strangleyo:

If they left late, we would have destroyed the country later.

Zimbabwe?

is that wat u think? i dont believe we could have had the problems Zimbabwe had. i think zimbabwe's problem is related to differences b/w their minority white and majority black populations.

Ikengawo:

nigeria seems like the british left too early because there are people in nigeria silly enough to believe the british leaving was a bad thing for nigeria.

these dense people dominate nigeria's affairs and are now making threads about it, this is the real problem.

Always on point!  But you may be talking over his head. Silly thread.

I have always thught of this thing, Y would d British and other colonial countries bring people of different cultures together under one country, was it to redduces the amount of regions that would have been created? or for their own benefit. But it hasnt realy worked, take a look at some countries in AFRICA, most have cultural clashes whereby one part is fighting ther other, just like in Nigeria, the yoruba man doesnt trust an igbo man neither does he trust an igbo man and the same way around, so it creates a situatiion whereby an Hausa man woudl always support an hausa man, same for igbo and yoruba, most parents dnt even encourge cultural marriages and all that. To me Nigeria was a mistake and only to benefit the Brititsh, but only if Nigerians get their head straight, this country can realy realy wrk as in work for good. As at not i do not believe any young nigerian can handle the state at whcih the country is now. These old people need to Lay the path straight first

marocguy:


is that wat u think? i dont believe we could have had the problems Zimbabwe had. i think zimbabwe's problem is related to differences b/w their minority white and majority black populations.

The British were already in the process of implementing, and had already established apartheid in several Nigerian cities which included Lagos, Enugu, Jos and Calabar. It was with the help of Nnamdi Azikiwe and the rest that these plans were stopped and the independence movement began. Without independence the European population would have risen further.

[img]http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=1234436&t=w[/img]

AngieFan:

I think if the British had left in 1980 Nigeria would have been more developed. As it stands Zimbabwe and Angola are more developed structurally and systematically than Nigeria despite all their issues.
I think the British would have developed Nigeria in to a glorious tourist destination as they would have made features out of of Nigeria's unique natural points and improved accessed to them.
I think Nigerians need to be realistic and realise why after 50 years have they failed to developed their country. Stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for your failure.
The sad thing is if the British were given a 10 year lease of Nigeria they would probably have all of the above  and more operating efficiently in less than 8 years.

You may be missing the point of British presence in West Africa. It was primarily for colonization and economic exploitation and not for residential settlement as was the case in Southern Africa. There is no way in any case that an economic model based  on  plantation cash crop agriculture could have proved sustainable in the long run and generated sufficient revenue for the treasury what with the permenent fall of commodity prices in the 1970's.

What's more they never had any intention of settling in West Africa thanks to the steamy climate and the scourge of malaria. So the question as to how they would have spent the oil revenue is pretty much irrelevant, as is this topic as a matter of fact.

tensor777:

You may be missing the point of British presence in West Africa. It was primarily for colonization and economic exploitation and not for residential settlement as was the case in Southern Africa. There is no way in any case that an economic model based  on  plantation cash crop agriculture could have proved sustainable in the long run and generated sufficient revenue for the treasury what with the permenent fall of commodity prices in the 1970's.

What's more they never had any intention of settling in West Africa thanks to the steamy climate and the scourge of malaria. So the question as to how they would have spent the oil revenue is pretty much irrelevant, as is this topic as a matter of fact.

Nigeria does not have one climate. Many British people were already living in Nigeria before independence, just like Kenya and Zimbabwe. We can't say that they never had an intention of settling West Africa when there were several thousand of them living in designated European quarters in Nigeria's major urban areas. The British were still learning about the territory they only recently conquered.

ezeagu:

Nigeria does not have one climate. Many British people were already living in Nigeria before independence, just like Kenya and Zimbabwe. We can't say that they never had an intention of settling West Africa when there were several thousand of them living in designated European quarters in Nigeria's major urban areas. The British were still learning about the territory they only recently conquered.

