did america immortalize robert e lee?

does the uk immortalize george washington?

in all honesty why would a country celebrate/immortalize the leader of a failed attempt at secession?

oyb:

did america immortalize robert e lee?

does the uk immortalize george washington?

in all honesty why would a country celebrate/immortalize the leader of a failed attempt at secession?

Robert e lee was not a sitting administrator. Ojukwu was the governor of the eastern states. So, he deserves to be immortalised by the FG.

Ojukwu contributed to the problems of the Igbos, he led a senseless battle. At the beginning the Ibos were the president and the most educated in the military but because of the madness of Kaduna Nzeogwu and Ojukwu the Ibos are suffering today. Ojukwu was just an opportunist of his time and he went on to show his level of reasoning by marrying a girl young enough to be his daughter. If he had succeeded with Biafra he would have been worse than Idi Amin. He should be recognised as the man that misled the Ibos into a senseless war.

sunkoye:

Africans will always be Africans. I stands to be corrected but i have not seen a war waged without the leader's selfish interest. i have also not seen a good war.the major difference between Hitler and ojukwu was the scale of the war. whereas Nigerians calls one hero and the other devil incarnate. Africans are always ready to protect their  own irrespective of their criminal activities and tendencies.when ojukwu was in a  mood to wage a war, He should have asked a little boy this questions! is it on a just and re sonable course? must pple die because of his Ego? is the timing right? cos i wondered why he never stayed and let himself be captured if he had really loved biafra.  all this commonsensical thought was not in place for a would be war lord. poo! [b]shallow mind [/b] he rushed to fight with little resouses . Everything was ill conceived and the consequence was to get a close attention from Nigerian Army. peeps, that was suicidal.and should be punished! Nigerians are too soft(follow follow too much)!. imagine papa ran  leaving his children to face the consequence of his actions and inaction. why must we celebrate such a person of cowardice behavior. what is the difference between him and our thieving politicians that put the cart before the horse! As a Nigerian and irrespective of where i come from, i will always support a revolution that will unified the country not one that  will had it break up.Period!

I wonder how a numbskull like you who can't construct a simple sentence deemed it fit to call Eze Ndigbo gburu gburu a shallow mind. Rather than exhibiting your ignorance on the internet, I would advice you to enroll in an English as a second language class.

you can tell they are mostly illiterates

totorimi:

Ojukwu contributed to the problems of the Igbos, he led  a senseless battle. At the beginning the Ibos were the president and the most educated in the military but because of the madness of Kaduna Nzeogwu and Ojukwu the Ibos are suffering today. Ojukwu was just an opportunist of his time and he went on to show his level of reasoning by marrying a girl young enough to be his daughter. If he had succeeded with Biafra he would have been worse than Idi Amin. He should be recognised as the man that misled the Ibos into a senseless war.

You have a point about Igbos being well off in every sphere of Nigeria especially politics. Who in his right senses will throw away all that for a senseless war. Except of course the war was a just one. Igbos are not known to keep quiet when they're been beat. They'll fight with all they have even if it means loosing everything they've got. That's what our neigbours will not do. They cling on to the union simply because politically they're relevant. I really don't see the hausas or Yorubas fighting for any revolution.

SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE FOUGHT FOR ,KINDLY READ THIS CAREFULLY.

THANKS.


The Ahiara Declaration


Self-Determination
The right to self-determination was good for the Greeks in 1822, for the Belgians in 1830, and for the Central and Eastern Europeans and the Irish at the end of the First World War. Yet it is not good for Biafrans because we are black. When blacks claim that right, they are warned against dangers trumped up by the imperialists-“fragmentation” and “Balkanization”, as if the trouble with the Balkans is the result of the application of the principle of self-determination.

Were the Balkans a healthier place before they emerged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire? Those who sustained the Ottoman Empire considered it a European necessity, for its Eastern European provinces stood as a buffer between two ambitious and mutually antagonistic empires - the Russian and the Austrian.

