pleep: This is a truly horrible counter argument brother, you actually prove my point more then you refute it. Yes,the whole world was under European control at one point but they made it out, while africa could be colonized again tm if the white man decided. Japan Advanced from a Feudal system to being able to defeat a western power (russia) in the sino japanese war in a couple centuries. Another example are the arabs, who were blessed with oil and ,despite being a fanatical group of people, were able to turn many of their countries into paradises on earth.

What does Nigeria do with her oil?.... population too high? ok what about equatorial guinea. Their GPD per capita is 25 fuking thousand per individual and they live in the jungle like monkeys with a 51 year life expectancy



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

They haven't made it fully out! We're still under a global white-European hegemony. Look at the stats, look at the richest country in the world, look at the best living people in the most comfortable countries in the world. Look at basic world history of the last 40 years even. It's only recently that we're hearing of the emergence of China and BRICS and so on, but even then the Europeans are waging a cold proxy war against them, look at Africom, look at the various US bases around the world, especially in South Korea and Japan.

Many of these countries had to compromise for their success or their success was especially beneficial to the US, like South Korea. The US could have easily lorded over the Japanese in the 1850s and the 1940s, but they saw it beneficial to trade with the 'naturally resourceless' Japan.

LOL. Japan was forced out of a feudal system by Matthew Perry and his gun boats. The United States literally had to invade Japan in order for them to open up to Western trade. They didn't "advance" they were pushed.

The Arab Gulf states are all ethnic based Hegemony's with heavy powers based on a monarchy, the same monarchy that wields unrelenting power over their resources. Sure, they splash a lot of money into showing off their various sultanates (with notorious lack of attention to detail built by virtual South Asian slaves), but how sustainable is that? Why would you want to copy states that rely and rule over South Asian and Philippine/south east Asian migrants who are sent home if jobless? Did you know many of these Gulf tribes were are at each others necks until the British literally had to draw their borders for them?

These places do not have the same experience with white supremacy/European imperialism that Nigeria has had so you can keep the life expectancy unless you produce the life expectancy of a migrant worker in Kuwait.

pleep:

The first female billionaire on the planet earth was a black woman named Madame Walker, she lived in 1918 and made her fortune selling weaves, lye and other black haircare products. Now, the black hair industry is a $500 billion dollar market and it is owned by fucking Koreans

That is the definition degeneration.

Not to even talk about the increase in single motherhood, incarceration rates and STD's.

Madam CJ Walker wasn't the first female billionaire, she never even was a billionaire. Besides, if you want to say African Americans were better off in 1918 than in 2014, especially in places like Louisiana where Madam Walker was from, then that's a case for reading up on world history in general. African Americans always had high incarceration rates, it comes with being a country's punching bag.

ezeagu:

Madam CJ Walker wasn't the first female billionaire, she never even was a billionaire. Besides, if you want to say African Americans were better off in 1918 than in 2014, especially in places like Louisiana where Madam Walker was from, then that's a case for reading up on world history in general. African Americans always had high incarceration rates, it comes with being a country's bunching bag.

whoops i meant to write millionare.

pleep: This is a truly horrible counter argument brother, you actually prove my point more then you refute it. Yes,the whole world was under European control at one point but they made it out, while africa could be colonized again tm if the white man decided. Japan Advanced from a Feudal system to being able to defeat a western power (russia) in the sino japanese war in a couple centuries. Another example are the arabs, who were blessed with oil and ,despite being a fanatical group of people, were able to turn many of their countries into paradises on earth.

What does Nigeria do with her oil?.... population too high? ok what about equatorial guinea. Their GPD per capita is 25 fuking thousand per individual and they live in the jungle like monkeys with a 51 year life expectancy



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Here are what those living like "monkeys" in Equatorial Guinea are building.

Like i mentioned earlier i don't believe black people are of lower intelligence or inferior to any other race. Put in the same circumstances, and given the same opportunities black students will always surpass their white counterparts. I , and many of you give evidence to this.

But this map, shows a problem that will not correct itself, drastic measures need to be taken. Im not talking about education, im talking about eugenics. Ppl with IQ's lower than 60 need to be sterilized... Something about the african culture with its regressive religiosity and other anti-progressive tendencies and enables such individuals ( your Mubutus, Mansa Musas, and Mswati's) to do much more damage then in other societies.

more pictures

Stop spamming pictures. Everyone knows by now that you can cherry pick photos from the internet to create any image of a nation you want.

