It took Japan just fifty or so years to modernize its island and rival most of the anglo-european world. Do you guys think that there will come a day when we have a functional government, a society that distribute wealths across the board and relative stability? I just want a ball park figure. I think this can be done in three hundred years, what about you?

It's certainly not going to take that long. Things can go very quickly the moment a few facilitating factors are met. One of the elements that can jumpstart things in my opinion is the move to smaller family units and the decline of the role of the extended family. This has got such a dramatic influence on attitudes that it is hard to overestimate it's importance

But, of course, that's not sufficient

Japan realised the power within them after the war and that is why Japan is a world power.

Nigeria would develop if and only if we realise the power within us and stop chasing policies that don't work. the IMF is not African and so cannot understand African thoughts and ideologies. Until we are still trying to use the same means as the western world, we would still remain 'developing' to the western world.

good points so far.

japan was industrialised before the war, so its not a good example. guys like singapore and malaysia are better examples.

sub-saharan african hasnt shown a change in mentality yet, except in a few countries. until we change how we think, we wont make it

I think a hundred years looks ok to me too!

maybe in 50 years. I think Africa and 3rd world economy will redefine Development in 15 years or so as the West as we know it becomes aged. Europes development has slowed dramatically with increasing ageing population. With the right leadership and vision, 50 years can do it.

The collective greed that governs our existence in sub-Sahara Africa has eroded the little (if there was any) value system we had and without this value system we cannot have any meaningful development.

oh how we learn daily. i never knew selfishness and self centeredness developes a people.

as someone already said japan was already developing before the war. this generation of visionless copycats need to pass away so as not to continually sow the seed of thier laziness and short-sightedness into the coming one.

we all think stopping female circumcision or genital mutilation would help improve the lot of africans greatly.

seriously, when we start creating things and stop relying on the so called 1st world to lead us into never land. blind dont lead the blind you know. the miraculous credit/ social security fuelled "boom and busrt economy" of the west is not a viable model for us.

i think we have copied them too much that we have become a very bad copy of a fake original.

maybe 100 yrs time when all these wasters are in hell.

"When will Sub-Saharan Africa be on par with first world countries?"

Wow, Tunku. That's loaded.

What do you mean by "on par" and "first world"?

I agree with joshjosh, the "so called 1st world" is nothing to praise for many reasons that should be quite apparent to all Africans.

1) I would pose the question for the readers to think about as to where the Japanese, and indeed much of the so called "1st world", get their raw materials to be the industrial power that they are. Obviously, they are not naturally endowed with a land that is abundant in material wealth.

2) Is the Continent of Africa prospering from it's material wealth, i.e. setting and getting the market value of the said resources?

3) Are the neccesary systems in place to ensure the material wealth of Africa is distributed to serve the needs of the people?

4) What would have to happen to implement systems to ensure the material wealth of Africa is distributed to serve the needs of the people.

This, of course, focuses on only one aspect of the situation, but a major one, never the less.

we already exceed them in some aspects like corruption, bad roads and sycophancy so i don't know what you are talking about.

well it is not really a loaded question, Despite the huge wealth of natural resources that many African countries lay claim to, we are still largely dependent on the cash crop. It is a shame that not that many african countries are leading exporters in the agricultural field because we have one of the most arable lands in the world. Nigeria is largely dependent on the largesse that comes in from the oil industry. The corruption and shoddy infastructure leads to the capital flight of all the influx of foreign capital into Nigeria. Instead of investing in other sectors of the country such as roads, railways, et cetera. The big conglomorates operates largely on the philosopy of making money with african oil and getting as much of it out of the country as possible before our officials steal it away from them. It would be nice if we weren't largely dependent on importing food from other countries but alas until we start addressing this issues. I am afraid that economic parity with the west won't happen in my generation.

Tunku qoutes:
"well it is not really a loaded question, Despite the huge wealth of natural resources that many African countries lay claim to, we are still largely dependent on the cash crop."

"It would be nice if we weren't largely dependent on importing food from other countries but alas until we start addressing this issues."

What needs to happen to change this, Tunku? What needs to happen before African countries start feeding other African countries in exchange for other services and industries? Who receives the profit from the cash crops?