For the peace and repose of Europe, it therefore became a major concern of European statesmen to preserve the integrity of that empire. But when it was discovered that Ottoman rule was not only corrupt, oppressive and unprogressive, but also stubbornly irreformable, the happiness and well-being of its white populations came to be considered paramount. So by 1918 the integrity of that ancient and sprawling empire had been sacrificed to the well-being of the Eastern Europeans. Fellow Biafrans, that was in the white world.

But what do we find here in Negro Africa? The Federation of Nigeria is today as corrupt, as unprogressive and as oppressive and irreformable as the Ottoman Empire was in Eastern Europe over a century ago. And in contrast, the Nigerian Federation in the form it was constituted by the British cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered an African necessity. Yet we are being forced to sacrifice our very existence as a people to the integrity of that ramshackle creation that has no justification either in history or in the freely expressed wishes of the people. What other reason for this can there be than the fact that we are black?

In 1966, 50,000 Biafrans - men, women and children - were massacred in cold blood in Nigeria. Since July 6, 1967, hundreds of Biafrans have been killed daily by shelling, bombing, strafing and starvation advised, organised and supervised by Anglo-Saxon Britain. None of these atrocities has raised enough stir in many European capitals. But on the few occasions when a single white man died in Africa, even where he was a convicted bandit like the notorious case in the Congo, all the diplomatic chanceries of the world have been astir.; the whole world has been shaken to its very foundations by the din of protest against the alleged atrocity and by the clamour for vengeance. This was the case when the Nigerian vandals turned their British-supplied rifles on white Red Cross workers in Okigwe. Recently this has been the case with the reported disappearance of some white oil technicians in the Republic of Benin. But when we are massacred in thousands, nobody cares, because we are black.

Fellow countrymen and women, the fact is that in spite of their open protestations to the contrary, the white peoples of the world are still far from accepting that what is good for them can also be good for blacks. The day they make this basic concession that day will the non-Anglo-Saxon nations tell Britain to her face that she is guilty of genocide against us; that day will they call a halt to this monstrous war.

Because the black man is considered inferior and servile to the white, he must accept his political, social and economic system and ideologies ready made from Europe, America or the Soviet Union. Within the confines of his nation he must accept a federation or confederation or unitary government if federation or confederation or unitary government suits the interests of his white masters; he must accept inept and unimaginative leadership because the contrary would hurt the interests of the master race; he must accept economic exploitation by alien commercial firms and companies because the whites benefit from it. Beyond the confines of his state, he must accept regional and continental organisations which provide a front for the manipulation of the imperialist powers; organisations which are therefore unable to respond to African problems in a truly African manner. For Africans to show a true independence is to ask for anathemization and total liquidation.

Arab-Muslim Expansionism
The Biafran struggle is, on another plane, a resistance to the Arab-Muslim expansionism which has menaced and ravaged the African continent for twelve centuries. As early as the first quarter of the seventh century, the Arabs, a people from the Near-East, evolved Islam not just as a religion but as a cover for their insatiable territorial ambitions. By the tenth century they had overrun and occupied, among other places, Egypt and North Africa. Had they stopped there, we would not today be faced with the wicked and unholy collusion we are fighting against. On the contrary, they cast their hungry and envious eyes across the Sahara on to the land of the Negroes.

Our Biafran ancestors remained immune from the Islamic contagion. From the middle years of the last century Christianity was established in our land. In this way we came to be a predominantly Christian people. We came to stand out as a non-Muslim island in a raging Islamic sea. Throughout the period of the ill-fated Nigerian experiment, the Muslims hoped to infiltrate Biafra by peaceful means and quiet propaganda, but failed. Then the late Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduana of Sokoto tried, by political and economic blackmail and terrorism, to convert Biafrans settled in Northern Nigeria to Islam. His hope was that these Biafrans on dispersion would then carry Islam to Biafra, and by so doing give the religion political control of the area. The crises which agitated the so-called independent Nigeria from 1962 gave these aggressive proselytisers the chance to try converting us by force.

It is now evident why the fanatic Arab-Muslim states like Algeria, Egypt and the Sudan have come out openly and massively to support and aid Nigeria in her present war of genocide against us. These states see militant Arabism as a powerful instrument for attaining power in the world.