The only info we should be relying on to form an opinion is quantifiable data like, standard of living, infant mortality and life expectancy.

Some people do not want Africans to raise their standard of living. They have gotten so used to us being poor than they can't conceive a world where things are different. Well, Africa is changing, for the better. Yes there are many challenges but that doesn't mean we should succumb to negativity.

pleep: Stop spamming pictures. Everyone knows by now that you can cherry pick photos from the internet to create any image of a nation you want.

The only info we should be relying on to form an opinion is quantifiable data like, standard of living, infant mortality and life expectancy.

to increase life expectancy, living standard, reduce infant mortality, you need schools, roads, houses for people and hospitals. You need to build industries to create jobs for them. You can't just expect these things to happen. As you can see, the buildings are NEW, meaning the country is changing. It's that change in the right direction that I am applauding. Having a life expectancy of 51 years is bad, but even worse is not doing anything to change that. Some people would rather whine all day instead of doing something about it. Well the leaders of Equatorial Guinea are doing something to change the country.

pleep: Stop spamming pictures. [s]Everyone knows by now that you can cherry pick photos from the internet to create any image of a nation you want.[/s]

The only info we should be relying on to form an opinion is quantifiable data like, standard of living, infant mortality and life expectancy.

Not everyone, just YOU so far. I bet even the pictures of new highways in Ethiopia would do anything for you. As if a country can develop if people can't move from place to another.

"Equatorial Guinea is the third largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa and has a population of approximately 700,000 people. According to the United Nation’s 2013 Human Development Report, the country has a per-capita gross domestic product of US$32,026, which is the highest wealth ranking of any African country and one of the highest in the world, yet it ranks 136 out of 187 countries in the Human Development Index. As a result, Equatorial Guinea has by far the largest gap of all countries between its per-capita wealth and its human development score.

Despite the country’s abundant natural resource wealth and government’s obligations to advance the economic and social rights of its citizens, it has directed little of this wealth to meet their needs. Figures released by the International Monetary Fund in early 2013 showcase the government’s spending priorities: while half of Equatorial Guinea’s capital spending in 2011 was used to build infrastructure and another 22 percent was spent on public administration, health and education together accounted for only 3 percent of capital spending.

About half of the population lacks clean water or basic sanitation facilities, according to official 2012 statistics. A large portion of the population also lacks access to quality health care, decent schools, or reliable electricity. The government does not publish basic information on budgets and spending, and citizens and journalists lack the freedom to monitor the use of the country’s natural resource wealth."

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/equatorial-guinea

Omarbah, the fact that you have the nerve to make excuses for such horrific mismanagement as in seen in E- guinea shows that you are part of the problem and probably need to be sterilized.

pleep: "Equatorial Guinea is the third largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa and has a population of approximately 700,000 people. According to the United Nation’s 2013 Human Development Report, the country has a per-capita gross domestic product of US$32,026, which is the highest wealth ranking of any African country and one of the highest in the world, yet it ranks 136 out of 187 countries in the Human Development Index. As a result, Equatorial Guinea has by far the largest gap of all countries between its per-capita wealth and its human development score.

Despite the country’s abundant natural resource wealth and government’s obligations to advance the economic and social rights of its citizens, it has directed little of this wealth to meet their needs. Figures released by the International Monetary Fund in early 2013 showcase the government’s spending priorities: while half of Equatorial Guinea’s capital spending in 2011 was used to build infrastructure and another 22 percent was spent on public administration, health and education together accounted for only 3 percent of capital spending.

About half of the population lacks clean water or basic sanitation facilities, according to official 2012 statistics. A large portion of the population also lacks access to quality health care, decent schools, or reliable electricity. The government does not publish basic information on budgets and spending, and citizens and journalists lack the freedom to monitor the use of the country’s natural resource wealth."

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/equatorial-guinea

Like I said, now the government is doing something about it. That's what count. A people could be miserable in 2012 but that doesn't have to be case in 2020 for example. That's my point.

the worst thing is you said they live like monkeys, are you serious? And you have the nerves to brush us these pictures. Do monkeys live in such homes?

Omarbah:
Like I said, now the government is doing something about it. That's what count. A people could be miserable in 2012 but that doesn't have to be case in 2020 for example. That's my point.

