Rosskii:


One thing I'll never understand is how some people have the temerity to come on here, and promote vile, racist, anti-African gobbledegook, and then when you harshly call them out on it, they complain that you are being IMPOLITE to them!

Can you imagine?

They actually expect to be treated with respect after racially demeaning us!

I mean, their effrontery is what really gets me.

While you have been doing your worst into pulling people into the darkness I on the other hand am here to profer what will benefit us and bring us out of darkness. Allow readers to make their own decisions you cannot force your ideologies down anyone's throat.

OLAADEGBU:


You are a typical example of a self hating negro who hates and curses his fellow black man.

Projection alert! How can I be a ''self-hating negro'' when I'm here propagating, and lecturing you on the MAJESTY of the African past, something of which you are totally ignorant of, and angry to be told about? You are the ''self-hating negro''. Everyone here can see that.

See how you must curse and abuse before you can get your point across.

If you promote anti-black racism, I WILL CURSE AND INSULT YOU TILL KINGDOM COME, YOU HEAR?

Racism is NOT ACCEPTABLE in any civilized setting. What part of that don't you understand?

Your fake Jewish devil whose post you used stated that blacks were ''slow-witted'' in that post. Meaning UNINTELLIGENT.

THAT WAS A RACIST INSULT. UNDERSTAND?

He racially insulted your MOTHER. Your FATHER. Your children, if you have any.

Why do you accept racist insults against your person? Against your family? Against your race? Do you believe you are inferior? That your parents are inferior beings? What is WRONG with you?


That is what YOU are promoting. If this was a responsible website, run by people with basic decency and awareness, you would have been BANNED LONG AGO for posting racist literature. If you posted that thing on an African-American forum, you would be banned instantly. And likely prosecuted, on some sites I know of.

It is only on Nairaland that anyone can come in and post RACIST literature demeaning black people, and get away with it. The only other places you can do that online are on neo-nazi websites like Stormfront and KKK.

Indeed, I often wonder if this site is secretly owned by neo-nazi devils masquerading as Africans?

With this mindset of yours how do you expect the black man to excel economically.

IF EVERY BLACK MAN HAD MY MINDSET, WE WOULD BE MORE ADVANCED THAN THE JAPANESE TODAY. THE ONLY THING HOLDING THE BLACK MAN BACK TODAY IS COLONIALISM AND SLAVERY - INDUCED INFERIORITY COMPLEX. THE BELIEF THAT WE ARE SOMEHOW ''DEFICIENT''. ''LACKING''. FOREIGN MADE GOODS ARE SUPERIOR. LIGHT SKINNED GIRLS ARE ''STUNNINGLY BEAUTIFUL''. I WILL STEAL BILLIONS FROM MY PEOPLE'S TREASURY AND DEPOSIT IN EUROPEAN BANKS ETC ETC. THAT IS THE MINDSET INFERIORISED BLACKS LIKE YOU HAVE. YOUR NASTY FAKE JEWISH DEVIL YOU POSTED CALLED BLACKS ''SLOW-WITTED''. YOU ARE AN UNCLE TOM AND A SELLOUT FOR SUPPORTING HIS RACIST VIEWS.

This is the reason why you will not patronise your fellow black man because he does not share in your New Age beliefs, you will rather wish that he dies of hunger instead of you helping him out. The difference between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jnr is violence. Martin Luther took the path of peace while Malcolm believed in the path of violence. The difference is clear. Today Martin Luther is celebrated and attributed for the progress blacks have made in the US today.

BLACK FOLKS CELEBRATE MALCOM X. You care more about whom white people 'celebrate'. But BLACK FOLKS CELEBRATE MALCOLM.

Black progress in the USA was due to the thousands of blacks who marched, fought the police, and were shot rioting across the US. RESISTANCE often calls for VIOLENT RESISTANCE in the face of sustained oppression. The white man whom you worship, was he peaceful with your forefathers whom he massacred in droves? When he enslaved millions of you, how peaceful was he? Mr Peace. You only recognise the value of peace when it is time to lie down as a slave to beg your white oppressors to stop oppressing you.

Malcolm X, The Nation of Islam, Farrakhan, the Black Panthers and co, called for sit-ins, civil disobedience, boycotts, demonstrations, strikes, and other forceful measures. They are CENTRAL to black resistance against racism. They fought the police on the streets. Many were shot and killed in the civil rights movement. Without their strong headedness, blacks would STILL be in chains today across America. If they had YOUR mindset of being ''nice'', blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus today.

People like ROSA PARKS, who said to the police, ''NO! I AM NOT GOING TO SIT AT THE BACK OF THE BUS. PULL ME OFF THIS SEAT IF YOU LIKE'' - followed by scuffles - are the reason blacks like YOU can live, work, and prosper in the USA today with no problems. Black freedom was not earned by being 'nice' to white people, but by RESISTING, and saying NO to them.

OLAADEGBU:


While you have been doing your worst into pulling people into the darkness I on the other hand am here to profer what will benefit us and bring us out of darkness. Allow readers to make their own decisions you cannot force your ideologies down anyone's throat.

Sorry, ON NO ACCOUNT WILL I BE ''understanding''' of RACIST SMEARS against the black race. If you racially insult blacks, I will insult you. PERIOD. You have no respect for us but we must respect you, correct? Who the flying F.Uck do you think you are?