Biafra is one of the few African states untainted by Islam. Therefore, to militant Arabism, Biafra is a stumbling block to their plan for controlling the whole continent. This control is fast becoming manifest in the Organisation of African Unity. On the question of the Middle East, the Sudanese crisis, in the war between Nigeria and Biafra, militant Arabism has succeeded in imposing its point of view through blackmail and bluster. It has threatened African leaders and governments with inciting their Muslim minorities to rebellion if the governments adopted an independent line on these questions. In this way an O.A.U that has not felt itself able to discuss the genocide in the Sudan and Biafra, an O.A.U. that has again and again advertised its ineptitude as a peace-maker, has rushed into open condemnation of Israel over the Middle East dispute. Indeed in recent times, by its performance, the O.A.U. might well be an Organisation of Arab Unity.

Africa Exploited
Our struggle, in an even more fundamental sense, is the culmination of the confrontation between Negro nationalism and white imperialism. It is a movement designed to ensure the realization of man’s full stature in Africa.
Ever since the 15th century, the European world has treated the African continent as a field for exploitation. Their policies in Africa have for so long been determined to a very great extent by their greed for economic gain. For over three and half centuries, it suited them to transport and transplant millions of the flower of our manhood for the purpose of exploiting the Americas and the West Indies. They did so with no uneasiness of conscience. They justified this trade in men by reference to biblical passages violently torn out of context.

When it became no longer profitable to them to continue with the depopulation and uncontrolled spoilation of Negro Africa, their need of the moment became to exploit the natural resources of the continent, using Negro labour. In response to this need they evolved their informal empire in the 19th century under which they controlled and exploited Negro Africa through their missionaries and monopolist mercantile companies. As time went on they discarded the empire of informal sway as unsatisfactory and established the direct empire as the most effective means of exploiting our homeland. It was at this stage that with cynical imperturbability they carved up the African continent, and boxed up the native populations in artificial states designed purely to minister to white economic interests.
This brutal and unprecedented rape of a whole continent was a violent challenge to Negro self-respect.

Not surprisingly, within half a century the theory and practice of empire ran into stiff opposition from Negro nationalism. In the face of the movement for Negro freedom the white imperialists changed tactics. They decided to install puppet African administrations to create the illusion of political independence, while retaining the control of the economy. And this they quickly did between 1957 and 1965. The direct empire was transformed into an indirect empire, that regime of fraud and exploitation which African nationalists aptly describe as Neo-Colonialism.

Nigeria was a classic example of a neo-colonialist state, and what is left of it, still is. The militant nationalism of the late forties and early fifties had caught the British imperialists unawares. They hurried to accommodate it by installing the ignorant, decadent and feudalistic Hausa-Fulani oligarchy in power. For the British, the credentials of the Hausa-Fulani were that not having emerged from the Middle Ages they knew nothing about the modern state and the powerful forces that now rule men’s minds. Owing their position to the British, they were servile and submissive. The result was that while Nigerians lived in the illusion of independence, they were still in fact being ruled from Number 10 Downing Street. The British still enjoyed a stranglehold on their economy.

The crises which rocked Nigeria from the morrow of “independence” were brought about by the efforts of progressive nationalists to achieve true independence for themselves and for posterity. For their part in this effort, Biafrans were stigmatised and singled out for extermination. In imperialist thinking, only phoney independence is good for blacks. The sponsorship of Nigeria by white imperialism has not been disinterested.

They are only concerned with the preservation of that corrupt and rickety structure of Nigeria in a perpetual state of powerlessness to check foreign exploitation. I am certain that if tomorrow I should promise that Biafra is going to be a servile and sycophantic state, these self-appointed upholders of the territorial integrity of African states will sing a different tune. No, I shall not oblige them. Biafra will not betray the black man. No matter the odds, we will fight with all our might until black men everywhere can, with pride, point to this Republic, standing dignified and defiant, as an example of African nationalism triumphant over its many and age-old enemies.