On what evidence do you expect to see meaningful development in a country that has had 60 years of failure?

The population is only 680,000 and they E-Guinea cant even manage give such a small number of people a decent standard of living despite all their oil wealth. This is in stark contrast to tiny non-black oil countries Qatar, Dubai, kuwait etc.

Black people cannot even achieve a basic level of development in the most favorable circumstances and this is a problem!

Omarbah: the worst thing is you said they live like monkeys, are you serious? And you have the nerves to brush us these pictures. Do monkeys live in such homes?

I'll say it again. THEY LIVE LIKE FUKING MONKEYS

Does this upset you? good, because its the truth. The average monkey in an American zoo lives better then these africans. A caged monkey has access to clean water, electricity and healthcare while Africans cant even get these things in a country with a friggin 25,000 per capita GDP.

I mean damn bro, open your gotdamn eyes.

pleep: On what evidence do you expect to see meaningful development in a country that has had 60 years of failure?

The population is only 680,000 and they Q-Guinea cant even manage give such a small number of people a decent standard of living despite all their oil wealth. This is in stark contrast to tiny non-black oil countries Qatar, Dubai, kuwait etc.

Black people cannot even achieve a basic level of development in the most favorable circumstances and this is a problem!

I just showed you the evidence of changes in the country. 60 years ago, you did not have social housing, NOW you do. Sixty years ago, you did not have roads that connected towns, now you do. Qatar started exploiting oil in the 1950s, Eqautorial Guinea just started. That country was even poorer before the discovery of oil and many of its citizens used to work small jobs in Cameroon. Now things are changing for them and I can only be glad.
Here is another video that shows how Malabo is providing electricity to its residents. With the housing, the infrastructure in water and electricity, more people are expected to come live in the city, as you might know, cities are a great tool for development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOoy2j88r8s

pleep:

I'll say it again. THEY LIVE LIKE FUKING MONKEYS

Does this upset you? good, because its the truth. The average monkey in an American zoo lives better then these africans. A caged monkey has access to clean water, electricity and healthcare while Africans cant even get these things in a country with a friggin 25,000 per capita GDP.

I mean damn bro, open your gotdamn eyes.

LOL trust me, it's not the first time I am hearing such negativity from a black American. Call them what you want. As long as there is a difference between what you say and reality, I am fine.

Omarbah:
It is well known the role of many monarchs played in the slave trade. Actually some have even apologized formally for the role played in the slave trade by allowing it. Here is a link if you want to know more http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/genetic-quest-leads-african-apology-role-slave-trade-f8C11467842

Yes, we're aware of that.

Omarbah: Yes the slave trade did flourish with the discovery of the Americas, but with the demand came a supply provided in part by Africans that sold their own.

http://www.reunionblackfamily.com/apps/blog/show/11782086-we-did-not-sell-each-other-into-slavery
Still nowhere does it say they sold their own. Their constitution would never allow citizens who were not criminals or indebted to be sold off. The only exception was Kongo and nobody, not even the monarch, was safe from enslavement.

Omarbah: If the Songhai empire had been able to establish its authority firmly, this would not have happened.

Songhai engaged in the trade like everyone else, it was their trade after all.

Omarbah: But instead the states with their weak armies and economies could not stop the slave trade.

Weak armies and economies? Maybe you didn't brush up on history, but in the wake of the collapse of Sudanese powers rose extremely wealthy, powerful, influential and sophisticated empires that dominated West Africa and almost gave the Europeans a run for their money. Some, like Benin, place heavy restrictions on the number of slaves sold to increase production and ceased to become a notable slave trading kingdom since. Dahomey is well known for Agaja, who pretty much nearly cut off trading with the West i an effort to industrialize and commercialize.
More here: http://africaunchained..ca/2013/06/the-west-versus-africas-industrial.html
http://der.org/resources/study-guides/blooms-of-banjeli-study-guide.pdf

Omarbah: The EU and NATO are two different organizations, the latter is a kind of joint command for western countries including North America. The EU has the ambition of becoming a stronger political entity to compete with North America and China.

NATO is precisly what I'm stating, it is one big organization designed to protect the interest of Western nations without the need for unionizing these nations politically. The EU already accomplished being a strong political entity without the need to unite all European nations aligned with it. Europe moved past unionizing all together ages ago.

