BlueRayDick:


GBAM! Especially when there's no law that says INEC must sight the voters' birth certificate before registering them. Anybody can walk up to a polling unit and claim whatever age he wishes. Na the naija wey we dey be that.

A001:
The Age of Enlightenment, also called the Enlightenment, was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated many parts of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries with global influences and effects.

However, Africa didn't largely take part in this great revolution in thinking, one reason why the region is backward in every human capital index. The continent is still in a dark age.

With more people embracing atheism, agnosticism, and humanism in the 21st century, perhaps the continent could enter an Age of Enlightenment in the next 50–100 years.

When this happens, many Africans will substitute following religious doctrines and age-old superstitious beliefs with the use of scientific method.

For many parts of Africa to develop, it's crucial that many of us question and keep questioning religious teachings, especially those of Islam and Christianity.

In any sane society, use of the brain and domesticating the scientific method (observation, reasoning, and experimentation) should supercede following religious injunctions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

nihilistjnr:


I strongly disagree with this position.
Religion is still a significant part of people's lives in the developed world. Scientific method can, and continues to co-exist alongside Religious practice.

Africa's problem is not unique. The geographical constraints of the continent, particularly the thick rain-forest and disease vectors of sub-saharan africa made it difficult for it's inhabitants to develop at the same pace as Europe and Central Asia By the time those guys turned up on our shores, they had guns, cannons, and centuries or maritime and military pedigree.

The same issue we face in sub-saharan Africa is visible in continents with similary geography - South America is a mess, as is South East Asia.
The Middle East itself is also a mess save for the literal KINGDOMS of UAE, Saudi, Qatar, Oman, etc

The issue i'm talking about is colonialism, and more importantly the main consequences of colonialism - resource contention and Nation forming.

In Nigeria, we are where we are because Lugard arbitrarily joined a relatively educated southern Nigeria consisting of multiple tribes, to a largely uneducated North ruled by TWO empires - The Sokoto caliphate and the Borno Empire both ruled by the Fulani-Hausa tribes. Worse still, the British then allowed a dubious census to give the Nothern region is numerical superiority in parliament, and duly fcked off, setting the foundations of the country's utter dominance by the North ever since.

When you add automatic weapons to the existing volatility of resource contention, you have civil wars, you have seccesionist agitation, you have insecurity, weak administrative capacity, undermined rule of law, etc. Essentially you have us.

There's virtually no difference between Nigeria and Mali, or Nigeria and Bangladesh, or Nigeria and Mexico.

The European colonisers did more to set us back in their actions, than Religion ever did in my opinion sha.

sod09:

This is wrong 3gig max

BlueRayDick:
Abeg which DSTV channels go show world cup and on top which bouquet dem go show am ?

seankafor:
they have bro, you just have to upgrade to to compact plus

DeadPresidents:


If it’s 1080p, then he’s right.

But streaming is damn inconvenient. All the popups and buffering annoying as hell.

Theflint1:
It's on compact

izzou:


Ohh. Okay

Once upon a time on the Ashewo thread, two people decided to have this kind of fight, and they chose Oshodi under bridge as the venue.

So i think the first person got there and took pictures....I can't remember the story sha

So i was just asking if we would be having another Oshodi under bridge bout again

nihilistjnr:


I strongly disagree with this position.
Religion is still a significant part of people's lives in the developed world. Scientific method can, and continues to co-exist alongside Religious practice.

Africa's problem is not unique. The geographical constraints of the continent, particularly the thick rain-forest and disease vectors of sub-saharan africa made it difficult for it's inhabitants to develop at the same pace as Europe and Central Asia By the time those guys turned up on our shores, they had guns, cannons, and centuries or maritime and military pedigree.

The same issue we face in sub-saharan Africa is visible in continents with similary geography - South America is a mess, as is South East Asia.
The Middle East itself is also a mess save for the literal KINGDOMS of UAE, Saudi, Qatar, Oman, etc

The issue i'm talking about is colonialism, and more importantly the main consequences of colonialism - resource contention and Nation forming.

In Nigeria, we are where we are because Lugard arbitrarily joined a relatively educated southern Nigeria consisting of multiple tribes, to a largely uneducated North ruled by TWO empires - The Sokoto caliphate and the Borno Empire both ruled by the Fulani-Hausa tribes. Worse still, the British then allowed a dubious census to give the Nothern region is numerical superiority in parliament, and duly fcked off, setting the foundations of the country's utter dominance by the North ever since.

When you add automatic weapons to the existing volatility of resource contention, you have civil wars, you have seccesionist agitation, you have insecurity, weak administrative capacity, undermined rule of law, etc. Essentially you have us.