Fellow countrymen and women, we have seen in proper perspective the diabolical roles which the British Government and the foreign companies have played and are playing in our war with Nigeria. We now see why in spite of Britain’s tottering economy Harold Wilson’s Government insists on financing Nigeria’s futile war against us. We see why the Shell-BP led the Nigerian hordes into Bonny, pays Biafran oil royalties to Nigeria, and provided the Nigerian Army with all the help it needed for its attack on Port Harcourt. We see why the West African Conference Lines readily and meekly co-operate with Gowon in the imposition of total blockade against us. We see why the oil and trading companies in Nigeria still finance this war and why they risk the life and limb of their staff in the war zones.

Ask your father if he is still alive, he will be in a better position to explain to you if he was born in 60s. Idiot

hahahahahahahahahahahahhaha nigerians are really the most st.upid people on earth gosh ,pls google and wikipedia are your friends, am so ashamed of being called a nigerian , am ashamed of the nigerian flag itself, useless people.

^^ Kill yourself

Guys, guys, pls pardon the illiteracy and ignorance of the poster. If u go through the post, u'll be understand that this poster's 1st problem is that he's semi-literate, which is very dangerous. I think he should have just asked questions instead of drawing conclusion.
He could have averted his display of ignorance by consulting google. He needs help because I'm sure even if he should read the history of Nigerian civil war, he'd have problem understanding except u interpret in Hausa.
Mentioning Aburi Accord and all that would confuse him d more.
Anyway, for your info, Ojukwu did all he could to avert the civil war. If only Gowon honoured the Aburi accord, the story would have been different today. And remember that all u hear today from Yoruba leaders is campaign for true federalism which was what Ojukwu stood for.
Ojukwu stands for justice. If only Gowon was able to control the killings in the north.
In a nutshell, go back to JSS 1 and then ask google for help in respect to the history of Ngr civil war.

I have carefully read through this thread and its very easy to come to the conclusion that most Nigerians are tribalistic. The Igbos see no fault in Ojukwu while those that are not Igbos see no good attributes in Ojukwu. infomine63 who started this thread is likely not an Igbo person same with walala, x-razzy, sunkoye and totorimi. However manchy7531, challas, jascon1, ak47mann and metalgoong are likely Igbo people because of the way they strongly aired their views. When would Nigerians be objective and air their views without tribalism? I challenge any Igbo man who has made a negative comment on Ojukwu in any of the threads on nairaland to rise up. Likewise I challenge any non Igbo who has made any positive comment on Ojukwu in any of the threads on nairaland to rise up. If there are any you deserve an award. I am waiting.

at a second thought, if ojukwu is ever to be immortalized, then Fela should get immortalization as well. there should also be a Fela day.
what da preek to imortalise ojukwu sef?? igbos dont regard him, so send his cadaver to where he sent his loyalists during the war. kponkwen.

Ojukwu supporters here shouldn't be complaining at all, the man was alive for decades after the war and nobody ever cared to ask him some important question about his actions and reaction to some of the event that led to that war. u guys shld av asked im why im and ironsi chose not to prosecuted the army men involved in the coup that brought them to power? those guys were under Ojukwu and Ironsi untill they were dealt with, may be if these question had been asked on time the western pple would seen have seen themselves as part one big southern Nigeria. Maybe that big southern Nigeria wouldn't have been landlocked during the war, maybe that part of Nigeria wouldn't have been outnumbered. Maybe our British colonial master would have supported the south, knowing well that they had oil which they needed and there was hardly anything they would need the North to control the south for, 
I have watched with amazement how the Ibos have gradually come to accept the north for what they are and they have choose to single out westerners (yorubas) for blame. They accused them of betrayal to justify their(The Ibos) actions and av even gone ahead to interpret most moves by the Yorubas as act of betrayal, I have even heard some Ibos say the Yorubas and not the north is their real enemy. If only Ojukwu who was alive and had access to ironsi as well as his confidence had come out to tell why they grouped the westerner with the northerners during the 1966 coup they and their pple executed then. Maybe our country will be a whole diff. story.
Ojukwu seem to have protected his pple from pogrom be declaring Biafra republic, an action which appears to be in the interest of his ibo pple, but the same person couldn't come out to explain his action/that of his pple before they got into that tight corner that precipitated in to the war.he could have given himself and and a few others up for prosecution but he choose to be proud of inexplicable actions, in all i call Ojukwu a man who tried to be too smart (maybe for selfish interest and maybe not) but when confronted with a an ugly situation choose to carry his pple alone and let them die with him. one thing is sure no one could have seen been able to see the kind of leader he would have turned out to be he because he behaved differently when in power/advantaged position to when he was in a tight corner.