Well you may say that and of course you have a point.
BUT maybe only the Jos Plateau was convenient for them to settle permanently. In general though, I still think they were only too happy to depart.

One other point is that Hong Kong was developed by the indigenous Chinese themselves and not by the British colonists who merely provided a political framework within which development could take place.
Hong Kong would still have developed to its current level with home rule and a free-market economy as the example of Taiwan shows.

when our people ask questions like this i find it really sad - in my view questions like this indicate that the nigerian educational system has failed its people because it is not educating our people about our history and therefore we are walking around totally ignorant of who we are and why we are where we are today.

First of all in order to understand nigeria's history you also have to understand world history and where we as a nation fit in to the whole picture.

The idea that the british came to africa to develop or civilise africans is for want of a better word garbage.

the british came to africa for one purpose alone - trade and profit nothing more, not to develop or "civilise" africa as some brain washed dimwits have been saying but to subjugate, oppress and exploit the african populations.  Some people have mentioned countries like Zimbabwe and South africa, those countries were earmarked by europeans  for re settlement of their people because of their cooler climates, many of these european settlers were fleeing poverty and  persecution from their native countries hence their decision to relocate to africa.   The west african climate was too hot and humid for european settlement and this is why no west african countries fell under white minority rule most europeans simply couldnt stand the climate. 

Many people think the british left nigeria in 1960, perhaps they physically left in 1960 but if they insisted on handing over power to a hand picked group of puppets and if that same clique continues to remain in power to date, in my mind that means that they (the british) are still pulling the strings and controlling the nigerian economy.

the likes of Zik, Awolowo and Enahoro who agitated for independence were deliberately denied access to the presidency and instead you had puppets like Balewa , Gowon, Murtala Muhammed, Obasanjo, IBB, who seized power either through election rigging or by western financed coup d'etats.  With the exception of Murtala Muhammed who later turned against the west and embarked on a pan africanist programme all of nigeria's heads of state have been western controlled puppets. 

If it were that the west had the interest of africa or any other black nation at heart why is it that when Haiti freed itself from slavery in 1803 and became the first black republic france along with the rest of europe and america imposed a 60 year trade embargoe against it plunging the country into a downward economic spiral?

why was haiti forced to pay france compensation of 150 million francs  for the loss of its slaves? by the way haiti had to borrow this money from the US thereby plunging it into further debt.

why also did the EU america and australia impose draconian economic embargoes against Zimbabwe when Mugabe started accelerating the redistribution of land programme - taking land away from the white minority farmers and returning it to the rightful owners?

There are people on here deceiving themselves into beleiving that the whites came to nigeria  to "civilise" or develop the country  when in reality all they did was build GRA's for themselves, golf courses and social clubs which black africans were banned from entering - is that supposed to be development, and if so for whose benefit?

The british limited their so called development to the building of railway lines running from Kano all the way down to port harcourt in order to assist them in moving cash crops from the north down to the south for export - Lugard hated nigeria and nigerians and referred to nigerians as niggers so this whole misconception that these people held anything other than contempt for nigerians continues to baffle me.

the british hated the likes of zik, awo and enahoro because they saw them as intelligent and dangerous and more likely to upset the status quo, the northerners with their feudal system and docility were seen as a "safer pair of hands" hence the decision by the british to hand over power to them.

If whites had remained in nigeria it would have been a repeat of what happened in Kenya, Zimbabwe and South Africa where, the blacks would have been driven out into dilapidated slums and remote wastelands while the whites would have reserved choice areas of the country for themselves.

to show you the good prospects the british had for nigeria this is how they set us up to fail:

Zik - blackmailed and given a useless ceremonial post in order to keep him away from the presidency

Awo - framed on trumped up charges and charged with treason - clamped in jail

Enahoro - framed on trumped up charges, he escaped prison by leaving the country

Then the people who wanted our progress and development imposed an incompetent and clueless Balewa on the nigerian populace.