Maybe that is an issue that needs to be addressed. "How do Africans feed Africans?" What say you?

I think it is a loaded question. Is it not true that the so called "1st world" got their wealth not from hard work but from the wanton rape and destruction of the so called "developing world", including our collective people, but including indegious people around the planet. Therefore, to be on par means to be able to compete with and defend ourselves effectively from "1st world" or "western" agression, whether it be in an economic, political, or military in nature. A peer of, in simpler terms.

So, let me clarify. It's only a loaded question if you're asking it in order promote serious thought about the problem for the sole purpose of creating solutions for the sake of implementing the said solutions. If not... then i agree, it's just another rhetorical question... What say you?

This thread made me think again about another one I started. An eloquent and in my opinon true explanation of the inequalities in the world is available in the book Guns, Germs and Steel [/i]by [i]Jared Diamond.
My offer for the free audiobook is still open.

Please have a look at the thread here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-2173.0.html

The book brilliantly counters all kinds of crap racist arguments that float around. A must read.(or at least listen)

To those interested, I would suggest reading The Isis Papers, by Dr. Francis Cress Welsing to get a thorough understanding of not only racists (white supremacists) but her theory of "Color Confrontation", amoung others.

Futhermore, one can tune in here to listen to Counter-Racism Radio, on which Dr. Welsing is known to lecture:
http://www.live365.com/stations/mr_vor

If you have problems logging in, let me know and i can help you trouble shoot the problem.

anton:

To those interested, I would suggest reading The Isis Papers, by Dr. Francis Cress Welsing to get a thorough understanding of not only racists (white supremacists) but her theory of "Color Confrontation", amoung others.

Futhermore, one can tune in here to listen to Counter-Racism Radio, on which Dr. Welsing is known to lecture:
http://www.live365.com/stations/mr_vor

If you have problems logging in, let me know and i can help you trouble shoot the problem.

Hi Anton,

Can you give a short overview of what the book is about. I can't just go by the reviews on amazon alone.

I was personally very much enlightened by the theory of whiteness, as described by Robert Jensen in The Heart of Whiteness. This clearly not only applies to the US, but can also be used to analyse structural racism in Europe and Japan.

"When will Sub-Saharan Africa be on par with first world countries?"

It can be done in 50 years, maximum. Should be sooner, but there are a lot of "snags"... It will depend greatly on how determined Africans are to be equal, indeed greater, than the so called "1st world".


@nferyn
Greetings,

You should try to tune into Counter-Racism Radio to get an overview of some of her theories, in lieu of having the text. The lectures that play 24 hrs a day will do a much better job than me. Just click the yellow button to listen. If you're slick, you can use your media player to play the feeds... if not, just download the live365 player. Also, any bookstore can order it for you. If you have access to a barnes and noble, tell them to get it in stock for you.

Racism is, unfortunately, one of the most serious problems we have on this planet as humans. I think it should be everybodies' responsibility to end the system of racism and replace it with a system of justice. That's just my opinion, however, and I can only work to do so in my own daily activities...

anton:

@nferyn
Greetings,

You should try to tune into Counter-Racism Radio to get an overview of some of her theories, in lieu of having the text. The lectures that play 24 hrs a day will do a much better job than me. Just click the yellow button to listen. If you're slick, you can use your media player to play the feeds... if not, just download the live365 player. Also, any bookstore can order it for you. If you have access to a barnes and noble, tell them to get it in stock for you.

Racism is, unfortunately, one of the most serious problems we have on this planet as humans. I think it should be everybodies' responsibility to end the system of racism and replace it with a system of justice. That's just my opinion, however, and I can only work to do so in my own daily activities...

Thx, I will definitely have a listen
We should all do our best to overcome our ethnocentric tendencies - and unfortunately, we all have them. Of course that battle is very different depending on your place in the power structure.
Race, as a social construct should be defeated. It is meaningless, divisive and scientific nonsense. The social implications of race though can still be felt throughout society, that's why it cannot possibly be ignored either. By ignoring the implications of the social construct, people are perpetuating the perverse effects of racism, even when it's not explicit. Most of the time they're not even aware of their racist attitudes.