OLAADEGBU:


Who were the foreign invaders, were they not Muslim Arabs?

Egypt was invaded several times in its history - by the Assyrians, by the Greeks, by the Romans, and finally by the Arabs. They were all desperate to enjoy the High Civilization the blacks had created.

The Jews were also enslaved by the Egyptians but that did not stop them from becoming economically progressive.

Oh lawd....... Your reading of history is deplorably ignorant. The Jews who were enslaved in Egypt were the ORIGINAL Jews who were BLACKS. Bantu blacks were the original Hebrews. Modern day 'Jews' of Israel, like that pig you quoted, are ASHKENAZI Jews, who are Jewish only by conversion to Judaism around the 11th century, not by blood. They are Europeans who hail from Russia, Poland, Germany etc. They have NOTHING to do with the real Jews of ancient Israel. How can you not know this at your age? Don't you research? Don't you study? Go on Youtube and you will see copious evidence about the real historical Jews. Learning is free. Former Egyptian president Abdel Nasser, stated on television, "You (the Jews) will never be able to live here in peace, because you left here black but came back white.'' Look it up. Google is free. Even the Bible says in prophecy to the real Jews, in Revelation 2:9 ''I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.''

If you must learn anything from history you must learn that a people who worship other gods than the True God are bound to lose their place in life.

Dude, religion comes in various guises. It is the spirituality of the person that matters most, not their form of worship. You can ''worship the True God'', but if you go around building nuclear bombs and colonising/enslaving, massacring whole populations, looting their wealth, and then turning around to call the victims of your evil ''inferior'', you will be rejected by that True God.

If you worship Amadioha or Sango, but treat your fellow men with justice, you will be accepted and loved by God. God is not stupid. It is about SUBSTANCE, not FORM. It is about ACTIONS, not WORDS.

OLAADEGBU & Rossikk check out this article from a Black Star

Liberated Africa: Pathways to Self-Transformational Development

http://www.businessghana.com/site/news/business/142853/Liberated-Africa:-Pathways-to-Self-Transformational-Development

419forlife:
OLAADEGBU & Rossikk check out this article from a Black Star

Liberated Africa: Pathways to Self-Transformational Development

http://www.businessghana.com/site/news/business/142853/Liberated-Africa:-Pathways-to-Self-Transformational-Development

Africa and African comes from Scipio Africanus an ancient Roman colonizer. It does not mean Black and even Black is not scientifically recognized or defined in any constitution.
Now that "Black Aboriginals" are getting information they will combine
1. Black Power
2. Self Definition and Local Definitions of "Blackness"
3. Traditional self government (which was religious based)
4. New Black Power, Traditional Self Governments, "Tribes" and Confederations. Conservative, Indigenous updated exclusive Educational systems along with Degrees, Titles.
Protection of Children. Laws for Marriage and Courtship.

This is inevitable as we discover our history and sidestep Western Indoctrinated Title Holders and European Thievery and Rape Based Government Systems and Eurasian Cults "so called Abrahamic Religions". It is only a matter of time.

Ozouno1:
Africa and African comes from Scipio Africanus an ancient Roman colonizer. It does not mean Black and even Black is not scientifically recognized or defined in any constitution.
Now that "Black Aboriginals" are getting information they will combine
1. Black Power
2. Self Definition and Local Definitions of "Blackness"
3. Traditional self government (which was religious based)
4. New Black Power, Traditional Self Governments, "Tribes" and Confederations. Conservative, Indigenous updated exclusive Educational systems along with Degrees, Titles.
Protection of Children. Laws for Marriage and Courtship.

This is inevitable as we discover our history and sidestep Western Indoctrinated Title Holders and European Thievery and Rape Based Government Systems and Eurasian Cults "so called Abrahamic Religions". It is only a matter of time.

Africa does not come from Scipio africanus

During the period of the Roman Empire, Afer came to be a cognomen for people from Africa Proconsularis.

This ethnonym provided the source of the term Africa. The Romans referred to the region as Africa terra (land of the Afri), based on the stem Afr- with the adjective suffix -ic- (giving Africus, Africa, Africum in the nominative singular of the three Latin genders). Following the defeat of Carthage in the Third Punic War, Rome set up the province of Africa Proconsularis.

Victory titles were suffixed to the commander's name and were usually the name of the enemy defeated by the commander. Hence, names like Africanus "the African", Numidicus "the Numidian", Isauricus "the Isaurian", Creticus "the Cretan", Gothicus "the Goth", Germanicus "the German" and Parthicus "the Parthian", seemingly out of place for ardently patriotic Romans, are in fact expressions of Roman superiority over these peoples. Literally, this would be akin to calling generals Erwin Rommel "Rommel the African", George S. Patton, Jr. "Patton the German" and H. Norman Schwarzkopf "Schwarzkopf the Iraqi"; however, the real intended meaning would be better expressed as "Rommel of African fame", "Patton of German fame", "Schwarzkopf of Iraqi fame" and so forth. Some victory titles became hereditary cognomina, while others were personal agnomina and not carried on by later family members.