When five courageous majors in the nigerian army realised that the british colonial govt had taken nigerians for a ride they orchestrated a coup in order to redress this gross injustice - the rest is history as they say.

cap28:

to show you the good prospects the british had for nigeria this is how they set us up to fail:

Zik - blackmailed and given a useless ceremonial post in order to keep him away from the presidency

Awo - framed on trumped up charges and charged with treason - clamped in jail

Enahoro - framed on trumped up charges, he escaped prison by leaving the country

Then the people who wanted our progress and development imposed an incompetent and clueless Balewa on the nigerian populace.

When five courageous majors in the nigerian army realised that the british colonial govt had taken nigerians for a ride they orchestrated a coup in order to redress this gross injustice - the rest is history as they say.

GBAM

Who says they have left Nigeria and Africa in general

Today it has only another name!

Severe poverty, huge dependencies. Wrong development aid hinders the development initiative in Africa.  The system must be reformed, urgently. Because people are educated to inefficiency - and the developed countries have made beggars of partners.

The development aid for Africa is a blessing for all those who are involved in directly on donor and on recipient side. Donor officials earn, especially abroad, plenty of money, and many of those who take the help in reception knows to use it to their personal interests.

The aid of the passed 50 years has failed to a great extent.

We have arrogated too much responsibility for solving Africas problems ( most  made by ourself) and people are "educated" in such a way that it is easy to understand when they call with an emerging problem foreign aid workers first before they ask themselves what they can do for its solution.

This awareness runs deep in African minds.  This self-incapacitation is one of the worst results of the previous cooperation. Wrong development aid has made the people dependent, they get accustomed to the status of the ongoing assistance and impedes the formation of self-initiative. This damage done to the mentalities of the people is far worse than the huge material losses caused by failed aid. Also on our site, awareness has fixed that first and foremost we are responsible to develop Africa.  This is wrong and a big mistake!
This mothering attitude that is widespread for decades in the third world circles of the North is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, which requires that helping agencies, private or public, should not take over tasks that even can be done from the developing country.
What is lacking, is basic understanding and applied principles of clarity. Though, that the North can not develop the South and that every person and every company can only do it itself, is part of the inexpensive faith of donors, in practice however, it is hardly to recognise.
Another violation of the subsidiarity principle is applied in the existence of not only the huge national and international development agencies, from GTZ [/b]to [b]World Bank but also the myriad of small and large private organizations that cover the continent with their charity networks.

De facto this are , after the colonial period, the new "occupying powers".

What we do can not be development of others. Only endogenous development worthy the name, that what make people and societies by virtue of their spirit and their hands out of themselves. No one can be developed from outside.
When water lines and roads in Africa are built with aid - it stimulates and strengthens the efforts of the locals? Or could it be that the opposite is true: The more we do, the more likely it is that our partners sit back, because things are governed to their satisfaction by foreign assistance.
If billions of dollars flow in environmental, AIDS and other funds, that may be necessary, but it has nothing to do with development aid.
The aid goes passing by to people.
The development aid has promoted own efforts in Africa not enough, and often hindered, because the aid was too little subject-oriented  but too much object-oriented. Too often, not the human  but the project or program stood at the center. This behavior has put large parts of Africa in an undignified state. The huge worldwide network of aid agencies will not relieve them no matter how much money they will spend.
This will succeed only with Africans on their own.

☻ajali☺:

Who says they have left Nigeria and Africa in general

Today it has only another name!

Severe poverty, huge dependencies. Wrong development aid hinders the development initiative in Africa. The system must be reformed, urgently. Because people are educated to inefficiency - and the developed countries have made beggars of partners.

The development aid for Africa is a blessing for all those who are involved in directly on donor and on recipient side. Donor officials earn, especially abroad, plenty of money, and many of those who take the help in reception knows to use it to their personal interests.

The aid of the passed 50 years has failed to a great extent.

We have arrogated too much responsibility for solving Africas problems ( most made by ourself) and people are "educated" in such a way that it is easy to understand when they call with an emerging problem foreign aid workers first before they ask themselves what they can do for its solution.