The idea If people believe something to be true, it is true in it's consequences is still very much playing

My wife was very naive regarding racism when she just came over to Europe. I could see the racist attitudes she encountered while she was blissfully ignorant of it. She learned a lot though, and it's not something that gives you much confidence in humanity. The strange thing was that the most excessive racism she encountered was from Arab immigrants. Quite a lot of them really look down on Black Africans, while you would expect them to be more sympathetic as they are the victims of racism as well.

Anyway, enough rambling. Thanks for the link.

I agree with almost every point out there.

I am directing this portion of my comments to us Nigerians living outside the country.

Nigerians need to do more for themselves rather than just try to compare themselves with the US and UK.

In the USA and most developed countries every citizen who makes an income is expected to
Pay taxes which keep the system running. Every American is expected to file Taxes irrespective of where you live or how much you make.

All I hear Nigerians talk about is OIL IOL LOI OLI ....... What if the OOLIO (LOL) stops flowing today?

Of the almost approximately 5 million Nigerians who live abroad how many people pay taxes of contribute towards the system? yet we expect the roads and airport to be ready when we visit Nigeria because we have LIO!!

Corruption is the other evil thing eating away at the heart of the country and I do not have any clue to how that would be stopped just yet, watch out!

na me O!

@ anton, look at the south east asian countries then, they don't have a big empire that resulted in the death of millions of indigenous people, yet they were able to turn their economy around after ww2 when they gained their independence. Sure racism does exist but I think that is actually less of a problem in africa than any where else in the world. throwing racisim into the issue is just distracting us from the question as to why have we had incompetent leaders who run our country with an iron dictatorship and concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, friend!

Let's look at the fact of the matter: I never said anything about racism until nferyn did, right?
The book brilliantly counters all kinds of crap racist arguments that float around. A must read.(or at least listen)
It was nferyn who said something about "racism", first. Therefore who is tossing in distraction grenades? Let's be honest with ourselves here!

Tunku qoute:
"I am afraid that economic parity with the west won't happen in my generation."

This quote was why I put the focus on the "west", rather than the "1st world". Your original question said "first world" countries, but then you said west in the above qoute, so i went with it.

tunku qoute:
Sure racism does exist but I think that is actually less of a problem in africa than any where else in the world. throwing racisim into the issue is just distracting us from the question as to why have we had incompetent leaders who run our country with an iron dictatorship and concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.

What would have to happen to implement systems to ensure the material, indeed total wealth of Africa is distributed to serve the needs of the people. You in maryland, i'm in nc, this not a pissing contest, let's meet in dc. If you ready to do work, then let's do work. Together. I'm not here because I have time to waste chatting or posting or whatever you call it. I'm here to network with committed Africans. It seems to me that the problem with Africans the world over is self-Hatred... 300 years? That makes me want to cuss, or spit, or vomit, or cry; i can't decide. Everybody got problems, but lets not be silly. Maybe the reason you think it's going to take 300 years is because you are unwilling to be honest with yourself. It doesn't matter if it was colonialism or chattel slavery/Jim Crow segregation or aparthied. We have got to be crazy to think that the residual effects of those experiences have... what? Disappeared in thin air!

Let's be real. No problems are going to be solved if we don't be honest with ourselves about what we have experienced. Therefore, it's good to be inspired by other countries' rapid growth in the last half century, but none of them have experienced what we have. Let's be realistic about american tax dollars funding asian growth. Specifically, japan. That's a fact. I'm also extreamly concerned about foreign entities fermenting wars between Africans in order to get resources on the cheap, ie coltan and diamonds. Also, don't think that just because creatures like Botha are not talking on TV, that they just disappeared...in thin air! So let's be honest. Let's attack the Problem with:

1) intelligent, purposeful dialogue
2) honest identification of the problems
4) identification of available resources
3) strategic planning to implement dynamic and creative solutions

Let's just do the damn thang. 50 years, max. What needs to happen for Africans to feed Africans? What would you like to see implemented? How would you handle this corruption problem (in actuality, a traitor problem)? Let's not bitch and moan about how bad and backwards Africa is. Let's talk about how to move forward and produce justice for our people. What do you think about capitalism and socialism?

