Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,170,879 members, 7,879,675 topics. Date: Thursday, 04 July 2024 at 02:23 AM

Neo-colonialism In Nigeria, Why Nigeria Is Rich, But Many Nigerians Are Poor - Politics - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Neo-colonialism In Nigeria, Why Nigeria Is Rich, But Many Nigerians Are Poor (12720 Views)

New Face Of Colonialism In Nigeria Under President Buhari / Day 4: Total Blackout In Nigeria. Why The Silence? / why yoruba are poor.17yrs mass stravation by biafra obasanjom/jonathan if yoruba (2) (3) (4)

(1) (Reply)

Neo-colonialism In Nigeria, Why Nigeria Is Rich, But Many Nigerians Are Poor by Farnsworth: 4:32pm On Jan 03, 2016
[size=15pt]Neo-Colonialism in Nigeria[/size]

Neo-Colonialism resembles indirect rule because the colonized seems to be independent but its economic system and political policy are controlled from outside. However, Neo-Colonialism is more dangerous because of its system of operation, which leads to poor development and economic dependent on the countries involved. In contemporary Nigeria today, neo-colonialism is a mighty obstacle which prevents the countries from experiencing meaningful development. This research seminar work at the end intends to help contemporary Nigerians to know the negative impacts Neo-colonialism has created in Nigeria and how best to tackle it, for a better change and rapid development in this country, Nigeria.

[size=15pt]Wikileaks, Shell and Neo-colonialism in Nigeria[/size]

Wikileak US embassy secret cables continue to educate, performing a significant public service and, hence, drawing fire from all ‘responsible’ quarters beholden to American hegemonic power. This week saw significant revelations about the role of Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria where over two-thirds of the population live in poverty in an oil-rich economy.

However, it is not just the Nigerian state that is infiltrated by Western multinational corporations: the university system was created by and operated largely for western interests in the run up to and after independence in 1960. Such penetration was organised by the British Colonial Office, funded by the Carnegie Corporation and other American ‘philanthropic’ foundations, and facilitated by a western-educated Nigerian elite whose mentality was entirely self- and Western-oriented.

In effect, ‘independent’ Nigeria was handed over to social, economic and political forces that were economically, militarily and intellectually dependent on the West, particularly Britain and the United States. Nigerian elites effectively adapted the role they had long played since the days of the slave trade: middlemen between the resources of Nigeria and traders and others from the West who wanted slaves and minerals. With every transaction, Nigeria’s unpatriotic middlemen collected a fee for services rendered, enriching themselves and their Western overlords at the expense of the peoples of that artificially constructed country.

The Wikileak cables that reveal the degree of penetration – colonialisation – of the Nigerian state by just one, admittedly massive, multinational corporation is not especially surprising but remains shocking nonetheless. It shows that the end of colonial rule did not presage genuine independence for Nigerians but the transfer of political power to nominally Nigerian elites that continued to see the country as a set of resources for sale, at a price. They took advantage of their situation for their own benefit, using the context of Cold War competition between the West and the Soviet Union to wrest as high a price as possible for their services. They ran an anticommunist regime, based on Western precepts of modernisation and development, promising political stability and economic, commercial and raw material flows from Nigeria to the industrial West. While they got richer and richer, the mass of ordinary Nigerians got poorer and poorer.

It was hardly surprising that Nigeria erupted in bloody civil war in the late 1960s: the Western economic development experts sent over by American philanthropic foundations and the American state, such as Wolfgang Stolper of Michigan State University, saw Africa as the “dark continent”, and Africans as backward, lazy, corrupt and inferior. The likes of Stolper, and Arnold Rivkin of MIT (and later adviser to the US Agency for International Development, and the World Bank’s Africa division) also prided themselves on their objectivity, wearing their ignorance of matters African as a badge of distinction. They proceeded to meddle at the very heart of economic policy and development, establishing fiercely market-based economies in the context of an ethnically-charged, class-based political order that they knew nothing about, let alone understood.

They openly spoke and wrote about Nigeria, and Africa in general, as a laboratory for experimentation, especially for their economic theories and for theories of public administration. It is not surprising then that Pfizer sent over, during an epidemic a team of scientists to test out on human beings new drugs that were not permitted in the United States. The “dark continent” remains in the Western elite mind a place for “discovery”, a laboratory with human guinea pigs whose own leaders might have “forgotten”, according to a Shell Oil representative, how deeply penetrated are their own organs of state power.

In a typically provocative essay in the Daily Mail about 5 years ago, the pro-imperial Anglo-Saxonist historian Andrew Roberts who, I suspect, will be among the gaggle of pro-imperial historians to advise Tory Education Secretary Michael Gove on how to teach history in Britain’s schools, demanded the west “Colonialise Africa” again. He claimed that all the evidence of post-colonial Africa’s corruption, poverty, and lack of economic development, demanded a return to Western colonial rule.

Roberts, at least, was writing almost 50 years after independence. The telling fact is that amnesia about the creation of such endemic problems in Africa had begun even before the end of British colonial rule. By the time the likes of Stolper and Rivkin turned up in Africa to ‘develop’ and ‘modernise’ it, with the help of colonially-educated and oriented Nigerian elites, the colonial past and its massive negative consequences, were already being denied and forgotten.

In truth, colonial rule in Nigeria transformed into neo-colonialism: the granting of political sovereignty through a negotiated settlement that would retain, maintain and extend economic, commercial, intellectual and military ties. The colonial mind-set lives on. It merely changed its outer appearance, its garb. That superficial change is now so deeply accepted and taken for granted a part of the African story that it is promoted as actual history.

What the Wikileaks US embassy cables have done is to cast especially brilliant light on one stark example of neo-colonial rule in Africa, striking at the heart of dark deeds perpetrated by Western power and, very significantly, its forgetful but affluent Nigerian allies.

3 Likes 3 Shares

Re: Neo-colonialism In Nigeria, Why Nigeria Is Rich, But Many Nigerians Are Poor by sakaba(m): 2:13pm On Jan 04, 2016
Hmm oya na..

(1) (Reply)

Obasanjo Visits Governor Bindow Of Adamawa, Commends Him For His Good Governance / FG Evading Talks On Minimum Wage — NLC / Discharged EFCC Cadets Petition Buhari Over Unfair Dismissal

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 17
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.