This awareness runs deep in African minds. This self-incapacitation is one of the worst results of the previous cooperation. Wrong development aid has made the people dependent, they get accustomed to the status of the ongoing assistance and impedes the formation of self-initiative. This damage done to the mentalities of the people is far worse than the huge material losses caused by failed aid. Also on our site, awareness has fixed that first and foremost we are responsible to develop Africa. This is wrong and a big mistake!
This mothering attitude that is widespread for decades in the third world circles of the North is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, which requires that helping agencies, private or public, should not take over tasks that even can be done from the developing country.
What is lacking, is basic understanding and applied principles of clarity. Though, that the North can not develop the South and that every person and every company can only do it itself, is part of the inexpensive faith of donors, in practice however, it is hardly to recognise.
Another violation of the subsidiarity principle is applied in the existence of not only the huge national and international development agencies, from GTZ [/b]to [b]World Bank but also the myriad of small and large private organizations that cover the continent with their charity networks.

De facto this are , after the colonial period, the new "occupying powers".

What we do can not be development of others. Only endogenous development worthy the name, that what make people and societies by virtue of their spirit and their hands out of themselves. No one can be developed from outside.
When water lines and roads in Africa are built with aid - it stimulates and strengthens the efforts of the locals? Or could it be that the opposite is true: The more we do, the more likely it is that our partners sit back, because things are governed to their satisfaction by foreign assistance.
If billions of dollars flow in environmental, AIDS and other funds, that may be necessary, but it has nothing to do with development aid.
The aid goes passing by to people.
The development aid has promoted own efforts in Africa not enough, and often hindered, because the aid was too little subject-oriented but too much object-oriented. Too often, not the human but the project or program stood at the center. This behavior has put large parts of Africa in an undignified state. The huge worldwide network of aid agencies will not relieve them no matter how much money they will spend.
This will succeed only with Africans on their own.

I agree with some of what you ve said but you need to understand that this so called foreign aid is actually a racket run by western so called aid agencies in order to enrich the donor countries and the corrupt african heads of state who are also involved in this racket, a country like nigeria does not need foreign aid as it generates enough revenue to sustain its development. You should try reading a book written by an american economist the book is called economic hitman, it details how america and europe use its finanancial institutions to bankrupt african nations by offering them loans it doesnt need, nations who refuse to go down this debt black hole end up being isolated by way of economic trade blockades. Stubborn or nationalistic leaders who refuse to get involved in this scam are assassinated or overthrown. Foreign aid is a racket it is the west's new tool for perpetual enslavement of so called third world countries.

cap28:

I agree with some of what you ve said but you need to understand that this so called

1) foreign aid is actually a racket run by western so called aid agencies in order to enrich the donor countries and the corrupt african heads of state who are also involved in this racket,


a country like nigeria does not need foreign aid as it generates enough revenue to sustain its development. You should try reading a book written by an american economist the book is called economic hitman, it details how america and europe use its finanancial institutions to bankrupt african nations by offering them loans it doesnt need, nations who refuse to go down this debt black hole end up being isolated by way of economic trade blockades. Stubborn or nationalistic leaders who refuse to get involved in this scam are assassinated or overthrown.

2) Foreign aid is a racket it is the west's new tool for perpetual enslavement of so called third world countries.

cap28, read my post again.

to 1)
Donor officials earn, especially abroad, plenty of money, and many of those who take the help in reception knows to use it to their personal interests.

to 2)
De facto this are , after the colonial period, the new "occupying powers".

We are on same mind just use different words.

At 50 Nigeria should have on paper been a hell of a great place instead of mostly a hell for most of its people

At 50 Nigeria should have on paper been truly the "giant of Africa" and all those titles assumed upon independence.


But Nigeria is not, and the blame is in part because of the British Occupation, that was essentially made to enrich the British and not those from the Niger (or is it Niggar?) Area

Yet, at 50, I'm not surprised as to what I find on Nairaland and in Nigeria on a daily basis, which is a large level of nonsense, where citizens of a potentially great nation/ethnic region are behaving like children and cowards, saying they want the return of IBB, or helicopters will solve crime, and Pastor so and so predicts this and that, and how NFF should hire White from, perhaps the BRITISH zone.