An alternate explanation may come from a North African tribe that the Romans encountered in Carthage, the Afri, or Ifira. The Ifira were a group of Berbers that dwelt in modern-day Tunisia. The name is still in use today. Africa, then, would be “the land of the Afri,” instead of “the land without cold.”

“Afri” was associated with the Phoenician afar “dust” and was used as the name for the society of people living near Carthage (an ancient city near Tunis) in northern Africa. Their existence was first noted during the Punic Wars (between 264 and 146 before our Common Era or BCE). These three wars were the largest of their time, fought between the Roman Empire and Carthage. They were a battle over space between the well established Carthage and the ever-expanding Rome. Rome was ultimately victorious. When this happened, Carthage became the capital of the Roman province of Africa (which was, in part, made up Phoenician Ruinsof the coastal section of Libya). The Roman suffix to denote a country was “-ca” and this was thus added to “Afri”. The Arabians of that time converted this name to “Ifriqiya” in Latin. In Algeria, this name still exists, as is evident by such areas as Ifira and Ifri-n-Dellal.

Another hypothesis is that the name of the 4th dynasty pharaoh, Kh-afre, reveals that an early Egyptian king had the name “Africa.”

Pass me that strong drink and make sure you read the article

419forlife:
OLAADEGBU & Rossikk check out this article from a Black Star

Liberated Africa: Pathways to Self-Transformational Development

http://www.businessghana.com/site/news/business/142853/Liberated-Africa:-Pathways-to-Self-Transformational-Development

Excerpt

Yet it is also true that there are some aspects of African realities that have not changed substantively or for the better during this period because Africa did not regain, recover or assert its ownership and use of its autonomous self-direction capacities in some spheres over the past six decades.

These are primarily in the areas of economic sovereignty, development capacitation, self-actuated development and ideological self-direction. This failure is manifested in such conditions as persistent underdevelopment, the pre-eminence of primary commodities production and export in its economic interactions with the world, import dependency, development incapacitation and poverty generation.

It is also manifested in Africa’s ideological subordination to external diktat through the acceptance and implementation of the economic management dogmas and prescriptions of the multilateral imperialist agencies – the World Bank, IMF and similar bilateral external agencies.

These prescribed non-development dogmas include: privatization, deregulation and African states self-withdrawal from promoting socio-economic development and the simultaneous promotion of the ascendancy of “MARKET FORCES, FOREIGN INVESTORS, FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS and FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ” as the primary and indispensable engines of African economic growth.

The forceful application of these disempowering dogmas through the active complicity of psychologically programmed and ideologically defeated African leaders and elite over the past three decades has yielded or in fact consolidated Africa in its status as under- developed, under-equipped and incapable of development self-propulsion.

Good writes

Rosskii:
THE WORLD OWES ITS CURRENT CIVILIZATION TO THE EXPLOITS OF THE BLACK MAN AND WOMAN OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, DISCOVERY, AND LEARNING.

BLACK AFRICANS WERE THE WORLD'S FIRST MATHEMATICIANS, SCIENTISTS, EXPLORERS, ASTRONOMERS, SAILORS, PHILOSOPHERS, PROFESSORS, JURISTS, INTERNATIONAL TRADERS, ARCHITECTS, BUILDERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND RELIGIONISTS.

WITHOUT THE CIVILIZATION OF THE BLACKS, THERE WOULD BE NO MODERN CIVILIZATION TODAY TO SPEAK OF.

ANY JOHNNY COME LATELY FAKE JEW FROM ISRAEL MOUTHING RACIST IGNORANCE AND GARBAGE SHOULD BE TOLD TO SHUT UP HIS STINKING LIPS AND RESPECT HIS ELDERS.

Dreamer.

blueAgent:


Dreamer.

He is actually day dreaming.

OLAADEGBU:


He is actually day dreaming.

Really?

Was Lady Lugard, the historian wife of the British Governor-General of Nigeria Lord Lugard, also ''daydreaming'' when she wrote this a century ago?

Excerpt:

Flora Shaw's (alias Lady Flora Lugard) book, A Tropical Dependency: An Outline of the Ancient History of the Western Sudan With an Account of the Modern Settlement of Northern Nigeria, is an extraordinary look at the history of Africa, which she gathered from countless sources, and one would imagine a great deal of it came from the British Library and from the archives of The Times of London, for whom she had for many years been the Foreign Political Correspondent. She had always been known to be an intensive researcher into her subject matter, and one wonders at the months and probably years she put into this undertaking, which became the reference work for so many future books on Africa. This book was first published 100 years ago showing with detail and descriptive power, the greatness that Africa once was. Lady Lugard argues that:

"When the history of Negroland comes to be written in detail, it may be found that the kingdoms lying towards the eastern end of Sudan (classical home of Ancient Ethiopians) were the home of races who inspired, rather than of races who received, the tradition of civilization associated for us with the name of ancient Egypt. For they cover on either side of the Upper Nile between the latitudes of ten degrees and seventeen degrees, territories in which are found monuments more ancient than the oldest Egyptian monuments. If this should prove to be the case and civilized world be forced to recognize in a black people the fount of its original enlightenment, it may happen that we shall have to revise entirely our view of the black races, and regard those who now exist as the decadent representatives of an almost forgotten era, rather than as the embryonic possibility of an era yet to come."