Omarbah: The potential for chaos is just too high to have the current states break along ethnic lines and then reunite. The wars that will ensue will be an excuse for the US and France to invade us once again in the name of " stopping Africans from killing each other" ( believe me, westerners will buy this BS) and to "protect their interests". In that case we will have another "Berlin conference" where the new states will be defined by the new invaders. The best way is to for ECOWAS to have an army and political capital to enforce peace and security if necessary then new states could be "added" to the unions based on the ethnic lines if necessary.

Our forefathers did i before and it worked successfully. not to mention, this is being discussed heavily even among political journalists and analysts. All Africa needs is another Kwame Nkrumah, Gaddafi, or Sankara to be on the look out for crooks running around with excuses like "stopping Africans from killing each other" until the wars blow over, if there even are any. ECOWAS and the AU should also do their job and protect these interests until the "wars" blow over, then they can serve as economical, philosophical and continental uniters as opposed to political, better the nation-states remain notion-states with an African EU equivalent watching over them than one big english speaking war zone on the verge of break up anyway.

And can the likes of pleep on this thread stop pedaling around this archaic, long debunked, Western notion of biological race? It contributes nothing to the discussion and wastes valuable time.

ezeagu:
Mansa Musa didn't conquer the Arabs, and neither did the Arabs conquer Mansa Musa. If there was no rebound then I hardly see this as a failure although the money could have obviously been better spent.

Agreed, however it can be argued that it wasn't in Mali's best interest at the time to go on extensive raids and conquests of North Africa, such a thing back then may have been seen as a waste of money just as we view his economical practices now. It also should be mentioned that another African empire called Kanem-Bornu rose from the Sao civilization(500B.C.) in Middle Africa and managed to conquer as far as southern Lybia. And with that, they imported European gun-wielding slaves for use in their armies. If Mali or Songhay had did the same, they would of had to contend with that said empire, thus leading to a similar demise in the number of kingdoms in West Africa.

@ kingston277,
are they going to apologize for something they have not done? Further in your post you mention this "Some, like Benin, place heavy restrictions on the number of slaves sold to increase production and ceased to become a notable slave trading kingdom since." So they did sell slaves right?

You mentioned how Benin placed restrictions on the slave till a certain level of production was reached meaning its economy was weaker. That's my point, these states could not stop the slave trade at first, it flourished because we did not have a stronger state.

kingston277:
ECOWAS and the AU should also do their job and protect these interests until the "wars" blow over, then they can serve as economical, philosophical and continental uniters as opposed to political, better the nation-states remain notion-states with an African EU equivalent watching over them than one big english speaking war zone on the verge of break up anyway.

I think we are saying the same thing. We need a strong ECOWAS to protect us from a foreign invasion while we are making this transformation. Also the role that I want ECOWAS to play is that of managing the military, currency and foreign policy. The rest should be left to the "new states". And I am against English being used as a the language. Like I said in my previous posts, I am fine with Yoruba being the education language in the West of Nigeria where almost everyone speaks it, the same for Hausa in the North. In east Africa, they already have Swahili so their transition should be quicker. Eventually, the foreign language should stop being the medium of learning on our continent.

Omarbah: @ kingston277,
are they going to apologize for something they have not done? Further in your post you mention this "Some, like Benin, place heavy restrictions on the number of slaves sold to increase production and ceased to become a notable slave trading kingdom since." So they did sell slaves right?

Sure, which civilization on this planet did not sell slaves. Infact whats wrong with selling slaves? Kingdoms need to fuel each other with workers and people need to pay off their debts, after of which they are allowed to return home unless their owners refuse as seen in the case of US slavery.

Omarbah: You mentioned how Benin placed restrictions on the slave till a certain level of production was reached meaning its economy was weaker. That's my point, these states could not stop the slave trade at first, it flourished because we did not have a stronger state.

Where did you read into that? It goes to show that you need to do away with your ethnocentric views while discussing this issue. I said level of production in thigs like pepper and palm oil, this is well known, no increase if an increase/decease in production occurred, it fluctuated and occurred throughout the history of Africa, it had nothing to do with Europeans or slave trade. The Banjeli were noted to have high production values in steel/iron in the 19th century but there is no documentation about when this high production in metals first began nor what their industry was based on prior. As As I said pepper and textiles among other goods was the main export. Before that, their economy was strong in mostly exports of tusks, textiles and slaves(between seigneurs).

kingston277:
ECOWAS and the AU should also do their job and protect these interests until the "wars" blow over, then they can serve as economical, philosophical and continental uniters as opposed to political. better the nation-states remain notion-states with an African EU equivalent watching over them than one big english speaking war zone on the verge of break up anyway.