Believe me, i am well aware of the growth of asian economies. The fact is we can do better. Let's talk Solution!!!

*edit*
any industrial engineers here, by the way?

The question is a good one, and the answer lies in the mind of all those who believe that Africa will rise soon. when we begin to look within and bring out the best of our potentials, when the best of our brains dont run away to the lands of greener pastures, when our Governments discover the need to cooperate and unite in reality( as we may infer in the creation of AU and NEPAD), then and only then may we answer this question correctly. But untill the philosophy which hold one race superior and another infererio is destroyed, sub-sahara Africa may not be at par with the first world!.

Hi all,

I never intended to stir up emotions like this. It was indeed me that indirectly brought racism into this discussion, by bringing into attention the book Guns, Germ and Steel.

Now, that does not mean that racism is totally irrelevant to the discussion, on the contrary.

tunku:

[SNIP]
Sure racism does exist but I think that is actually less of a problem in Africa than any where else in the world.

It is indeed less of a problem within Africa, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Within Africa, racism has taken the form of tribalism. Look at the way some Nigerians hear talk about Igbo people and you'll understand what I mean. Tribalism is taking away a lot of energy that could be used in real nation building. You were left with the unnatural division of countries after colonialism and now you'll have to overcome the problem of nation building in a far shorter time than it took Europe (several hundreds of years). This is bound to have a negative effect on internal development.

Now externally, as a system of oppression, Racism is still at play. The international institutions hardly are a correct representation of the world. There are no African permanent members of the UN Security council, while Europe has 3. This is no coincidence. While overt racism from the western powers is on the decline, the effects of the racist policies of the past are still felt. Ignoring those facts and pretending that because there is no racist legal framework anymore the effects are no longer felt or are irrelevant to the discussion is faulty. Let's just look at international trade relations and the immigration policies in Europe.

tunku:

throwing racisim into the issue is just distracting us from the question as to why have we had incompetent leaders who run our country with an iron dictatorship and concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.

This is indeed very much a problem, but you shouldn't forget that these incompetent leaders were not only tolerated, but welcomed by the world powers, especially during the cold war. The way Lumumba was disposed of in Congo has done incredible damage to the development prospects of that country. The effects of this tolerated cronyism after independence is still felt today. The same so-called-leaders have the money and power today in most African countries. It is a direct legacy of racist colonialism and neo-colonialism.

I just want to shoot this in right quick and I'll reply in more detail latter today.

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

If you want to address this tribalism, then you have to address who created the "boxing ring" of artificial boundries. You have to address the cunning that took three very powerful and advanced groups of people with highly sophisticated systems and set them against one another with a limited amount of resources. Once you identify who did this, and analyse their actions in the present, I believe a common ground can be found that can be used as a basis of commonality or unity.

It is true, however, that Nigerians have to start loving Nigerians and Nigeria. Nigeria, as it stands, is integral to any Continental development. In order for Africa to Move Forward Africans will have to start loving Africans, Nigierians will have to start loving Nigerians, So called African americans will have to start loving other so called African american, so on and so forth.

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

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

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

Let's do this. 50 years, max. Let's attack the Problem with

1) intelligent, purposeful dialogue
2) honest identification of the problems
4) identification of available resources
3) strategic planning to implement dynamic and creative solutions

I sincerely believe in the thoughts of NFERYN. There seems to be too much respect and "Ranka-de-de" among Africans, the earlier we move away from the extended family setup, and be more independent. We find it hard to question older, or boss-like personality in our society, and the "It's Gods work" attitude to every challenging issue must stop. We need to be able to question illegally acquired wealth, peoples action, and we as African being led need to change our attitude toward the society. We need to change our "animal-like" attitude toward each other. Education will be a major factor in this. Not just classroom education, but to also include education of the people by the mass media. Those at the top needs to show better example on how government should be run. Leaders need to stop looking at issues as if they are in their respective villages. We need to be more nationalistic in our approach to issues, and not just at the various national level, but also at the continent level. GOD help all of us.

anton:

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

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

anton:

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could be wrong, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

I could be wrong, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

anton:

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

anton:

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

As if I disagree with that fact

anton:

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

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

anton:

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anton:

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

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

anton:

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

anton:

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

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

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

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

@Anton

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

nferyn:

But to get concrete again, what exactly is wrong with the quote I provided?