"The fame of the ancient Ethiopians (ancient Kushites) was widespread in ancient history. Herodotus described them as the most beautiful and long-lived of the human races, and before Herodotus, Homer, in even more flattering language, described them as the most just of men, the favorites of the gods. The annals of all the great early nations of Asia Minor are full of them. The Mosaic records allude to them frequently; but while they are described as the most powerful, the most just, and the most beautiful of the human race, they are constantly spoken of as Black, and there seems to be no other conclusion to be drawn than that at that remote period of history, the leading race of the Western World was a Black race.''

Lady Lugard/Flora Shaw Lugard, Asa G. Hilliard, III, A Tropical Dependency: An Outline of the Ancient History of the Western Sudan With an Account of the Modern Settlement of Northern Nigeria, 1910

OLAADEGBU, when your own colonial rulers are telling you ''Oga... The truth is your ancestors civilized us....That is the truth'',
AND YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT, saying ''No white massa, i don't agree. I am your slave and have always been your slave sir!'', doesn't that make you a MUMU?

Should we call you MUMUUDEGBU?

I think that suits you more than OLAADEGBU.

Rossikk:


Really?

Was Lady Lugard, the historian wife of the British Governor-General of Nigeria Lord Lugard, also ''daydreaming'' when she wrote this a century ago?

Excerpt:

Snip

So you now need a white woman to tell you the history of the black man. Now that she has told you what has become of her since then? What you should be investigating is what happened to the black man that has made him to fall to the bottom of the food chain? What you must realise is that it wasn't the "White man" that brought civilisation but the Bible that was written by God's own people that Egypt enslaved. Get it?

OLAADEGBU:


So you now need a white woman to tell you the history of the black man.

Err...the quote was meant for your education, because you are ignorant.

Now that she has told you what has become of her since then?

What a childish, stupid, and ignorant question.

What you should be investigating is what happened to the black man that has made him to fall to the bottom of the food chain

By accepting your racist characterisations? I don't think so, Uncle Tom.

What you must realise is that it wasn't the "White man" that brought civilisation but the Bible that was written by God's own people that Egypt enslaved. Get it?

Who said it was "the white man that brought civilisation"? Not me. AND YOU MUST BE BEYOND DUMB AND CLUELESS TO STATE THAT THE BIBLE WAS WHAT BROUGHT CIVILIZATION. YOU ARE GROSSLY UNDER-EDUCATED IN THIS SUBJECT, SO PLEASE, JUST GO AWAY. DULLARD.

Rossikk:


Err...the quote was meant for your education, because you are ignorant.What a childish, stupid, and ignorant question.By accepting your racist characterisations? I don't think so, Uncle Tom. Who said it was "the white man that brought civilisation"? Not me. AND YOU MUST BE BEYOND DUMB AND CLUELESS TO STATE THAT THE BIBLE WAS WHAT BROUGHT CIVILIZATION. YOU ARE GROSSLY UNDER-EDUCATED IN THIS SUBJECT, SO PLEASE, JUST GO AWAY. DULLARD.

It was the introduction of the Bible through the Christian missionaries that brought civilisation to the African continent in recent memory. Without them you will not have your schools from where you learnt how to read and write all you are doing here. They introduced hospitals and brought progress economically. It is the dark New Age that you are intending to drag the country back into that is stunting and dragging us back into the dark age. The missionaries through the Bible brought the light but folks like you would rather we remain in darkness of ritual killings and idolatry that is hindering the black man from being economically independent.

OLAADEGBU:


It was the introduction of the Bible through the Christian missionaries that brought civilisation to the African continent in recent memory.

Do you even know the meaning of ''civilization''?

Tell me. What standard of education do you have? Did you attend a university? I really need to know because you have the mentality of a very poorly educated/exposed person.

Without them you will not have your schools from where you learnt how to read and write all you are doing here.

But without us THEY wouldn't have any education to extend to anyone. The above expose clearly reveals that. You are hostile to THAT information, but very eager to expatiate on the more recent, ''the white man saved me from barbarism'' theory.

Why the double standards? Are you aware that blacks brought civilization to Europe, as recently as up to 1600?

Have you heard about the 'black-a-moors'?



Knowledge is transmitted back and forth between peoples as a matter of course throughout history. It's not something you should be ''grateful'' for, or feel inferior about, when you are at the receiving end of it.

As for the education itself, my grandparents were illiterate, as were my great grand parents. THEY lived under colonial rule. The colonialists educated less than 5% of the population. Again, only enough people to aid in the administration of colonisation.

It was only after they left that BLACK GOVERNMENTS began expanding education en masse, building thousands of schools, polytechnics and universities throughout Nigeria. So, strictly speaking, I owe my education to BLACK GOVERNMENTS. AS DO YOU.


See, the reason one needs to bring all this up with someone like you is because you are MYOPIC and SHALLOW. You cannot see yesterday or tomorrow in your assessment of peoples. All you see is 'now'.

A region is underdeveloped? It must be because there is something ''wrong'' with the inhabitants. Those nations materially better off must be ''superior'', never mind if they stole, looted, and massacred their way to that wealth.

You couch your materialism in religious gobbledegook. Mr Christian. Would Jesus appreciate your open adulation of mass murderers, global wealth plunderers, nuclear bomb builders?

