of the so called "made in Nigeria" vehicles? Will the same class of people who buy tokunbo cars be able to buy new "made in Nigeria cars"? Are they subsidising the industry in any way at all? (note: import duty is not the only way to discourage imports).

How "local" are these assembly plants? We want to encourage local manufacturing by bringing in foreign companies to assemble their products locally. Will the parts used (metal, plastic, glass etc) be sourced locally by the likes of Peugeot, Toyota and Kia? We keep banging on about job creation for the "teeming unemployed youths"...where is the guarantee? Do we have any official figures on how much local labour the so called "local auto industry" will employ? Do we have any agreements with the foreign auto giants that forces them to employ a specific minimum amount of Nigerians or an agreement on the limit of foreign staff they can bring in? In theory, we can all assume it will provide jobs for the "teeming unemployed youths" Toyota has been around for a while now...do we know how much local labour they employ?

Is the government looking into truly indigenous Nigerian auto companies? Will the extra duty and levy be directly or indirectly channeled into promoting and subsidising truly indigenous auto production outfits or their research and development?

There are a lot of questions that need to be asked before jumping on the "Made in Nigeria" bandwagon in my opinion. Toyota, Kia and Peugeot are businesses, foreign ones at that. Their PRIMARY mission in Nigeria is not to help Nigeria but to make profit. No doubt these companies influenced the implementation of the new duty and levy. It is upto the government to ensure that Nigerians get maximum benefits from their presence here.

Another case of Nigeria putting the cart before the horse. Before introducing extra duty and levy, the government should already have an effective and affordable local industry as justification.

There is nothing good about a "good idea" badly implemented. Let's hope I am wrong.



I know the levy right now only affects new vehicles not tokunbo ones but there is a view to extend it to tokunbo vehicles, hence the reason I addressed both.

God saved the American doctor but did not save over 1000 Africans who died....

I'm happy to see that there is quite a number of ladies here who keep their hair "natural".

Props to all the ladies who are rocking their "natural" /African hair. I Know it's not easy given the eurocentric society we live in which constantly propagates the white standard of beauty as the ideal one and subjugates any African style and concept of beauty.

Your African hair is constantly labelled as "untidy" and "angry" in the workplace. In the social space, you get ridiculous stares and looks even from your very own. There is so much pressure on you to succumb, conform and buy those weaves and damaging hair products but still you stick with the decision to keep your hair healthy and rock your crown, not cover it.

Don't give in to the pressure, just keep doing you. There are many who love and appreciate it.


As for this thread, same old arguments whenever this topic arises. Like I earlier said, there are no excuses...just choice.

UjSizzle: *In Estelle's voice*
I am not my hair. I am not this skin. I am the soul that lives within.

Estelle?

I believe that's an India Arie song.

Let me try to attack a few arguments:

AFRICAN HAIR IS DIFFICULT TO MANAGE: This argument is lame. Let's assume it is indeed "difficult". Well, nothing good comes easy. Easy come, easy go. A lot can be said about the character of a person who avoids doing something because it is difficult. Furthermore, what type of hair is easy to manage? White, Indian, Filipino? Truth is that other races spend lots of time caring for their hair also and it is certainly not easy. Have you ever seen a European with bad hair? Many care for their hair daily to avoid bad hair.

IF WE MUST HAVE NATURAL HAIR AS AFRICANS THEN WE MUST ALSO GO NAKED: Uhm....this not a very sensible argument imo. So, are we now comparing hair to clothes? HAIR and CLOTHES? Ok. So, the concept of clothes is European? Africans never had clothes? This is a quite uneducated argument. To the person who also mentioned technology and said technology is unafrican...are you sure about that? Go and read some more. Technology is as African as it is Asian, European, Native American etc. This argument as it relates to this topic holds no water.

WHAT IS NATURAL?: Now a lot of us have been banging on this idea of natural. What exactly is natural and unnatural? Using this definition: NATURAL IS ANYTHING THAT EXISTS WITHIN NATURE. Is going to the barber to cut of the hair that grows naturally on my head natural? Why cut off something natural? Shaving our beards, shaping up etc. Even some apply products to create patterns and waves in their hair. Hell!! Some brothers even straighten and perm. Is the unnatural bashing not extended to them?