Everything I said has been concrete. I am being honest and tranparent. I'm attacking the issues I feel are important. If you don't think they are important (its quite apparent that you don't, because after you answered my perfectly legitimate question, you said: "But to get concrete again...", then one could assume, whether correctly or incorrectly, that you don't place as much emphesis on Europeans getting off their a$$ to change their perceptions and behaviors than you do on Africans doing the same... That may not be the case, but you created that image when you said "But to get concrete, again...". Of course, I could be wrong. Just my thoughts on the subject...

nferyn:

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

.

Well, duuuhhhh! I know I didn't say anything about "using inherited racial characteristics as a basis to explain different levels of development". In addition, I know that the fact that the so called first world got their wealth not from hard work but from the wanton rape and destruction of the so called "developing world" (which was already developed, I might add here), including our collective people, but including indegious people around the planet. Therefore, to be on par means to be able to compete with and defend ourselves effectively from "1st world" or "western" agression, whether it be in an economic, political, or military in nature is not "a crap racist argument".

Therefore, I'll pose the question again, with different wording this time: Where, in any of the first 13 posts, did you see anybody, say anything about race or racism? What did you see in those 13 posts that would make you want to state or quote anything about or from Jared Diamond? Let us know. We want to know what is so important about anything Jared Diamond has to say regarding African Problems. Inform us as to why you felt it was important to interject...

"This thread made me think again about another one I started. An eloquent and in my opinon true explanation of the inequalities in the world is available in the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
My offer for the free audiobook is still open.

Please have a look at the thread here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-2173.0.html

The book brilliantly counters all kinds of crap racist arguments that float around. A must read.(or at least listen)"

...when nobody said anything about race. Thats a fact. Nobody said anything about race. I stated historical fact, not a theory, but an actual reality that many millions, indeed billions of people experienced right here on this planet. So... What on Earth were you talking about?

nferyn:

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

What can I say? I have a very low tolerance for bu11shit. It's quite obvious that he is an agent promoting diversion and division. There are many over here doing the same. Some do it willingly or consciously, some do it unwillingly and unconsciously. For even posting that specfic quote, one can assume that you too are promoting diversion and division. That is what I mean by deploying divide and conquer tactics. I am against division of African People, no matter where they are in the world, over sillyness, shallowness, and technicalities. We are stronger if we stand together, especially in the current tread of globalism. I am for Unity of African Peoples, period. That really is all you need to know. In fact, that is all I'm going to tell you. No doubt, you will see me illustrate and articulate my views in future posting on this outstanding forum. But I will not sit here and outline my views, opinions, and/or anything else of value to Africa to you, specifically, just because you ask me too. I will, however, be at least civil to you. I am, after all a guest here.

Futhermore, you have great "scholars" like Mr Ayitty to find out what is on the mind of black Amerikkkans, so therefore what does it matter what I think? Even more so, you can go to the amerikkkan-bred "leaders" like Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Jackson, and "Min." Farrakhan to find out anything else you need to know about African Amerikkkans, my Belgien friend. I would also implore Mr. Ayitty to ask Farrakhan, personally, as to why he has yet to issue a statement denouncing the atrocites committed by "Arabized" Africans on other Africans. Just tell him not to hold his breath waiting for a reply. I wouldn't advise you to hold yours, either, while your waiting. To sum up, anything that divides Africans is death. It doesn't matter the source. If it divides and distracts Africans from the singular issues that affect them, then it is confusion and death. Ah, what's next?

nferyn:

I have only read two of his books and I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Can you explain why he is anti-black and anti-African? And to conclude that he is Africidal?

anton:

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

I have also heard Nigerians dismiss him as silly and nonrelevant.

The bold and italics are about as clear as i can get on the issue. If you still fail to understand, then what can I say? Too bad?

nferyn:

Ok, I can understand that you don't want to be put in the same bag as the so called black leadership in America. What then is your position?