WHAT IS CIVILIZED ABOUT A WORLD IN WHICH 8 MEN OWN THE SAME AMOUNT OF WEALTH AS THE POOREST 3.6 BILLION PEOPLE - HALF THE POPULATION OF EARTH?

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world

They introduced hospitals and brought progress economically.

They extracted TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of natural resources, and put next to nothing back. They ruled you for 100 years, and yet at the end, you had not ONE university in your country. It was only after they were kicked out in 1960 that INDIGENOUS governments began investing in higher education, such that today, we have over 250 full fledged universities in just 57 years of independence.

See, the whites didn't actually do anything as such. All they did was come in here, and build the MINIMUM REQUIRED infrastructure that would enable THEM engage in their colonialist adventure. No? Ok name one major hospital they built in Nigeria. Where is it? Name one expressway they built. None? Ok, name one power plant they built. Name one airport they built. Name one stadium they built.

Think hard....

None?

Oh sure they built a railway line from the north to south. But that was merely to aid the shipping out of our natural resources via the Atlantic. The groundnuts from Kano, the rubber from Benin, the coal from Enugu, the palm oil from Abakiliki, the cocoa from Ibadan etc etc. There were no lines built to interconnect the nation. It is current governments that are developing such projects now.

Those groundnut pyramids you people are so proud of, you never ask where the money went for all those products, that cost billions in today's currency, over hundred years of production under the whites. INSTEAD OF KISSING THEIR ASS, Shouldn't you ask them,

''Oga, come, why is it that after you exported our resources for 100 years, we were still an underdeveloped country at independence, with malnutrition, people walking around barefoot, no electricity, and 95% illiteracy? What happened to the money, sir?''

The only place in Africa the whites developed with their looted wealth was South Africa. And that was ONLY because they had a substantial white settler population there. Even then, they severely discriminated and oppressed the blacks in their demonic apartheid system.

SO, JUST WHAT IS ''CIVILIZED'' ABOUT THESE PEOPLE YOU WORSHIP, OLAADEGBU?

It is the dark New Age that you are intending to drag the country back into that is stunting and dragging us back into the dark age. The missionaries through the Bible brought the light but folks like you would rather we remain in darkness of ritual killings and idolatry that is hindering the black man from being economically independent.

The missionaries were the agents they sent to ''pacify'' you, as they planned their colonising operation.

It was an economic operation on you. Stop being a dummy. The so called ''missionaries'', where are they today? They've served their purpose. Go to England. They are converting their churches to casinos and shops. Nobody there gives a hoot about 'Jesus'.

You're a typical illustration of this quote by a Pan-Africanist whose name escapes me:

''When the white man came he had the bible and we had the land.
He told us to close our eyes and pray.
When we opened our eyes, we had the bible and he had the land.''

You're not quite an illustration actually.

You haven't even opened your eyes yet.

Rossikk:


Do you even know the meaning of ''civilization''?

Tell me. What standard of education do you have? Did you attend a university? I really need to know because you have the mentality of a very poorly educated/exposed person.



But without us THEY wouldn't have any education to extend to anyone. The above expose clearly reveals that. You are hostile to THAT information, but very eager to expatiate on the more recent, ''the white man saved me from barbarism'' theory.

Why the double standards? Are you aware that blacks brought civilization to Europe, as recently as up to 1600?

Have you heard about the 'black-a-moors'?



Knowledge is transmitted back and forth between peoples as a matter of course throughout history. It's not something you should be ''grateful'' for, or feel inferior about, when you are at the receiving end of it.

As for the education itself, my grandparents were illiterate, as were my great grand parents. THEY lived under colonial rule. The colonialists educated less than 5% of the population. Again, only enough people to aid in the administration of colonisation.

It was only after they left that BLACK GOVERNMENTS began expanding education en masse, building thousands of schools, polytechnics and universities throughout Nigeria. So, strictly speaking, I owe my education to BLACK GOVERNMENTS. AS DO YOU.


See, the reason one needs to bring all this up with someone like you is because you are MYOPIC and SHALLOW. You cannot see yesterday or tomorrow in your assessment of peoples. All you see is 'now'.

A region is underdeveloped? It must be because there is something ''wrong'' with the inhabitants. Those nations materially better off must be ''superior'', never mind if they stole, looted, and massacred their way to that wealth.

You couch your materialism in religious gobbledegook. Mr Christian. Would Jesus appreciate your open adulation of mass murderers, global wealth plunderers, nuclear bomb builders?

WHAT IS CIVILIZED ABOUT A WORLD IN WHICH 8 MEN OWN THE SAME AMOUNT OF WEALTH AS THE POOREST 3.6 BILLION PEOPLE - HALF THE POPULATION OF EARTH?

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world





They extracted TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of natural resources, and put next to nothing back. They ruled you for 100 years, and yet at the end, you had not ONE university in your country. It was only after they were kicked out in 1960 that INDIGENOUS governments began investing in higher education, such that today, we have over 250 full fledged universities in just 57 years of independence.

See, the whites didn't actually do anything as such. All they did was come in here, and build the MINIMUM REQUIRED infrastructure that would enable THEM engage in their colonialist adventure. No? Ok name one major hospital they built in Nigeria. Where is it? Name one expressway they built. None? Ok, name one power plant they built. Name one airport they built. Name one stadium they built.