See me see wahala

mens dept:

At 50 Nigeria should have on paper been a hell of a great place instead of mostly a hell for most of its people
At 50 Nigeria should have on paper been truly the "giant of Africa" and all those titles assumed upon independence.
But Nigeria is not, and the blame is in part because of the British Occupation, that was essentially made to enrich the British and not those from the Niger (or is it Niggar?) Area
Yet, at 50, I'm not surprised as to what I find on Nairaland and in Nigeria on a daily basis, which is a large level of nonsense, where citizens of a potentially great nation/ethnic region are behaving like children and cowards, saying they want the return of IBB, or helicopters will solve crime, and Pastor so and so predicts this and that, and how NFF should hire White from, perhaps the BRITISH zone.
See me see wahala

Again you are just whining and complaining and bringing up random irrelevant issues. What has all this got to do with the topic??

cap28:

when our people ask questions like this i find it really sad - in my view questions like this indicate that the nigerian educational system has failed its people because it is not educating our people about our history and therefore we are walking around totally ignorant of who we are and why we are where we are today.

Well it does show that many people here lack proper understanding of what it takes for a country to develop.
What is even more surprising is that some diasporan elements here just don't understand the main objectives of the European colonists in West Africa.

[img]http://2.s07.flagcounter.com/count/DymW/bg=ffffff/txt=ffffff/border=ffffff/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/[/img]
[img]http://s07.flagcounter.com/count/DymW/bg=ffffff/txt=ffffff/border=ffffff/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/[/img]

tensor777:

Well you may say that and of course you have a point.
BUT maybe only the Jos Plateau was convenient for them to settle permanently. In general though, I still think they were only too happy to depart.

One other point is that Hong Kong was developed by the indigenous Chinese themselves and not by the British colonists who merely provided a political framework within which development could take place.
Hong Kong would still have developed to its current level with home rule and a free-market economy as the example of Taiwan shows.

I wouldn't sat they were "only too happy to depart", that would be going a little far, just because of the weather?

Lugard and the rest were living in all corners of Nigeria, including places that did not have Jos' climate. Looking back at history, 80 years can seem like 20 years if you don't take notice. The point is that there were Europeans who spent a good portion of their lives in the harshest climates of Nigeria, yet they and their families stayed there. The planning of the new cities that came about because of the British and the replanning of old towns in Nigeria had priorities in separating the Europeans and Africans. The British wouldn't waste money on this if they thought others weren't coming to settle.

ezeagu:

I wouldn't sat they were "only too happy to depart", that would be going a little far, just because of the weather?

Lugard and the rest were living in all corners of Nigeria, including places that did not have Jos' climate. Looking back at history, 80 years can seem like 20 years if you don't take notice. The point is that there were Europeans who spent a good portion of their lives in the harshest climates of Nigeria, yet they and their families stayed there. The planning of the new cities that came about because of the British and the replanning of old towns in Nigeria had priorities in separating the Europeans and Africans. The British wouldn't waste money on this if they thought others weren't coming to settle.

Yes but these military officers and civil servants were in Nigeria on official duty. Nigeria just happened to be where they were posted to. That is not to say that a very small minority did not adjust and thrive in the heat and humidity of West Africa.
However the Government Reserved Areas were simply designed as residential quarters for these officers. In any case these quarters were intended to be handed over to Nigerian Government officials by independence which is precisely what happened.

tensor777:

Yes but these military officers and civil servants were in Nigeria on official duty. Nigeria just happened to be where they were posted to. That is not to say that a very small minority did not adjust and thrive in the heat and humidity of West Africa.
However the Government Reserved Areas were simply designed as residential quarters for these officers. In any case these quarters were intended to be handed over to Nigerian Government officials by independence which is precisely what happened.