Okay...let's talk chemicals used to make all these changes to our hair. Are chemicals not natural? Don't chemicals exist within nature? So, what exactly is natural and unnatural?


It's all about freedom. African hair can be the easiest type of hair to maintain and our ladies will still wear European style weaves. There is no excuse of ignorance any African can give anymore. The information is out there. I know quite a number of ladies who keep their African textured hair (natural as it is often described) and they mention that it gets easier and easier, cheaper and cheaper overtime. Drop the excuses, it is a matter of choice.

Lol...this topic always controversial as usual.

Ladies should be able to do whatever they want with their hair imo. It's a free world. However, we cannot hide the fact that the standard of beauty employed by most is European (this is evident in our brothers as well).

Personally, I dislike straight/flowy hair. I find it annoying and it just goes everywhere strands all over the place and I don't find it attractive. Therefore, I don't fancy an African lady with European styled hair. I prefer the so called "nappy" texture. Personal preference, don't crucify me please.

Also, I cannot be that naive to not understand why African ladies are hooked up on weaves, wigs and the likes. Like someone already said, a lot do not even know their "natural" hair let alone know how to care for it. At first, when ladies "go" natural (the term "go natural" does not make sense, it is more like "return to natural") it will certainly be difficult because they have never known their natural hair hence, they don't last long. Also, the majority of the products on the market are not geared towards caring for the natural hair type. So, they just take the easy way out and follow the crowd.

Another point that has also been addressed is the role of the men. If our women are mentally enslaved and colonised, then we brothers are extra enslaved and colonised. Truth is, regardless of the number of guys on this thread bashing weave/wig wearing women, majority of our brothers still believe that European type hair is better, hence many chase after girls with horrible weaves and buy their girlfriends Brazilian, Indian Peruvian etc hair. There's a market for it.

Do the majority of people here have half a brain? How is it not clear who the aggressors are in the Israel/Palestine conflict?

I am guessing that anyone who supports Israel must have also supported apartheid South Africa?

When someone invades your land, marginalise you, poison your water, kill your babies, wipe you off the map, blow up the little health centres you have left and proclaim the destruction of your people openly; that person is not defending itself, that person is the aggressor. It is genocide!

Put the silly religious sentiments aside and use your brains. Wrong is wrong, right is right. The crap I hear from Nigerians about this conflict is ridiculous. If Nigeria had been chosen by Britain for Israeli settlement instead of Palestine, I wonder if you'd all be spewing this nonsense.

Then again, this (Isreal's/Palestine conflict) is not my struggle. It's just amazing how people don't research and use common sense.

pjosh1: This is the problem africa is still having, even if we first the europeans to produce cars and planes or we adopted and made advanced tech. From them during the precolonial era how has it helped us in this present time? THINK ABOUT THE PRESENT AND FURURE NOT THE PAST.. It's funny how we blame the europeans for halting development in Africa during the precolonial era

As much as we need people to focus on the present, we also need guardians of the past. Not everyone is going to be interested in the same thing. I also think one of the problems with MODERN Africans is the disregard for history. The past, present and future are equally important and anyone fascinated by any should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Awesome! Love your hair. Glad to see that some of our women still rock their natural hair. Refreshing!

Keep up the good work and continue educating others.

Peace!

I rock a low-cut but only because I have not time to maintain an Afro. However, the general consensus I'm getting here is that "low-cut is decent". Who defines what "decent" is? Who says dreads cannot be decent? If a man naturally has dreadlocks, must he shave it off in order to conform to the "decency" standard? Have you not seen decent Afros or braids?

Some also seem to associate low-cut with the character of a man i.e. responsible. WTF? Really? So, rocking an Afro suggests irresponsibility? Or someone with dreads is less likely to be responsible? Most guys sport a low-cut and our ladies still complain about irresponsibility yet, ladies see low-cut as a sign of responsibility.