There's virtually no difference between Nigeria and Mali, or Nigeria and Bangladesh, or Nigeria and Mexico.

The European colonisers did more to set us back in their actions, than Religion ever did in my opinion sha.

A001:

Religion is a key tool colonial masters use to subjugate their conquered territories after the use of forces via war and/or invasion.

Any colonial master who is wise knows that to keep hold of a people for long, you need to give them a religion such as Christianity that glorifies having a meek attitude and forgiving your enemies.

That's why the Great Britain sent many Christian missionaries to Africa after conquering many parts of the continent.

GB learnt this tactic well from the Roman Empire, who had colonized them (GB) in the past.

If you check the history of any colonized nation, you'd see that the colonized uphold/used to uphold the religion of their colonial masters simply because religion is one of the most effective tools of conquering people and keeping them in check.

It's what powerful people do: Find a religion that keeps people subservient or design one if none exists, enforce it on the people, and they will rule over such people for long.

Brilliant colonial masters use only force to conquer people (that doesn't last), but the wise ones combine both force (violence) and wise words (peace) in books they enforce on their subjects as holy.

That's why GB's reign over Nigeria is long and successful and still in effect. It's hard to control humans, and force isn't enough and isn't sustainable.

People that colonize others know that to have a long reign over the colonized, apart the use of force, it's crucial to give them a system of belief (religion), a system of education, and language.

Anyone that controls these three elements control a people. That's why Nigeria and similar colonies who are independent on paper aren't in reality until they design those three elements themselves and discard the ones designed by the colonial masters.

It's the same reason why atheism, agnosticism, humanism are common among highly educated people because they've access to information not readily available to the common man.

Colonial masters used to keep their subjects in check successfully in the past because they control their access to information using the tools of religion, education, and language.

They made sure they didn't read some books.

But the Internet is the game-changer and makes key information about various topics, such as religions, history of colonialism, philosophies, etc. available for everyone.

In this age, only the willful ignorant will remain enslaved via religion or being a slave of the whites or Arabs.

A001:

Religion is a key tool colonial masters use to subjugate their conquered territories after the use of forces via war and/or invasion.

Any colonial master who is wise knows that to keep hold of a people for long, you need to give them a religion such as Christianity that glorifies having a meek attitude and forgiving your enemies.

That's why the Great Britain sent many Christian missionaries to Africa after conquering many parts of the continent.

GB learnt this tactic well from the Roman Empire, who had colonized them (GB) in the past.

If you check the history of any colonized nation, you'd see that the colonized uphold/used to uphold the religion of their colonial masters simply because religion is one of the most effective tools of conquering people and keeping them in check.

It's what powerful people do: Find a religion that keeps people subservient or design one if none exists, enforce it on the people, and they will rule over such people for long.

Brilliant colonial masters use only force to conquer people (that doesn't last), but the wise ones combine both force (violence) and wise words (peace) in books they enforce on their subjects as holy.

That's why GB's reign over Nigeria is long and successful and still in effect. It's hard to control humans, and force isn't enough and isn't sustainable.

People that colonize others know that to have a long reign over the colonized, apart the use of force, it's crucial to give them a system of belief (religion), a system of education, and language.

Anyone that controls these three elements control a people. That's why Nigeria and similar colonies who are independent on paper aren't in reality until they design those three elements themselves and discard the ones designed by the colonial masters.

It's the same reason why atheism, agnosticism, humanism are common among highly educated people because they've access to information not readily available to the common man.

Colonial masters used to keep their subjects in check successfully in the past because they control their access to information using the tools of religion, education, and language.

They made sure they didn't read some books.

But the Internet is the game-changer and makes key information about various topics, such as religions, history of colonialism, philosophies, etc. available for everyone.

In this age, only the willful ignorant will remain enslaved via religion or being a slave of the whites or Arabs.

CAPdan21:

Are you an alternate of OtemAtum??...

A001:

Religion is a key tool colonial masters use to subjugate their conquered territories after the use of forces via war and/or invasion.

Any colonial master who is wise knows that to keep hold of a people for long, you need to give them a religion such as Christianity that glorifies having a meek attitude and forgiving your enemies.

That's why the Great Britain sent many Christian missionaries to Africa after conquering many parts of the continent.

GB learnt this tactic well from the Roman Empire, who had colonized them (GB) in the past.

If you check the history of any colonized nation, you'd see that the colonized uphold/used to uphold the religion of their colonial masters simply because religion is one of the most effective tools of conquering people and keeping them in check.

It's what powerful people do: Find a religion that keeps people subservient or design one if none exists, enforce it on the people, and they will rule over such people for long.