Omarbah: I think we are saying the same thing.

No. Before, you were saying West African nations needed to unite into larger countries as opposed to split into ethnic based countries due to your idea that physically larger states can protect themselves better than physically smaller states. I then told you ECOWAS and AU's job was to protect the interest of the smaller states while they sort themselves out. The size of countries mattered little as long as they had an economical and political joint similar to the EU serving their interests.

Omarbah: We need a strong ECOWAS to protect us from a foreign invasion while we are making this transformation. Also the role that I want ECOWAS to play is that of managing the military, currency and foreign policy. The rest should be left to the "new states". And I am against English being used as a the language.

That would inevitably be the the case if current nation did not split based on ethnic lines. Look at Nigeria now.

Omarbah: Like I said in my previous posts, I am fine with Yoruba being the education language in the West of Nigeria where almost everyone speaks it, the same for Hausa in the North. In east Africa, they already have Swahili so their transition should be quicker. Eventually, the foreign language should stop being the medium of learning on our continent.

Fully agree.

Can monkeys do this?

kingston277:
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/70114-african-culture-9.html
https://www.nairaland.com/1796503/traditional-african-boat-designs
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58840-diversity-early-african-architecture-ruins-thread.html
https://www.nairaland.com/1249503/interesting-images-precolonial-early-colonial
https://www.nairaland.com/582176/benin-art-architecture/
Edo Kingdom(Nigeria)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungbo%27s_Eredo
Asante Empire(Ghana)



Kongo
[img]http://hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu/SlaveTrade/collection/large/VILE-180.JPG[/img]


Nsibidi(Igbo writing system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi
More...
https://www.nairaland.com/189030/african-script
Production
http://der.org/resources/study-guides/blooms-of-banjeli-study-guide.pdf
[img]https://www.nairaland.com/attachments/1554585_african-productivity_jpeg73ad16662aab95c5e70965fc917f4ece[/img]
Bathrooms

Science and Tech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_Africa
"Human sacrifice" was actually capital punishment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benin_Expedition_of_1897
Human rights concepts
http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/bbrown/classes/HumanRightsSP10/CourseDocs/9BanjulCharterandtheAfricanCulturalFingerprint.pdf
http://eccentricyoruba./
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/nigeria/precolwon.html
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/nigeria/colonwom.html

I know its alot of links but its important for you to know. Plus the above is just West Africa/Central alone!

kingston277:
Sure, which civilization on this planet did not sell slaves. Infact whats wrong with selling slaves? Kingdoms need to fuel each other with workers and people need to pay off their debts, after of which they are allowed to return home unless their owners refuse as seen in the case of US slavery.

No selling slaves is wrong, people should be instead put to work. You cannot justify the sell of people.

kingston277:
Where did you read into that? It goes to show that you need to do away with your ethnocentric views while discussing this issue. I said level of production in thigs like pepper and palm oil, this is well known, no increase if an increase/decease in production occurred, it fluctuated and occurred throughout the history of Africa, it had nothing to do with Europeans or slave trade. The Banjeli were noted to have high production values in steel/iron in the 19th century but there is no documentation about when this high production in metals first began nor what their industry was based on prior. As As I said pepper and textiles among other goods was the main export. Before that, their economy was strong in mostly exports of tusks, textiles and slaves(between seigneurs).

You said this in your previous post "Some, like Benin, place heavy restrictions on the number of slaves sold to increase production and ceased to become a notable slave trading kingdom since. " There is nothing whatsoever ethnocentric about what I said.

kingston277:
I think we are saying the same thing.
No. Before, you were saying West African nations needed to unite into larger countries as opposed to split into ethnic based countries due to your idea that physically larger states can protect themselves better than physically smaller states. I then told you ECOWAS and AU's job was to protect the interest of the smaller states while they sort themselves out. The size of countries mattered little as long as they had an economical and political joint similar to the EU serving their interests.