afam4eva:

You have a point about Igbos being well off in every sphere of Nigeria especially politics. Who in his right senses will throw away all that for a senseless war. Except of course the war was a just one. Igbos are not known to keep quiet when they're been beat. They'll fight with all they have even if it means loosing everything they've got. That's what our neigbours will not do. They cling on to the union simply because politically they're relevant. I really don't see the hausas or Yorubas fighting for any revolution.

The Ibos have never fougth for revolution, they fought for survival.

Attention all !
Haba Nigerians, when did we get this low?
I am not an Igbo man, but have had the privilege of reading up stuff re the civil war, as well as the run-up to the war.
Some of the tribalistic fiends/goons here should not just judge the man (Ojukwu) on the war, to understand the man and the civil war, one must read the events that happened in the run-up to the war.
I can see why this country (Nigeria) will never change, we are so short sighted and simplistic in our analysis of issues.

This Thread shows how many of you are ignorant or know little about the Nigerian Biafran war. Asked your self this questions What caused the war? do you know many Easterners were massacred and thrown into the benue river anyway my post is not to debate whether Ojukwu was good or bad in fact if the Us had faced what Northern and the part of Nigerian faced it would have been a different story and besides their secession was kind of based on who had slaves to pick cotton and who didn't

Riba_man:

Attention all !
Haba Nigerians, when did we get this low?
I am not an Igbo man, but have had the privilege of reading up stuff re the civil war, as well as the run-up to the war.
Some of the tribalistic fiends/goons here should not just judge the man (Ojukwu) on the war, to understand the man and the civil war, one must read the events that happened in the run-up to the war.
I can see why this country (Nigeria) will never change, we are so short sighted and simplistic in our analysis of issues.

i totally agree with you

sovpounds:

I have carefully read through this thread and its very easy to come to the conclusion that most Nigerians are tribalistic.

Mehn, you just stole that from me. I bother less reading comments these days 'cos sooner than the page is set up, the thoughts all deviate towards tribal lines. You read a headline about one Miss Funke killing a neighbour and the first comment you read is about Yorubas being killers. What I dangerously observe is that those who think along these lines are our so-called youths. Seriously, Social studies and History need to be as important as English and Maths in lower level education and General studies in higher level education respectively.

What makes you think all mods are Nigerians for instance? Silliness!!!

iHiss

donclemo:

This Thread shows how many of you are ignorant or know little about the Nigerian Biafran war. Asked your self this questions What caused the war? do you know many Easterners were massacred and thrown into the benue river anyway my post is not to debate whether Ojukwu was good or bad in fact if the Us had faced what Northern and the part of Nigerian faced it would have been a different story and besides their secession was kind of based on who had slaves to pick cotton and who didn't

And what led to these killings?

or the Northerners just woke up one day that they want to start killing Ibos?

dayokanu:

And what led to these killings?

or the Northerners just woke up one day that they want to start killing Ibos?

this must be the worst week of your life, sorry oo

Yinkay:

He shoud be immortalised so that we can learn from past mistakes that led to the war and forge a truly united 9ja.Google Rober E. Lee to know how Americans recovered from their civil war.

Good to see you regain intellectual balance from the mockery thread you put up against immortalization of Ojukwu.

oyb:

did america immortalize robert e lee?

does the uk immortalize george washington?

in all honesty why would a country celebrate/immortalize the leader of a failed attempt at secession?

Have you set your feet in USA before now?

The question of UK immortalization of George Washington was a misguided analogy at best.