Brilliant colonial masters use only force to conquer people (that doesn't last), but the wise ones combine both force (violence) and wise words (peace) in books they enforce on their subjects as holy.

That's why GB's reign over Nigeria is long and successful and still in effect. It's hard to control humans, and force isn't enough and isn't sustainable.

People that colonize others know that to have a long reign over the colonized, apart the use of force, it's crucial to give them a system of belief (religion), a system of education, and language.

Anyone that controls these three elements control a people. That's why Nigeria and similar colonies who are independent on paper aren't in reality until they design those three elements themselves and discard the ones designed by the colonial masters.

It's the same reason why atheism, agnosticism, humanism are common among highly educated people because they've access to information not readily available to the common man.

Colonial masters used to keep their subjects in check successfully in the past because they control their access to information using the tools of religion, education, and language.

They made sure they didn't read some books.

But the Internet is the game-changer and makes key information about various topics, such as religions, history of colonialism, philosophies, etc. available for everyone.

In this age, only the willful ignorant will remain enslaved via religion or being a slave of the whites or Arabs.

nihilistjnr:


Well, Nigeria is proof that your theory is questionable.

The British didn't send missionaries to the North. In fact Lugard pledged to the Sultan of Sokoto the commitment of the British administrators to protect the Muslims of the north from Christian Evangelism. Invariably, Lugard and subsequent colonial administrators ensured the protection of this pledge, which by implication suggested that Christian mission and activities of missionaries were not required in northern Nigeria.

In Yoruba Land, Ajayi Crowther was the primary missionary in the area, and whilst he did establish an Anglican base, Traditional Yoruba Religion and Islam was still and remains very strong in our society.

In Igboland, the dominant religious sect is Catholicism. England is the birthplace of the Anglican church, and the king of England is the official head of the Church of England (Anglican Communion). So how did another religious dogma come to dominate Igboland - the answer is the Portuguese missionaries who landed in Benin in the 1600s. There's also the fact that Lugard's indirect rule policies were focused on NOT overruling African culture - what this meant was that as a matter of policy, the British Colonists did not teach the English language in Igbo land as a matter of policy.

The only people who were willing to educate the natives in English were the Catholic missionaries - They might have been British nationals(mostly Irish) but they were unconnected with the Colonial Administration,

Britain had no interest in ruling Nigeria. They only cared about taxation and resource extraction. Which is why Lugard's indirect rule was so critical to their ambitions - as long as they were able to get the tax from the rulers of each region, the country was left to it's own devices. And they were willing to make concessions to the greedy leaders to ensure that they continued to pay tax along with the threat of force, like the aforementioned promise to the Sultan of Sokoto

The only exception to this rule was Lagos which was the only colony the British conquered by force following the Lagos treaty of Cession of 1861, which essentially made Lagosians at the time British Citizens.

To put it simply, the British had zero interest in keeping us subservient - our leaders were the ones that had that requirement. The British colonialist were only interested in making sure they could tax those leaders and steal as much as possible.

DeadPresidents:


If it’s 1080p, then he’s right.

But streaming is damn inconvenient. All the popups and buffering annoying as hell.

CAPdan21:

Are you an alternate of OtemAtum??...

Roland17:


@A001 is an outstanding and intelligent chap, I have known dis for a while. It is not necessarily about believing his position because I disagree on some but how he makes a great argument about his position.

A001:

Religion is a key tool colonial masters use to subjugate their conquered territories after the use of forces via war and/or invasion.

Any colonial master who is wise knows that to keep hold of a people for long, you need to give them a religion such as Christianity that glorifies having a meek attitude and forgiving your enemies.

That's why the Great Britain sent many Christian missionaries to Africa after conquering many parts of the continent.

GB learnt this tactic well from the Roman Empire, who had colonized them (GB) in the past.

If you check the history of any colonized nation, you'd see that the colonized uphold/used to uphold the religion of their colonial masters simply because religion is one of the most effective tools of conquering people and keeping them in check.

It's what powerful people do: Find a religion that keeps people subservient or design one if none exists, enforce it on the people, and they will rule over such people for long.

Brilliant colonial masters use only force to conquer people (that doesn't last), but the wise ones combine both force (violence) and wise words (peace) in books they enforce on their subjects as holy.

That's why GB's reign over Nigeria is long and successful and still in effect. It's hard to control humans, and force isn't enough and isn't sustainable.

People that colonize others know that to have a long reign over the colonized, apart the use of force, it's crucial to give them a system of belief (religion), a system of education, and language.