I am against states being formed on ethnic lines IF we have not built a stronger ECOWAS beforehand for the reasons I mention. If we do then due to the desire for many Africans to have a state with their ethnic brothers and sisters, I do see why energy and resources should be spent to stop it. It would counterproductive to do so. If ECOWAS is not to be become a strong union, then I would rather have the current states like Nigeria maintained and smaller countries like Senegal, Guinea , Guinea Bissau unite.
So these are two different situations. My goal is to have some state or union that will be able to protect our interests. Ethnic states won't do it unless they all give up some sectors (army, currency, and foreign policy) to a union where they will have representatives.

I do believe within Nigeria, the native languages can be promoted. If there is the political will, it can happen. One has to focus on the main three, national languages or 5 national and regional languages to achieve it. If Switzerland and Belgium with their small sizes can have three languages why not Nigeria?

Kingston is correct, slavery is not inherently wrong. Every major civilization has been involved in the slave trade, the greeks enslaved other greeks the Eygptians enslaved, the persians enslaved, the romans enslaved etc. Even in the bible or Quaran there is no prohibition on slavery.

African kingdoms who sold fellow blacks into slavery were doing what made the most economic sense at the time and from their perspective they had no idea they were doing something wrong (promoting white supremacy). Songhai, Mali, and every other African kingdom kept slaves so why wouldn't they sell them to willing buyers? The african idea of slavery (the same sort of slavery you would find in the bible etc) was radically different from the industrial slavery of the middle passage.

Omarbah:
No selling slaves is wrong, people should be instead put to work. You cannot justify the sell of people.

Only when Africans do it, is what it sounded like you said. And in the context of the 19th century world where no-one saw it as wrong, why do you criticize only Africans for participating in their trade. If anything, the West should be blamed for dropping in and milking it dry.

Omarbah: You said this in your previous post "Some, like Benin, place heavy restrictions on the number of slaves sold to increase production and ceased to become a notable slave trading kingdom since. " There is nothing whatsoever ethnocentric about what I said.

Yes it was. You said...

But instead the states with their weak armies and economies could not stop the slave trade.

And...

If the Songhai empire had been able to establish its authority firmly, this would not have happened.

Since you are sahelian yourself, it sounds like you are biased towards sahelian kingdoms by placing their morality and economic responsibility above the forest kingdoms simply because their culture/religion was different from yours. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that their economy was weaker than before the slave trade. On the contrary it may have been stronger or easier to build a strong economy without the slave trade meddling into resources. The "increased production" was a response to the slave trade and was to maintain the strong economies they had before to lessen impact of the slave trade. The slave trade did weaken some lesser forest kingdoms like whydah, but only because some of them didn't take action to counter this loss of human resources. Benin and Dahomey(and Asante I think) flourished during the trade with restrictions on slave trading.

Omarbah: I am against states being formed on ethnic lines IF we have not built a stronger ECOWAS beforehand for the reasons I mention.

In other words, and EU equivalent, right?

Omarbah: If we do then due to the desire for many Africans to have a state with their ethnic brothers and sisters, I do see why energy and resources should be spent to stop it. It would counterproductive to do so. If ECOWAS is not to be become a strong union, then I would rather have the current states like Nigeria maintained and smaller countries like Senegal, Guinea , Guinea Bissau unite.

This is why I said...

Better to start small and break up before uniting again. It allows for build up and focus on particular ethnic groups and histories which in turn allows for proper address of issues. Its important to isolate the cancer and destroy it, not cover it up in one big dust bin of a country that still can't live up to the glory of Oyo, Benin or Asante.

And...

NATO is precisely what I'm stating, it is one big organization designed to protect the interest of Western nations without the need for unionizing these nations politically. The EU already accomplished being a strong political entity without the need to unite all European nations aligned with it. Europe moved past unionizing all together ages ago.

We'd better work on getting ECOWAS or AU to turn to our side then. Because I foresee some huge issues in lumping more nations into bigger, less culturally expressive countries than we are already dealing with.

Omarbah: So these are two different situations. My goal is to have some state or union that will be able to protect our interests. Ethnic states won't do it unless they all give up some sectors (army, currency, and foreign policy) to a union where they will have representatives.

As I said ethnic states worked before. State union doesn't always mean power, just look at the Congo, they should've never united in the first place. History in this instance is very important in drawing borders, if a bunch of ethnic groups never lived under the same ruler for as long as their history has been documented, why do we think it would work now? Thats like unionizing Canada, US and Mexico. There are actually proposals being done by obscure programs, but no-one takes these proposals seriously because these nations gain little from uniting physically, not anymore than just sticking with NATO.