Think hard....

None?

Oh sure they built a railway line from the north to south. But that was merely to aid the shipping out of our natural resources via the Atlantic. The groundnuts from Kano, the rubber from Benin, the coal from Enugu, the palm oil from Abakiliki, the cocoa from Ibadan etc etc. There were no lines built to interconnect the nation. It is current governments that are developing such projects now.

Those groundnut pyramids you people are so proud of, you never ask where the money went for all those products, that cost billions in today's currency, over hundred years of production under the whites. INSTEAD OF KISSING THEIR ASS, Shouldn't you ask them,

''Oga, come, why is it that after you exported our resources for 100 years, we were still an underdeveloped country at independence, with malnutrition, people walking around barefoot, no electricity, and 95% illiteracy? What happened to the money, sir?''

The only place in Africa the whites developed with their looted wealth was South Africa. And that was ONLY because they had a substantial white settler population there. Even then, they severely discriminated and oppressed the blacks in their demonic apartheid system.

SO, JUST WHAT IS ''CIVILIZED'' ABOUT THESE PEOPLE YOU WORSHIP, OLAADEGBU?




The missionaries were the agents they sent to ''pacify'' you, as they planned their colonising operation.

It was an economic operation on you. Stop being a dummy. The so called ''missionaries'', where are they today? They've served their purpose. Go to England. They are converting their churches to casinos and shops. Nobody there gives a hoot about 'Jesus'.

You're a typical illustration of this quote by a Pan-Africanist whose name escapes me:

''When the white man came he had the bible and we had the land.
He told us to close our eyes and pray.
When we opened our eyes, we had the bible and he had the land.''

You're not quite an illustration actually.

You haven't even opened your eyes yet.

How did all that you posted (which I did not read) answer or solve the question of the OP? How can the black man be economically independent today?

419forlife:


Africa does not come from Scipio africanus

During the period of the Roman Empire, Afer came to be a cognomen for people from Africa Proconsularis.

This ethnonym provided the source of the term Africa. The Romans referred to the region as Africa terra (land of the Afri), based on the stem Afr- with the adjective suffix -ic- (giving Africus, Africa, Africum in the nominative singular of the three Latin genders). Following the defeat of Carthage in the Third Punic War, Rome set up the province of Africa Proconsularis.

Victory titles were suffixed to the commander's name and were usually the name of the enemy defeated by the commander. Hence, names like Africanus "the African", Numidicus "the Numidian", Isauricus "the Isaurian", Creticus "the Cretan", Gothicus "the Goth", Germanicus "the German" and Parthicus "the Parthian", seemingly out of place for ardently patriotic Romans, are in fact expressions of Roman superiority over these peoples. Literally, this would be akin to calling generals Erwin Rommel "Rommel the African", George S. Patton, Jr. "Patton the German" and H. Norman Schwarzkopf "Schwarzkopf the Iraqi"; however, the real intended meaning would be better expressed as "Rommel of African fame", "Patton of German fame", "Schwarzkopf of Iraqi fame" and so forth. Some victory titles became hereditary cognomina, while others were personal agnomina and not carried on by later family members.

An alternate explanation may come from a North African tribe that the Romans encountered in Carthage, the Afri, or Ifira. The Ifira were a group of Berbers that dwelt in modern-day Tunisia. The name is still in use today. Africa, then, would be “the land of the Afri,” instead of “the land without cold.”

“Afri” was associated with the Phoenician afar “dust” and was used as the name for the society of people living near Carthage (an ancient city near Tunis) in northern Africa. Their existence was first noted during the Punic Wars (between 264 and 146 before our Common Era or BCE). These three wars were the largest of their time, fought between the Roman Empire and Carthage. They were a battle over space between the well established Carthage and the ever-expanding Rome. Rome was ultimately victorious. When this happened, Carthage became the capital of the Roman province of Africa (which was, in part, made up Phoenician Ruinsof the coastal section of Libya). The Roman suffix to denote a country was “-ca” and this was thus added to “Afri”. The Arabians of that time converted this name to “Ifriqiya” in Latin. In Algeria, this name still exists, as is evident by such areas as Ifira and Ifri-n-Dellal.

Another hypothesis is that the name of the 4th dynasty pharaoh, Kh-afre, reveals that an early Egyptian king had the name “Africa.”

Pass me that strong drink and make sure you read the article

Yes Scipio conquered a group called the AFRI who were in Hannibal's army. These nomadic AFRI are of the same stock found throughout the lands and history as ABORE, AFER, APIRU, BERBER, EBER, FALASHA (Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan's tribe). In Nigeria this stock is called "Fulani", "Fulbe", "Bororo". In Igbo we have the term "ebulu" - sheep, ONYE-EBULU sheep herder, pastorialist.

The point is the land was named after a group of nomads whom the Romans conquered. "Africa" is not representative of all Black people coming together, agreeing to be one people. Accepting the name wholeheartedly as an identity, is an excuse for Black groups from ever having a conference to name themselves and create a more perfect union.
The proverb "You make a dog accept a bad name in order to kill it" comes to mind. In terms of political and racial identity, Africa is a "bad name", but I know a lot of thieves, lecturers and politicians get paid off of this endless confusion so I will leave it alone for the time being.