Anyone that controls these three elements control a people. That's why Nigeria and similar colonies who are independent on paper aren't in reality until they design those three elements themselves and discard the ones designed by the colonial masters.

It's the same reason why atheism, agnosticism, humanism are common among highly educated people because they've access to information not readily available to the common man.

Colonial masters used to keep their subjects in check successfully in the past because they control their access to information using the tools of religion, education, and language.

They made sure they didn't read some books.

But the Internet is the game-changer and makes key information about various topics, such as religions, history of colonialism, philosophies, etc. available for everyone.

In this age, only the willful ignorant will remain enslaved via religion or being a slave of the whites or Arabs.

A001:

What I stated is reality, not a theory. Maybe you need to read the history of colonialization well because it seems you don't know or are pretending not to know that the first missions to Lagos were opened by the Church of England's Church of Missionary Society (CMS) in around the 1840s.

It's common knowledge that GB sent many missionaries to Africa. That's a fact, not a theory.

Don't twist common historical facts to suit your agenda to argue against what's simply reality.

Did Ajayi Crowther appoint himself as a Bishop or establish Christianity in Yorubaland?

This kind of discussion is time-wasting when you intentionally appear contrarian to a key issue, twisting common historical facts in the process.

Who argues against these facts? Major early churches in Nigeria were built by GB, just like they designed early schools and hospitals.

I'm not some kid born in the social media generation you can hide or lie about key facts about Nigeria's history with.

I'd appreciate it if you present your points without twisting common historical facts.

Would the eastern and western protectorates just surrender their funds willingly to GB without being subjugated and colonized first?

Colonialism itself is a process that religion plays a key role in, if not Portugal wouldn't have sent missionaries to Nigeria and other parts of Africa.

Those missionaries were costly to put together and sent across the seas to Africa and served a key purpose in the quest of the colonial masters.

They were not for charity purpose.

I thought any educated and exposed person would see this as common knowledge.

Here's a brief history of the British takeover of Nigeria: https://u.osu.edu/introhumanitiesonline/2020/02/04/history-of-the-british-takeover-of-nigeria/

raumdeuter:
Ethiopia was never colonized right

Within Africa I doubt they even make top 10 in development

While South Africa was one of the last to be freed from colonialism that's if we consider them completely free at this time

nihilistjnr:



Arguing with you sometimes is tedious because you're typically not willing to learn in exchanges
The British colonial government actively prevented christian missionaries from going North - this is a fact.

The British colonial government practiced Indirect rule in Nothern Nigeria - this is a fact

The British colonial government under Lugard established the warrant chief and native court system in Igboland to deliberately maintain indigneous judicial structure in Igboland - this is a fact

It was Catholic Missionaries who set up churches, hospitals and schools in most of Igboland - this is a fact.

Britain is a protestant nation, and their King is the official head of the Anglican Church - This is a fact.
So why would a protestant nation send catholic missionaries to do their work for them?

Of course Ajayi Crowther was funded by the CMS, but outside of Yoruba land, how extensive was their reach? In fact, outside of Lagos how extensive was their reach?

My point is simple, and backed by historical fact - The British had zero interest in trying to control Nigerians using religion. Everywhere they went outside Yoruba land, they took great pains to maintain the status quo using Indirect rule.

They could care less what religion we practiced as long as we paid tax.

These are screenshots from Lugard's book - The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa - where he discusses his policies, including teaching in local language or Arabic, avoiding interfering in local customs, and avoiding muslim teachers in non-muslim schools or vice versa.

raumdeuter:


There are many backward African countries that do not practice Christianity. In Africa I am not even sure if Christianity is the dominant religion. There is no evidence that societies with Majority Islamic religion or Traditional African religion are better. Even within Nigeria you cannot say Islamic North is better than the South

Or let's go to Asia where there is even no Christianity

Countries like India Bangladesh Nepal middle east all colonized and do not have religion of the colonizers yet they are all still as backward as Africa

I think the religion excuse is just a easy cop out cos I've not seen evidence that places who do not practice these religion of Western European doing better

OasisX:


Otem has brought peace back on the thread. All hail Otemilokan.

A001:
GB and Portugal looted pre-independent Nigeria dry and Nigerian politicians got the looting template from them and improved it. How will the country develop when they've stolen all the funds needed to build world-class institutions, good hospitals, good roads, electricity infrastructure?

The budget of the whole Nigeria is smaller than the budget of New York State, yet a substantial part of these budgeted funds will still be stolen by our greedy politicians.

How the country go develop?

izzou:


This comment clearly contradicts your motion that religion is the root cause of our backwardness.

You are yet to show how religion played a part in the looting and making of greedy politicians

Hopefully, you can show it in the next comment