You're talking about "intended" like the British Empire was a charity for the development of countries that are thousands of miles away and they had an intent of letting go all their possessions one day.

These officers brought their wives with them to serve Empire by populating the colonies, and there are actually many British people (by many I mean hundreds or thousands) who were born in Nigeria, but left after independence like they did in India. The purpose of colonialism isn't to just cheat the other in trade, if that were the case then people wouldn't carry their whole families with them. Colonialism was to assimilate and eliminate the other, which is why they had to destroy many kingdoms for them to establish 'European quarters' in the first place.

ezeagu:

You're talking about "intended" like the British Empire was a charity for the development of countries that are thousands of miles away and they had an intent of letting go all their possessions one day.

These officers brought their wives with them to serve Empire by populating the colonies, and there are actually many British people (by many I mean hundreds or thousands) who were born in Nigeria, but left after independence like they did in India. The purpose of colonialism isn't to just cheat the other in trade, if that were the case then people wouldn't carry their whole families with them. Colonialism was to assimilate and eliminate the other, which is why they had to destroy many kingdoms for them to establish 'European quarters' in the first place.

Who said anything about economic development. Certainly Nigeria did serve as a source of much needed raw materials for British industry as well as a source of military manpower.
However these posted military oficers and civil servants were just here to protect the interests of their political masters in London.
As a matter of fact it was the missionaries that  ultimately left a lasting legacy in Nigeria thanks to their efforts in ediucation and religion and not the posted government officials

tensor777:

Who said anything about economic development.

tensor777:

In any case these quarters were intended to be handed over to Nigerian Government officials by independence which is precisely what happened.

What does that sound like?

tensor777:

Certainly Nigeria did serve as a source of much needed raw materials for British industry as well as a source of military manpower.
However these posted military oficers and civil servants were just here to protect the interests of their political masters in London.
As a matter of fact it was the missionaries that  ultimately left a lasting legacy in Nigeria thanks to their efforts in ediucation and religion and not the posted government officials 

Crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. The missionaries job was to pacify 'natives' for colonialism to seem rational, they did some good things, but Africans didn't need them. You can talk about civil servants and military officers being here to protect interests only, but it does not make sense when you count in that many of these people brought their wives and children with them. Can you tell me a country that was invaded first by a populations women and children instead of the military?

tensor777:

However the Government Reserved Areas were simply designed as residential quarters for these officers. In any case these quarters were intended to be handed over to Nigerian Government officials by independence which is precisely what happened.

ezeagu:

What does that sound like?

You just need to be careful you don't construe mere construction of government offices and residential quarters as economic development even though they did indeed leave some aesthetically pleasing buildings.
However [b]rea[/b]l economic development in Nigeria only started after independence.

ezeagu:

Crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. The missionaries job was to pacify 'natives' for colonialism to seem rational, they did some good things, but Africans didn't need them. You can talk about civil servants and military officers being here to protect interests only, but it does not make sense when you count in that many of these people brought their wives and children with them. Can you tell me a country that was invaded first by a populations women and children instead of the military?

Well take it or leave it that the hot and humid Nigerian climate was not conducive enough for there to be mass settlement of private sector Englishmen.
Moreso when countries like Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa had much more temperate climates.
In fact it is the Lebanese that were the first set of foreigners to move enmasse to, and settle permenantly in West Africa.

tensor777:

Well take it or leave it that the hot and humid Nigerian climate was not conducive enough for there to be mass settlement of private sector Englishmen.
Moreso when countries like Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa had much more temperate climates.
In fact it is the Lebanese that were the first set of foreigners to move enmasse to, and settle permenantly in West Africa.

And what does this have to do with the topic?

tensor777:

Again you are just whining and complaining and bringing up random irrelevant issues. What has all this got to do with the topic??

I would rather "whine" about a mosquito bite instead of wishing that the mosquito had stayed for another 50 years.

Ijot

tensor777:

Well take it or leave it that the hot and humid Nigerian climate was  not conducive enough for there to be mass settlement of private sector Englishmen.