Ozouno1:


Yes Scipio conquered a group called the AFRI who were in Hannibal's army. These nomadic AFRI are of the same stock found throughout the lands and history as ABORE, AFER, APIRU, BERBER, EBER, FALASHA (Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan's tribe). In Nigeria this stock is called "Fulani", "Fulbe", "Bororo". In Igbo we have the term "ebulu" - sheep, ONYE-EBULU sheep herder, pastorialist.

The point is the land was named after a group of nomads whom the Romans conquered. "Africa" is not representative of all Black people coming together, agreeing to be one people. Accepting the name wholeheartedly as an identity, is an excuse for Black groups from ever having a conference to name themselves and create a more perfect union.
The proverb "You make a dog accept a bad name in order to kill it" comes to mind. In terms of political and racial identity, Africa is a "bad name", but I know a lot of thieves, lecturers and politicians get paid off of this endless confusion so I will leave it alone for the time being.

Ozouno of course you have miss me

Point is either way it didn't come from a roman colonizer irrelative to its usage.

So you think it is a bad name then help us change it up

ChinonsoDike2:


The black race is cursed!
The black race is cursed!
The black race is cursed!
The black race is cursed!
The black race is cursed!
The black race is cursed!
I hate the black race.
The black race is cursed!
The black race is cursed!
The black race is cursed!

Who cursed the black man?

Hello Nairaland community!

I signed up here specifically to respond to this post, and I hope you don't mind my 'wedding-crasher' approach...This topic has interested me for awhile, and I've given it much thought. I'm familiar with the usual explanations involving exploitation, colonization, that Africans are too 'religious' and superstitious, etc, but none of them has really explained how these things would have prevented them from developing. Many other places in the world have been exploited, colonized, and are 'strong faith' cultures that have responded to modernization. Sure, a few have not, but they are scattered about...only in Africa, and in particular sub-Saharan Africa, are they so prevalent. If you look at a world map, it would almost appear as if the sub-Saharan region was a kind of 'homeland' for traditions and values we often think of as 'backwards'...which I found very, very interesting, and I'm forming a theory...

This is where most believe the human species began. DNA from the Khoisan people show it them to be the closest to those original ancestors of us all. This is your 'ground zero' for the human race.
We also know that in those early times, there were several great migrations out of Africa, and into Asia, the ME and Europe. One theory is that climate change forced them out...yeah maybe, but I don't think that explains it. For one thing, if things were THAT bad, then why didn't they all leave? Why would so many have remained? Did climate change and famine only effect a few? While bad weather may have been A factor, it wasn't THE factor. The point is that a big chunk of the existing human population apparently decided to pack up and leave, in several massive waves...

But forget about WHY they left. Instead think about the KIND OF PEOPLE who would have done this. To pack up your shit, abandon your home, and head off into the unknown takes a certain kind of personality. Not everyone will do this, regardless of how bad things are. It takes a bold person, someone with a degree of courage (or recklessness..), it takes someone who is willing to gamble. Someone with a higher tolerance for change, someone who can think outside of the box. Someone who is WILLING to discard the old and adopt the new. If you don't have these characteristics, you would probably not be joining that exodus...you'll stay home, where it's safer. You might even breathe a sigh of relief because now all of your 'problem children' have gone...the loudmouths, the irresponsible fun-seekers, the ones who always want to change things, the questioners, the ones who don't respect the old ways, etc...good riddance, you might think. But this is where your innovation comes from...

What this did was to split the human race into two groups, the ones who left, and the ones who stayed, with each group now taking on a specific 'personality'. The ones who remain are likely to be conservative, traditionalist thinkers, not open to big changes, preferring stability and custom. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you have a few folks who will 'pull' the rest along as needed.
But all of THOSE folks left. They took off, to Asia, the ME, and up into Europe. And these are the places we start seeing human civilization establishing...a particularly aggressive form of civilization that would ultimately morph into today's Western World. Each successive wave of migration would have been a further 'brain drain' from the African groups. Not necessarily a drain on talent, but a drain on the types of people willing to put those talents to use or question the status quo.

2 extremes out of one homogenous whole. This created a cultural bottleneck for both groups. Before any balance could be restored, both groups had laid the foundations for the types of societies they would become. In the regions they settled they built cities, and empires, and trade networks. And in their zeal they exploited and enslaved those who wouldn't or couldn't keep up. It's as if this culture got a cocktail of steroids and methamphetamine...
But the culture that remained got a different cocktail, Xanax and Ambien, and they're still nodding off there in sub-Saharan Africa. Individuals WITHIN these cultures can and do try to balance things, but the cultural structure is STRONG. So you see Westerners defending the worst excesses of their cultures, and traditionalist African cultures doing the same for theirs...and in BOTH cultures the reasonable folks are left to scratch their heads and go, "Wtf?"