Just questioning.

Wait.....wha...what?

So, it is perfectly normal/legal/lawful for employers to charge applicants a fee? It does not make any sense whatsoever. Even private corporations do not charge jobseekers 'application fee'.

While talking about refunds (like it makes sense for people to pay in the first place), they should also start prosecuting those who have made corruption legal. Paying for employment is corruption.

An organization recruits because it NEEDS staff and the jobseeker applies because he also NEEDS employment. Why pay? No one is doing anyone favours here.

I hope those who applied get their refund. At least talking about a refund is a tiny step towards solving the problem.

Dis Guy: dang!! i swear this software is editing my post during the day time!!! Na me type this one so?

lmfao!

mystery001: Very painful! You have an additional of just about 4 months after your course end date in the Visa probably to take care of graduation and comot from their country

Indeed! This is why I respect the resilience of international students. I no fit do am!

You mentioned earlier that non-EU immigrants deserve a better deal. Considering how much work they put in, I agree with you. No country however gives non-citizens a better deal unfortunately. Countries welcome immigrants when they need them, when they are going through tough times, they turn against them or exploit them.

The NHS issue for example. I hear some people saying that if you don't contribute towards it, then you should not benefit from it. I am yet to see any immigrant (legal) that does not contribute towards the NHS (Including students). If you live and work in the UK (students are allowed to work and nearly all of them do work), you are contributing to the NHS. So, I find making students pay £200 to use the NHS as BS. The truth is that the UK needs money and the tories want to win the next election. £3000 visa bond is just as much about the UK needing money as it is about curbing immigration.

Oh well...that's just the way it is. I feel the pain of most immigrants and students especially.

onyi cindy: . I understand perfectly wat you are saying, I just finished last year and I even had to come back to nigeria to apply for a visiting visa to attend my graduation. Wat a waste of money! My classmates that were oportuned to get the PSW are doing care jobs because they don't want to come to Nigeria and be unemployed. These UKpeople are doin everything possible to frustrate people from comin to their country despite the huge fees. SMH

Damn! Thats crazy. Man, I feel your pain.

Kairoseki77: The AU will need to fund itself before it can protect our interests.

China, the US, and the EU pay 60% of the AU budget.

He who pays the piper dictates the tune...

Truth!

Oh UK! This is definitely a move motivated by the forthcoming elections. It is normal. Any country going through difficult finacial times have always blamed immigrants, even Nigeria (Ghana must go).

The problem however is that in recent times, the biggest wave of immigrants are coming from the EU. These immigrants are putting an even bigger stress on the social services but the UK cannot really do anything about them due to being a part of the EU (free movement).

So, the only group of people to transfer this aggression on is the non-EU immigrants. It is easier to create laws that are unfavourable to them. Sadly, if they kick out all non-EU illegal immigrants, the problem will still persist. That is why this is election/campaign related. They need to show people that they are doing something, anything about it.

AU should take notes from the EU. AU needs to work better at protecting its people's interests on the continent, just like the EU is protecting the interest of their people on their own continent.

NativeBoy: [/b]

Exactly. In fact I have never heard someone become a believer through conversations via forums. The nature of debate almost insists that each participant cling to their position. And that is why we don't need to get into discussing the bible. It suffices me to know your position and of course you know I take a different one with regard to the contents of the bible.

I will contend with the negative connotation of your statement regarding the mandate to proselytize. It is this part that puzzles me as skeptics, agnostics, atheists who are the most vocal about freedom cannot stomach people of faith proselytizing. People like Sam Harris who say that it should be considered child abuse for parents to teach their children about Christianity (I paraphrased). Do atheists not proselytize? Are they not egoistic as well?

Your ocean taking sample does not only apply to practitioners of faith. Even atheists don't agree. Some are strict determinists, others compatibilists, another are existentialists, another are absurdists. There are eminent scientists who are believers and others who are not. There are pastors who became atheists and atheists who became pastors, so on and so forth. Ultimately we all must make a choice. We all have free will. God's gift to man.