@infomine63! Why are u and your stupid gang talking about Ojukwu now that his is dead? U COWARDS!!!!!!!! I don't believe in condeming the dead because the dead can't hear,talk or do any other thing. U guys are so pathetic, talking about someone when u know he can't reply! BIG ODE like YOU!

Did I hear you say Ojukwu started tribal what? I'm sure u don't read history at all. PLS go back to history you slowpoke!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, its funny that when people talk about the cause of the war, they tend to leave out the root cause where Maj Nzeogwu and his crew carried out the 1st coup and murdered our 1st Prime Minister and a number of prominent northern politicians. Do you really think the hausas just woke up one day and decided to murder the igbos? If you're looking for a culprit, look no further. You guys caused your own problem.

SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE FOUGHT FOR HERE IS WHAT HE FOUGHT FOR.

KINDLY READ CAREFULLY YOU WILL SEE HIS MANIFESTO AND POINT OF VIEW, THEN YOU WILL CONCLUDE IF THERE IS ANY OF YOUR SO CALL LEADERS WHO HAVE BEEN RULING THIS COUNTRY SINCE DECADES WITH SUCH IDEOLOGY.



The Ahiara Declaration

Self-Determination
The right to self-determination was good for the Greeks in 1822, for the Belgians in 1830, and for the Central and Eastern Europeans and the Irish at the end of the First World War. Yet it is not good for Biafrans because we are black. When blacks claim that right, they are warned against dangers trumped up by the imperialists-“fragmentation” and “Balkanization”, as if the trouble with the Balkans is the result of the application of the principle of self-determination.

Were the Balkans a healthier place before they emerged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire? Those who sustained the Ottoman Empire considered it a European necessity, for its Eastern European provinces stood as a buffer between two ambitious and mutually antagonistic empires - the Russian and the Austrian.

For the peace and repose of Europe, it therefore became a major concern of European statesmen to preserve the integrity of that empire. But when it was discovered that Ottoman rule was not only corrupt, oppressive and unprogressive, but also stubbornly irreformable, the happiness and well-being of its white populations came to be considered paramount. So by 1918 the integrity of that ancient and sprawling empire had been sacrificed to the well-being of the Eastern Europeans. Fellow Biafrans, that was in the white world.

But what do we find here in Negro Africa? The Federation of Nigeria is today as corrupt, as unprogressive and as oppressive and irreformable as the Ottoman Empire was in Eastern Europe over a century ago. And in contrast, the Nigerian Federation in the form it was constituted by the British cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered an African necessity. Yet we are being forced to sacrifice our very existence as a people to the integrity of that ramshackle creation that has no justification either in history or in the freely expressed wishes of the people. What other reason for this can there be than the fact that we are black?

In 1966, 50,000 Biafrans - men, women and children - were massacred in cold blood in Nigeria. Since July 6, 1967, hundreds of Biafrans have been killed daily by shelling, bombing, strafing and starvation advised, organised and supervised by Anglo-Saxon Britain. None of these atrocities has raised enough stir in many European capitals. But on the few occasions when a single white man died in Africa, even where he was a convicted bandit like the notorious case in the Congo, all the diplomatic chanceries of the world have been astir.; the whole world has been shaken to its very foundations by the din of protest against the alleged atrocity and by the clamour for vengeance. This was the case when the Nigerian vandals turned their British-supplied rifles on white Red Cross workers in Okigwe. Recently this has been the case with the reported disappearance of some white oil technicians in the Republic of Benin. But when we are massacred in thousands, nobody cares, because we are black.

Fellow countrymen and women, the fact is that in spite of their open protestations to the contrary, the white peoples of the world are still far from accepting that what is good for them can also be good for blacks. The day they make this basic concession that day will the non-Anglo-Saxon nations tell Britain to her face that she is guilty of genocide against us; that day will they call a halt to this monstrous war.