That was in the 19th centruy not 20th century. That is as backward as saying Arabs cannot settle West Africa because of mosquitoes.

The Niger Delta in 1956:

[center][flash=480,385]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK4xoD2Zm60?fs=1&hl=en_GB&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"[/flash]
[/center]

tensor777:

Moreso when countries like Kenya, Rhodesia and South Africa had much more temperate climates.
In fact it is the Lebanese that were the first set of foreigners to move enmasse to, and settle permenantly in West Africa.

En masse, what do you mean by enamasee? I guess you mean significantly larger than Europeans, if so can you give a number?

ezeagu:

That was in the 19th centruy not 20th century. That is as backward as saying Arabs cannot settle West Africa because of mosquitoes.
En masse, what do you mean by enamasee? I guess you mean significantly larger than Europeans, if so can you give a number?

I don't know where you're going with this argument or even the whole point of these your views.
The fact remains that the average Englishman prefers to settle in a temperate or subtropical climate as opposed to a tropical climate.
As for the Lebanese they are in fact totally at home in the heat and humidity of the tropics and have made themselves at home in West Africa

tensor777:

The fact remains that the average Englishman prefers to settle in a temperate or subtropical climate as opposed to a tropical climate.

Where do you get this stuff from? Was there some kind of survey? There's a video right up there with over 20 British people, men, women, children in the swampy Niger Delta! Now if that isn't evidence of populating, then I don't know what is. If you want to believe that the British were concerned with colonising and developing a place, and then leaving it all completely to the "natives", then that's okay.

tensor777:

As for the Lebanese they are in fact totally at home in the heat and humidity of the tropics and have made themselves at home in West Africa

Okay, so the Lebanese are not the first foreigners to settle Africa.

At the beginning of colonisation there were different reasons for it
depending on about which of the European country we are talking.

If it is about the Spanish, one must say: they probably craved only for gold.
The Spanish royal family even asked for it to be able to pay his wars in Europe.

If it is about the Portuguese: they also craved for gold and money, but not to pay any war.

If it is about the Englishmen: They wanted to carry on commerce with their colonies, so that the motherland could register profits.

If it is about the Dutchmen: They take an interposition between the Englishmen and the Portuguese.

In general one might say: Causes for the colonisation of other continents by the Europeans were:
1) Profit striving (like still today )
2) better life (for some immigrants)
3) More political power and with it linked control of strategically important harbours and sea ways
4) later also: Protection of resources ( gold, silver, iron, but also natural produce like pipe sugar, cocoa and also "human product" (slave)
The aims of the colonisation were:
1) Production of a supremacy
2) Foreign trade with profit (profit-laden trade)
3) Later, above all by the end of 19. century: Proliferation of the putatively developed civilisation

cap28:

I agree with some of what you ve said but you need to understand that this so called foreign aid is actually a racket run by western so called aid agencies  in order to enrich the donor countries and the corrupt african heads of state who are also involved in this racket,  a country like nigeria does not need foreign aid as it  generates enough revenue to sustain its development.  You should try reading a book written by an american economist the book is  called economic hitman, it details how america and europe use its finanancial institutions to bankrupt african nations by offering them loans it doesnt need, nations who refuse to go down this debt black hole end up being isolated by way of  economic trade blockades.  Stubborn or nationalistic leaders who refuse to get involved in this scam are assassinated or overthrown.  Foreign aid is a racket it is the west's new tool for perpetual enslavement of so called third world countries.

Here is the video of the Account of the writer
John Perkins - Confessions of an Economic Hitman Part 1

[flash=200,200]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8[/flash]

Funny indeed, after having gone throught the lines in this thread I can safely arrive to one conclusion. This colonialism issue is like life through a window seal. Those who got their independence early wish they had it later, and those who got it late wish they got it sooner.

African's we are at the point where we cannot blame anyone for our misfortune. Let us all admit that this is who we are. We are just a complacent race, that's it.