Absolutely! Everyone engages in some form of proselytizing, some aggressive, others very less aggressive. Hence why I mentioned earlier in this thread how atheism has its religious tendencies as well even though it seeks to debunk religion lol. Proselytizing did and continues to play a huge role in the Christian/Islam struggle we see today. Perhaps this is more noticeable because they are both Abrahamic faiths.

Oh yes! The ocean example applies to all who claim to have the absolute truth including the "big bangers" lol. Its been great discussing with you and I hope we've both gained some new insights. I sure have.

NativeBoy: It is a shame that many threads seem to descend into back and forth name calling but I understand that it's because few people on both sides (believers and unbelievers) welcome a close examination of what they believe. It happens on every other forum, not just Nairaland. Indeed religion and politics are very divisive, as they should be.

In realizing that I haven't stated my position blatantly, I will now do so. Africa needs God. The Judeo-Christian God. Why? Because I believe that if and when Africa develops, the Gospel of Christ is what will keep us from devouring each other. I posted a link in an earlier response I gave to 'LogicBoy'. Please read it. The last couple of paragraphs are very potent.

To address the point you made about the way the Gospel is preached in Nigeria. I think I alluded to in an earlier post that the approach some take to scripture and make it appear that God is going to descend and put money in people's pockets is a mistake. Indeed Nigeria is filled with pastors who have turned a profit using the scripture and those are the ones you always hear about. The ones with the big churches. I will ask you to consider the churches you don't often hear about: the ones with the 50 to 100 people. The ones where the pastor shares in the same plight as the congregation and where members are doing for each other. I tell you that that is part of how Nigerians have been able to get by. As I see it, the two critical things that the church can do for Nigeria is to emphasize that "God has not given us a spirit of fear but of a sound mind..." and that "God has given everyone a measure of talent and he expects us to use it."

Lastly (without digressing too much), God has always been present in the world and I think this is why every race of man had a concept of a higher power; someone or something greater than themselves. Initially, God revealed himself to Abraham and to his descendants, but in the fulness of time he revealed himself through Jesus Christ who then gave his disciples the great commission to go into all the world to proclaim the gospel of Christ. So to answer your question, the spirituality of Africa and other peoples was fine but now the light of the God has shone for all men to see and come to know Him. Sure the white man brought the gospel to us, but salvation didn't come by the white man. And we find even in our own country, God raised up his own people. Consider the AIC (Aladura) churches. Christianity for Africans by Africans. Now there is so much more to be said on these points but I still want to retain your attention. Haha.

Well, my position is that Africa already knew God. They did not need the Judeo-Christian God. I will post a letter sent from Belgium to missionaries in the Congo just to buttress this point (if I can find it).

As to the last point you made, well, I simply do not believe it (for the lack of words lol). See, someone used a great analogy which I believe perfectly captures this issue....
the truth is like the oceans of the earth, vast! If someone takes a sample of it from the shores of Brazil and another takes a sample from Spain and yet another takes a sample from Sierra Leone, we all took samples of the same ocean. The samples are true and accurate but if you examine the samples closely, the contents and composition will vary. But it would be silly for one of the people who took this sample to claim that my sample is the only accurate one and represents all of the vast oceans and the others a incorrect.

That is exactly the problem with these religions. They all claim to have the truth which is too vast for any one doctrine or book to handle. This is especially the problem with religions that believe they have the mandate to proselytize (Islam and Christianity). I once wrote an essay about the clash of these two "civilizations" and the mandate to proselytize is one of the main reasons why both are at loggerheads since the rise of Islam in the 7th century. I see it as the ultimate display of ego.