Because the black man is considered inferior and servile to the white, he must accept his political, social and economic system and ideologies ready made from Europe, America or the Soviet Union. Within the confines of his nation he must accept a federation or confederation or unitary government if federation or confederation or unitary government suits the interests of his white masters; he must accept inept and unimaginative leadership because the contrary would hurt the interests of the master race; he must accept economic exploitation by alien commercial firms and companies because the whites benefit from it. Beyond the confines of his state, he must accept regional and continental organisations which provide a front for the manipulation of the imperialist powers; organisations which are therefore unable to respond to African problems in a truly African manner. For Africans to show a true independence is to ask for anathemization and total liquidation.

Arab-Muslim Expansionism
The Biafran struggle is, on another plane, a resistance to the Arab-Muslim expansionism which has menaced and ravaged the African continent for twelve centuries. As early as the first quarter of the seventh century, the Arabs, a people from the Near-East, evolved Islam not just as a religion but as a cover for their insatiable territorial ambitions. By the tenth century they had overrun and occupied, among other places, Egypt and North Africa. Had they stopped there, we would not today be faced with the wicked and unholy collusion we are fighting against. On the contrary, they cast their hungry and envious eyes across the Sahara on to the land of the Negroes.

Our Biafran ancestors remained immune from the Islamic contagion. From the middle years of the last century Christianity was established in our land. In this way we came to be a predominantly Christian people. We came to stand out as a non-Muslim island in a raging Islamic sea. Throughout the period of the ill-fated Nigerian experiment, the Muslims hoped to infiltrate Biafra by peaceful means and quiet propaganda, but failed. Then the late Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduana of Sokoto tried, by political and economic blackmail and terrorism, to convert Biafrans settled in Northern Nigeria to Islam. His hope was that these Biafrans on dispersion would then carry Islam to Biafra, and by so doing give the religion political control of the area. The crises which agitated the so-called independent Nigeria from 1962 gave these aggressive proselytisers the chance to try converting us by force.

It is now evident why the fanatic Arab-Muslim states like Algeria, Egypt and the Sudan have come out openly and massively to support and aid Nigeria in her present war of genocide against us. These states see militant Arabism as a powerful instrument for attaining power in the world.

Biafra is one of the few African states untainted by Islam. Therefore, to militant Arabism, Biafra is a stumbling block to their plan for controlling the whole continent. This control is fast becoming manifest in the Organisation of African Unity. On the question of the Middle East, the Sudanese crisis, in the war between Nigeria and Biafra, militant Arabism has succeeded in imposing its point of view through blackmail and bluster. It has threatened African leaders and governments with inciting their Muslim minorities to rebellion if the governments adopted an independent line on these questions. In this way an O.A.U that has not felt itself able to discuss the genocide in the Sudan and Biafra, an O.A.U. that has again and again advertised its ineptitude as a peace-maker, has rushed into open condemnation of Israel over the Middle East dispute. Indeed in recent times, by its performance, the O.A.U. might well be an Organisation of Arab Unity.

Africa Exploited
Our struggle, in an even more fundamental sense, is the culmination of the confrontation between Negro nationalism and white imperialism. It is a movement designed to ensure the realization of man’s full stature in Africa.
Ever since the 15th century, the European world has treated the African continent as a field for exploitation. Their policies in Africa have for so long been determined to a very great extent by their greed for economic gain. For over three and half centuries, it suited them to transport and transplant millions of the flower of our manhood for the purpose of exploiting the Americas and the West Indies. They did so with no uneasiness of conscience. They justified this trade in men by reference to biblical passages violently torn out of context.

When it became no longer profitable to them to continue with the depopulation and uncontrolled spoilation of Negro Africa, their need of the moment became to exploit the natural resources of the continent, using Negro labour. In response to this need they evolved their informal empire in the 19th century under which they controlled and exploited Negro Africa through their missionaries and monopolist mercantile companies. As time went on they discarded the empire of informal sway as unsatisfactory and established the direct empire as the most effective means of exploiting our homeland. It was at this stage that with cynical imperturbability they carved up the African continent, and boxed up the native populations in artificial states designed purely to minister to white economic interests.
This brutal and unprecedented rape of a whole continent was a violent challenge to Negro self-respect.