Omarbah: I do believe within Nigeria, the native languages can be promoted. If there is the political will, it can happen. One has to focus on the main three, national languages or 5 national and regional languages to achieve it. If Switzerland and Belgium with their small sizes can have three languages why not Nigeria?

Most of those countries use a dominant language. Sure, its possible, Canada after all has Quebec which is theoretically its own country the way its disconnected from North America let alone Canada, but still remains in the union. But look at how they are trying to break out of the union and discourage influence from then rest of the country. Look at how Scotland is trying to leave the UK, if they do leave, are they really in danger if being conquered just because the're smaller? Can't they remain with EU and NATO.

kingston277:
Only when Africans do it, is what it sounded like you said. And in the context of the 19th century world where no-one saw it as wrong, why do you criticize only Africans for participating in their trade. If anything, the West should be blamed for dropping in and milking it dry.

They do have their share of blame of course.

kingston277:
Since you are sahelian yourself, it sounds like you are biased towards sahelian kingdoms by placing their morality and economic responsibility above the forest kingdoms simply because their culture/religion was different from yours. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that their economy was weaker than before the slave trade. On the contrary it may have been stronger or easier to build a strong economy without the slave trade meddling into resources. The "increased production" was a response to the slave trade and was to maintain the strong economies they had before to lessen impact of the slave trade. The slave trade did weaken some lesser forest kingdoms like whydah, but only because some of them didn't take action to counter this loss of human resources. Benin and Dahomey(and Asante I think) flourished during the trade with restrictions on slave trading.

Okay I am confused. Did they place restrictions on the slave trade to "increase production" or not? If they did wouldn't that mean that the slave trade itself was detrimental to their economies?

kingston277:
As I said ethnic states worked before. State union doesn't always mean power, just look at the Congo, they should've never united in the first place. History in this instance is very important in drawing borders, if a bunch of ethnic groups never lived under the same ruler for as long as their history has been documented, why do we think it would work now? Thats like unionizing Canada, US and Mexico. There are actually proposals being done by obscure programs, but no-one takes these proposals seriously because these nations gain little from uniting physically, not anymore than just sticking with NATO.

Multiethnic states are not a new thing in West Africa. The Ghana empire, the Mali empire, the Songhai empire, the Tekrur, Futa Toro of Koli Tengella, the Sokoto Caliphate were all multiethnic and that did not prevent them from flourishing. So the argument about us having to bundle into our own kingdoms or states in order to guarantee greatness does not stand.
My point throughout this whole debate has been that monoethnic states won't protect their citizens from foreign influence and competition. Under one form or the other, we need to bundle up and let go of our differences and look at our common interest. Nothing prevents a multiethnic state from allowing the ethnic group to set up an education system using its language.

Africa boasts of stark illiterate elites that are not visionaries. The remaining population entrenched in mass poverty perpetuate the recycling of these less than visionary elites.

Stillfire: Africa boasts of stark illiterate elites that are not visionaries. The remaining population entrenched in mass poverty perpetuate the recycling of these less than visionary elites.

In October 4th 1984, Thomas Sankara gave a speech at the UN where he denounced the "laziness" of the African elite that does not want to put in the effort to come up with new ideas and concepts to solve the problems of our continent. He also talked about how the commercial and political elite willingly perpetuate the "colonial" economy (sell of minerals and agro products in exchange for finished ones ) for their own profit.
If you speak french, here is a link to it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fHIi2mSpMs

Omarbah:

They do have their share of blame of course.

Okay I am confused. Did they place restrictions on the slave trade to "increase production" or not? If they did wouldn't that mean that the slave trade itself was detrimental to their economies?


Multiethnic states are not a new thing in West Africa. The Ghana empire, the Mali empire, the Songhai empire, the Tekrur, Futa Toro of Koli Tengella, the Sokoto Caliphate were all multiethnic and that did not prevent them from flourishing. So the argument about us having to bundle into our own kingdoms or states in order to guarantee greatness does not stand.
My point throughout this whole debate has been that monoethnic states won't protect their citizens from foreign influence and competition. Under one form or the other, we need to bundle up and let go of our differences and look at our common interest. Nothing prevents a multiethnic state from allowing the ethnic group to set up an education system using its language.

Wala a haali gonga bandam!