The beautiful thing is that we can always agree to disagree but at the same time learn. Bro, nah you still have my attention lol. We can even go into the Bible if you want, it is a book with many flaws but I'm not the type to completely dismiss it.

jantavanta: @dejilg Greetings! Perhaps, my writing is condensed, but @ThaProphet could follow. I was only trying to expand your point. When I mention 'whitewashed african script' I mean that African spirituality and Civilization are the concealed core elements of today's imported evolved white man's Judaism, Judeo-Christianity and Judeo-Christo-Islam that did not bring them peace.
If you have time, look up
https://www.nairaland.com/807515/original-hebrews-black-africans-ancient
https://www.nairaland.com/1257066/african-origin-bible-famine-story
https://www.nairaland.com/930023/black-african-origin-alphabets
https://www.nairaland.com/502454/african-origin-is-ra-el
https://www.nairaland.com/506114/solomon-black-man

Bob Marley sang that the Almighty God is a Living [Black] Man.

Yea. Definitely aware of the Afrikan origins of Christianity. Very interesting. I can't bring myself to worship some Ceaser Borgia's image.

dejilg: Oops! Okay! Sorry Bro(s). Probably he attacked d wrong thread and I replied d wrong way! Well if u tell me to prove if God existed, I'd say I dnt knw how to. But since the atheist seems to be so sure, am just curious as to knowing how they came about that. So atheist prove to me that God doesn't exist!

Hehe..its all good bro!

dejilg: I believe if u had read that same Bible u call a whitewashed ancient African script! Perhaps u'd undastnd why Obatala was said to have molded man out of clay! Ever come across the story of Nimrod?! Perhaps u shld read more! Either u like it or not? U stil haven't proven that God doesn't exist, so wen u do, I'd take u more seriously. So for us who have had more experience than just "philosophical reason"...we know God exists! so prove that He doesn't. Quite simple!

Ahn Ahn!! Bros! Isn't it unfair for you to tell him to offer proof that God does not exist when you yourself have not offered a shred of proof? Play fair, brother. Plus, from the brother's post, he clearly isn't an atheist or did you not read his post?

NativeBoy: I do not mind reading long posts especially when you present your points in the manner that you have. I am familiar with all the points you have made and even the questionability of Wilberforce's intentions. Nevertheless, the point still remains that Christianity played a role in the abolishing the slave trade as did the human spirit of our noble ancestors who broke off their chains. I would not call the abolitionist movement half-hearted. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say and it seems we are always too eager to criticize the past. I often wonder what would be said by the future generations about the many brilliant Nigerians living today and being unable to change their country for the better. I think you will agree that if you didn't one good thing, people will point out five other things you didn't do right. If you are pointing out that Wiberforce was a hypocrite, I wouldn't disagree with you though I do not judge the man. Indeed many Christians have espoused something with their lips and done another. That tends to be human nature. After all, the same men who professed freedom, liberty, and justice for all were slaveowners themselves.

Haiti stands as a one off but it had great impact on America and Europe. And it only proves my initial point that we must look at ourselves before blaming religion. Still, a great contributing influence that brought about the end of slavery was the abolitionist movement. When you look at other attempted rebellions after Haiti, they were all put down. So what produced the change? I think you will find it was a mixture of the right elements of which the abolitionist movement was a main ingredient. Just like the civil rights movement. The religion of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X didn't kill their yearning to be free.

I am not God's advocate. If all of us Nigeria decided to reject God, it wouldn't stop me from believing in Him. I would see it as a choice we made and we will live with that choice. As long as I am not restriced from worshipping and proselytizing, I'll keep trudging along. Again I ask, would getting rid of religion make us less corrupt, less greedy, less of cowards?

Sorry for the long post.

About Haiti...it can be called a one off but like you mentioned, it brought about change. Chances are that without the success of Haiti, changes would not have occurred drastically. Also, there were other successful revolts besides Haiti, the island of Curacao led by Tula although this revolt did not result in a Haiti-like situation, it brought about change and some level of equal rights on the Island. Other revolts might not have resulted in independence but they were very effective in destroying the economy of slavery and reducing its profitability thus, I would say that they were successful. The Malcolm X and MLK example is a great example of how religion does not necessarily have to make one docile. But these examples are very rare. Especially in Africa. Well, contemporary Africa. As a matter of fact, in the world today. These days, religion is used to promote and excuse docility. That is a problem.