Not surprisingly, within half a century the theory and practice of empire ran into stiff opposition from Negro nationalism. In the face of the movement for Negro freedom the white imperialists changed tactics. They decided to install puppet African administrations to create the illusion of political independence, while retaining the control of the economy. And this they quickly did between 1957 and 1965. The direct empire was transformed into an indirect empire, that regime of fraud and exploitation which African nationalists aptly describe as Neo-Colonialism.

Nigeria was a classic example of a neo-colonialist state, and what is left of it, still is. The militant nationalism of the late forties and early fifties had caught the British imperialists unawares. They hurried to accommodate it by installing the ignorant, decadent and feudalistic Hausa-Fulani oligarchy in power. For the British, the credentials of the Hausa-Fulani were that not having emerged from the Middle Ages they knew nothing about the modern state and the powerful forces that now rule men’s minds. Owing their position to the British, they were servile and submissive. The result was that while Nigerians lived in the illusion of independence, they were still in fact being ruled from Number 10 Downing Street. The British still enjoyed a stranglehold on their economy.

The crises which rocked Nigeria from the morrow of “independence” were brought about by the efforts of progressive nationalists to achieve true independence for themselves and for posterity. For their part in this effort, Biafrans were stigmatised and singled out for extermination. In imperialist thinking, only phoney independence is good for blacks. The sponsorship of Nigeria by white imperialism has not been disinterested.

They are only concerned with the preservation of that corrupt and rickety structure of Nigeria in a perpetual state of powerlessness to check foreign exploitation. I am certain that if tomorrow I should promise that Biafra is going to be a servile and sycophantic state, these self-appointed upholders of the territorial integrity of African states will sing a different tune. No, I shall not oblige them. Biafra will not betray the black man. No matter the odds, we will fight with all our might until black men everywhere can, with pride, point to this Republic, standing dignified and defiant, as an example of African nationalism triumphant over its many and age-old enemies.

Fellow countrymen and women, we have seen in proper perspective the diabolical roles which the British Government and the foreign companies have played and are playing in our war with Nigeria. We now see why in spite of Britain’s tottering economy Harold Wilson’s Government insists on financing Nigeria’s futile war against us. We see why the Shell-BP led the Nigerian hordes into Bonny, pays Biafran oil royalties to Nigeria, and provided the Nigerian Army with all the help it needed for its attack on Port Harcourt. We see why the West African Conference Lines readily and meekly co-operate with Gowon in the imposition of total blockade against us. We see why the oil and trading companies in Nigeria still finance this war and why they risk the life and limb of their staff in the war zones.

immortalize a rebel? for fucksake? you guys are the most dumbest fools ever.

x-razzy:

if ojukwu is a hero, then the likes of Slobodan Milosevic and  Adolf Hitler are also heros. *From the angle of absolute moralism, no war can be justified, not even a war waged to secede from enslavement.*  I will suggest a posthumous nuremberg type of war trial for him because he started a war he knew he couldn't win and put every chukwuemekas, nnekas, ogechis, and nwanfors thru 3 years of hardship and  32 years of national political alienation.  

u mean even when u're enslaved, absolute moralism does not allow u to wage war?where did u read that from? read again with ur nose what u just typed with ur toes.

@OP, I support u jare, Ojukwu wasn't d fooooool, Its d Igbo people that still see's him as been special that are daft,

Man, this is the first time I've read the Ahiara declaration,

Ijogz K:

@OP, I support u jare, Ojukwu wasn't d fooooool, Its d Igbo people that still see's him as been special that are daft,

Arent your people especially your grand father that fought for the awusa people and was retired immediatley after the war a bigger fool.

thank you ver much, it does not even make sense to acknowledge an anti-nigeria rebel, who is responsible for many deaths, the fg should not fork anything out for him, let ibos do it themselves if they want to build statues whatever let they do it themselves, which i doubt since they could not foot his hospital bills, maybe adenuga will come to the rescue again who knows

diluminati:

immortalize a rebel? for fucksake? you guys are the most dumbest fools ever.

He never believed in the Entity called "Nigeria", so why should Nigeria immortalize such a Renegade? May his Rebellious Soul burn in the Depths of Hell!