I must apologize. When I said anybody, I was speaking to my People. I should have clarified by saying "If any African wants to know what's in my head, then they should ask". I apologize. You, as a person of European descent, are not the reason I am here. I can go to the apartment right under me to talk to just any European. I am sure that that will ruffle the feathers of a few people here, but hopefully there are those who will understand why I take that position and agree with me. I am here to talk to, build with, and learn from my People. As time goes on, everybody who needs to and desires to see where I stand well have full understanding of where I stand.

As the master teacher, John Henrik Clark, has said "Africa, now, stands at the crossroads of history." We WILL solve our problems. It WILL be done in THIS generation. How is what the African Masses all over this planet has to think about and discuss now.

nferyn:

Do you deny the impact of tribalism and bad leadership in Africa on the development of the continent?

What is the definition of tribalism? What is your definition? What is your friend Ayitty's defintion of tribalism? Then, I would like to hear some other viewers of the post definition and opinion if they choose to give it. Only then will I speak about the definition of tribalism.

A sovereign nation (Hausa, Igbo, Fulani, Yoruba) can only be expected to conduct itself in a nationalistic manner within whatever artificial boundries they are forced into. Africans have grown to be very sophisticated in the last century. I can only hope that others committed to change can see what I see. So, yes, it's a problem that African People on Continent will have to fix, but I can't see any bloodless alternatives that don't take into account addressing the artificial boundries themselves.

I see it like forcing rats in a maze with only a limited allotment of consumable resources. Eventually, the bigger rats will begin to impose their will on the smaller weaker rats. Sometimes, it's not an issue of who is bigger, but rather who is more willing to do whatever it takes to be in power, regardless of the pain caused. The same phenomemon goes on everyday in the ghettoes of Niggerville, USA; and other slums in Africa, and around the world, also other points in time. People forced into deplorable conditions, limited amount of work/resources, eventually someone will resort to using war to control the limited resources, getting political/material backing from those who created the situation to begin with, thereby creating further illigetimacy on top of the original illigetimacy. However, it is common for us to not look to those who forced us into the conditions, or those who are backing/supplying the perveyors of violence against our own people only each other in hate and distrust.

Over here, people say "Look at the gun violence!" and "Look at the drugs!" "Why are the young black men dropping ut of school?" Few indeed, ask "Who makes the guns?" and "How are the drugs getting in the country?" "What's wrong with the school?" It In other words, it is much less likely that the rats will say "F*** the maze!" to each other instead of saying "F*** you!" to each other. It is much less likely that they will say "Who made this maze? How did we get to be in this maze? Let's find a way to break the maze."

nferyn:

Do you deny the impact of tribalism and bad leadership in Africa on the development of the continent?

(Just to get back on track...)

I never denied the impact of it [tribalism]. I was commenting on how you, as a European are here harping on the actions of Africans instead of presenting information, data, and knowledge that would be benefitual to Africans on the past, present, and future actions of Europeans in regards to repairing the problem Europeans created.

"Bad leadership?" Isn't that an oxymoron? Bad leadership is not leadership. You are either doing what you are supposed to do as a leader or you are not. You are either operating at a continuous 110% percent in benefit of your people and fighting the enemies of your people, or you are not. You are either addressing the chronic issues with strategic analysis and dynamic solutions or you are not. There are many people in charge who are not leaders. There are many people in charge who are traitors. Of course, forums such this are inappropriate for anybody discuss the penalties for such deeds. Also, I can not say too much about internal affairs on the Continent because I don't have first hand intelligence on the matter. Again one of the reason, I am here. But that's definately the case over here. Being on TV all the time does not make you a leader. That makes you an entertainer. You may be in charge, but are you for the people or fro yourself?

I would like to get some African opinions on the root causes of corruption and some ways to eliminate it to get back into solution mode . I think accountability is one of the issues that has to be stressed. If it happened under your watch, then you must be held accountable for it... Just an idea...

nferyn:

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

Thank you, I will look into that. What are all the steps that that would entail? Who in Europe stands to lose if the Common Agricultural Policy is eliminated and, if you know, how much will they lose in the process? What changes would the common European have to deal accept?

Is there anything else you think European governments and people should do?