Would getting rid of religion make us less corrupt, less greedy and less of cowards?

A lot of damage has been done already and I am not that naive to argue that getting rid of religion automatically solves the above problems. Also, it is almost impossible to get rid of religion, it is not practical to think so. However, I'd like to think that people should think more and act more without recourse to religious sentiments. That will definitely go a long way in making us less cowards. As to greed, yes, it will help because religion in Nigeria, especially Christianity, preaches the Gospel of Greed. Placing so much emphasis on material gains fosters corruption. Hence, we have (mis)leaders in different government offices having their seats reserved in special sections of the church auditorium. We have people giving inhumane testimonies as to how they are the only survivors of a car accident ad how they were saved by grace (different topic altogether).

Another issue I have with religion is the role it plays in the subjugation and demonization of our people and culture. I echo John Herik Clarke's words...
"nearly all religion were brought to people and imposed on people by conquerors and used as a framework to control their minds...if you are a child of God and God is a part of you, then in your imagination God is supposed to look like you. And when you accept a picture of a deity assigned to you by another people, you become the spiritual prisoners of that other people"

That is the way I tend to look at this issue. Was God not with Africa before Christianity and Islam? Did we as a people only exist, waiting to be saved and brought to the knowledge of God by other people? Did we not have a connection with God before the white man came?

I have no problem with religion. I advocate individual freedom. As long as that freedom does not encroach on the freedom of others. A good example is the discussion we've been having so far. I think this is the first time I've engaged in such a discussion without getting the following threats:

"Change your ways or burn in hell", "I pity you, you better accept Jesus before its too late", "I warn you! God cannot be mocked", "oh! you are an atheist, hell is real!", "You are a devil's incarnate!"

Honestly, I appreciate your level of reasoning. Usually, the above is what a discussion such as this descends to.

Wouldn't it be better if the government subsidize the local car industry first thus, making them effective and competitive enough before introducing this?

Oh well....

NativeBoy: To address your points in order.

1. I never said all atheists subscribed to Darwinism.

2. Perhaps "Darwinian" is a better term?

3. Why couldn't a sensible person advocate for Darwinism in a social context? (Another thread discussion perhaps?)

4. I am familiar to Dawkins' work and he has not been truly to justify the above. In fact, in his book, "The God Delusion", he states that good and evil really have no meaning when you look at the whole picture of existence (I paraphrased).

5. Indeed the Portuguese Roman Catholics arrived in Nigeria in the 15th century but it never took a strong hold. In fact, it eroded over the next 200 years until they returned in the 1800s. This time the Protestants came as well and by 1865, the first school in Nigeria was built.

I do not contend that the abolition of slavery played an important role in the establishment of schools on the African continent. It did. And it is interesting to note that the abolitionist movement was championed by believers like Wilberforce, Clarkson, Heyrick, Buxton, etc.

This is "whitewashed" history bro. The main reason behind the abolition of "slavery" is that the so called "trade" stopped being economically viable and the activities of enslaved Africans played a huge part in the abolition. "Slave" revolts were occurring all over the Americas, plantations being set on fire, white people being killed by the enslaved in order to get their freedom. I'm sure you are aware of many of these revolts which was highly motivated by the huge success of the Haitian Revolution. The Haitian Revolution was mainly successful because it was based on African "religion" and spirituality, many argue. Toussaint L'Ouverture and his comrades depended highly on African spirituality and this was made possible by the sizable amount of African born "slaves" in Haiti (these guys abolished slavery in Haiti! Making Haiti the first "independent" black nation). The impact of these revolts played an important part in the decline of the "slavery" economy and thus, its collapse and eventual abolition. This is a fact that is often downplayed a lot in favour of the "valour" of the "abolitionists". Wilberforce, a very questionable character is revered more than Olaudah Equaino, a "slave" from Nigeria who significantly contributed to the abolition of the trade (I suggest you read Olaudah's book/account. I'm sure it is downloadable for free over the internet).

This brings me to Wilberforce...After Haiti abolished slavery, this should have been a positive thing for Wilberforce, right? He should have supported the movement if he really cared about Africans but no....he distanced himself from the event. British troops invaded Haiti in order to counter the movement and also, get one ahead of the French after they've been defeated by Toussaint L'Ouverture and the people of Haiti. They wanted Haiti to return to slavery. Wilberforce should have been against this as a true Christian abolitionist motivated by Christian morals, right? Uh...nah. A motion was raised in parliament to withdraw British troops from Haiti and Wilberforce opposed the motion. So much for the great abolitionist, uh?

The abolition bill of 1807 that actually led to the abolition was not Wilberforce's bill. He had presented bills year after year that were defeated in parliament quite easily. No one was interested in abolishing the trade because the reality of its non-viability has not quite set in yet. So, during this 1807 debate, there was a motion that children of "slaves" should be considered free and guess what? Wilberforce opposed it! What kind of guy is this? Does he know what he is doing at all? He also opposed the prohibition of whipping women and he demanded that when slavery is abolished eventually, white slave owners should be compensated for the loss of their property. Seriously, compensation for their loss? Do you know that the current UK Prime Minister, David Cameron's ancestors amongst many other British elites are beneficiaries of this compensation?

Thomas Clarkson, which I believe you mentioned said that Wilberforce "cared nothing about the slaves, nor if they were all damned, provided he saved his soul". So, the whole altruism attributed to Wilberforce as a great abolitionist is garbage. He was in fact very racist in his comments about Africans. He made so many comments about how Africans actually deserved their enslavement and how they were not yet fit for freedom.

Damn! I have typed a lot of story lol. My point is that the abolition of slavery was way way more than the noble acts of abolitionists who often benefited from slavery while putting out half-hearted abolition campaigns. One need to read deeper and think deeper as well. Why is it that most plantation owners preferred "slaves" that were born outside of Africa to the "fresh slaves" from Africa? These "fresh slaves" were simply trouble, they still had fresh connections to their roots and they often had a stronger desire to be free, hence the many revolts inspired by them. Plantation owner thus heavily discouraged the practicing of African traditions, music and languages and enforced Christianity instead in order to kill the freedom spirit. Again, back to the point, many factors led to the abolition and the weakest of those factors are the efforts of the so called "missionaries" who brought good tidings. The movie "Amazing Grace" dedicated to Wilberforce should have been called "Amazing Disgrace".

Sorry for the long post. This is why I usually refrain from talking much about slavery and similar topics.

voltron: Religion is not the Problem, People are... who wrote the Holy Books, Who believed in them, Who heard God or Allah's voice.. who used them to breed mind-boggling idiocy and intellectual laziness - Man

Thats another great perspective. As much as I don't think religion is really beneficial, it is not the problem. The problem really is the people who allowed it.

However, some claim that you can practice religion with rationality and reason though.

NativeBoy: .

Definitely do no want to derail the thread and I take your point that civilization is a subjective term. So to stick with the thread, my question would be this: what exactly did religion introduce into Africa that wasn't already part of the fabric of our existence?

Not sure I understand the question the way you intended.

Religion introduced the concept of seeing "God" as something/someone outside of ourselves. By this I mean, a new concept and image of God. It also sowed the seed of self-hatred inadequacy and subjugation. This applies to both Islam and Christianity.

Will continue this discussion later hopefully....

Logicboy03: Problems with the bold
-Not all atheists believe in evolution even though majority probably do
-Darwinism is a silly and ambiguous term
-No sensible person would advocate darwinism in a social context- killing people who are termed to be inferior.
-Even Dawkins (one of the most popular atheists) has reiterated the above point.


Religion enslaved Africa. Have you ever wondered why no Nigerian school goes deep into the subject of slavery as part of history?

Do you even know that the christians that built schools in Nigeria built their first school 300 years after the first christians arrived? Why? Because slavery was abolished 300 years after they came. So put that into perspective. The first school in Nigeria was in the 19th century- amission school. The first christians came in the 15th/16th century

Another truth.