It has nothing to do with race, or religion, or culture...it is ALL about the MINDSET. Are you an adventurist, or a traditionalist? The only reason these 'backwards' societies are in Africa is because that's where the original group WAS. It is unfortunate that the racial characteristics of this group get all the attention when they had nothing to do with it. At the time of the splits, BOTH were the same 'race'. The refining into distinct physical 'types' occurred later. The 'backwards' African nations took on the personality of the majority of their people, those ones that stayed, and they mistrust and fear 'innovations' coming into their world from the outside. They are not likely to tolerate any new ideas coming from 'in-house' either.
Western culture too is an extreme...too many innovators and disrupters and rule-breakers, and disdain for tradition and the past. That's because those nations were formed by all the malcontents who had left. Each group would have had enhanced cultural 'founder effects' seen in the societies they went on to create...An example of a similar phenomenon in our own time are nations like America and Australia, both largely founded by marginal groups from elsewhere, who went on to create nations with distinct personalities.

The TRUTH is, both groups need each other, to balance their own worst excesses. The 'adventurers' have to be respectful and patient with the traditionalists, and they in turn must stop fearing and tolerate some of the imperfections in their fellow man.


Its just my theory, anyway. Thanks for listening, and carry on...

whatthehell:
Hello Nairaland community!

I signed up here specifically to respond to this post, and I hope you don't mind my 'wedding-crasher' approach...This topic has interested me for awhile, and I've given it much thought. I'm familiar with the usual explanations involving exploitation, colonization, that Africans are too 'religious' and superstitious, etc, but none of them has really explained how these things would have prevented them from developing. Many other places in the world have been exploited, colonized, and are 'strong faith' cultures that have responded to modernization. Sure, a few have not, but they are scattered about...only in Africa, and in particular sub-Saharan Africa, are they so prevalent. If you look at a world map, it would almost appear as if the sub-Saharan region was a kind of 'homeland' for traditions and values we often think of as 'backwards'...which I found very, very interesting, and I'm forming a theory...

This is where most believe the human species began. DNA from the Khoisan people show it them to be the closest to those original ancestors of us all. This is your 'ground zero' for the human race.
We also know that in those early times, there were several great migrations out of Africa, and into Asia, the ME and Europe. One theory is that climate change forced them out...yeah maybe, but I don't think that explains it. For one thing, if things were THAT bad, then why didn't they all leave? Why would so many have remained? Did climate change and famine only effect a few? While bad weather may have been A factor, it wasn't THE factor. The point is that a big chunk of the existing human population apparently decided to pack up and leave, in several massive waves...

But forget about WHY they left. Instead think about the KIND OF PEOPLE who would have done this. To pack up your shit, abandon your home, and head off into the unknown takes a certain kind of personality. Not everyone will do this, regardless of how bad things are. It takes a bold person, someone with a degree of courage (or recklessness..), it takes someone who is willing to gamble. Someone with a higher tolerance for change, someone who can think outside of the box. Someone who is WILLING to discard the old and adopt the new. If you don't have these characteristics, you would probably not be joining that exodus...you'll stay home, where it's safer. You might even breathe a sigh of relief because now all of your 'problem children' have gone...the loudmouths, the irresponsible fun-seekers, the ones who always want to change things, the questioners, the ones who don't respect the old ways, etc...good riddance, you might think. But this is where your innovation comes from...

What this did was to split the human race into two groups, the ones who left, and the ones who stayed, with each group now taking on a specific 'personality'. The ones who remain are likely to be conservative, traditionalist thinkers, not open to big changes, preferring stability and custom. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you have a few folks who will 'pull' the rest along as needed.
But all of THOSE folks left. They took off, to Asia, the ME, and up into Europe. And these are the places we start seeing human civilization establishing...a particularly aggressive form of civilization that would ultimately morph into today's Western World. Each successive wave of migration would have been a further 'brain drain' from the African groups. Not necessarily a drain on talent, but a drain on the types of people willing to put those talents to use or question the status quo.

2 extremes out of one homogenous whole. This created a cultural bottleneck for both groups. Before any balance could be restored, both groups had laid the foundations for the types of societies they would become. In the regions they settled they built cities, and empires, and trade networks. And in their zeal they exploited and enslaved those who wouldn't or couldn't keep up. It's as if this culture got a cocktail of steroids and methamphetamine...
But the culture that remained got a different cocktail, Xanax and Ambien, and they're still nodding off there in sub-Saharan Africa. Individuals WITHIN these cultures can and do try to balance things, but the cultural structure is STRONG. So you see Westerners defending the worst excesses of their cultures, and traditionalist African cultures doing the same for theirs...and in BOTH cultures the reasonable folks are left to scratch their heads and go, "Wtf?"

It has nothing to do with race, or religion, or culture...it is ALL about the MINDSET. Are you an adventurist, or a traditionalist? The only reason these 'backwards' societies are in Africa is because that's where the original group WAS. It is unfortunate that the racial characteristics of this group get all the attention when they had nothing to do with it. At the time of the splits, BOTH were the same 'race'. The refining into distinct physical 'types' occurred later. The 'backwards' African nations took on the personality of the majority of their people, those ones that stayed, and they mistrust and fear 'innovations' coming into their world from the outside. They are not likely to tolerate any new ideas coming from 'in-house' either.
Western culture too is an extreme...too many innovators and disrupters and rule-breakers, and disdain for tradition and the past. That's because those nations were formed by all the malcontents who had left. Each group would have had enhanced cultural 'founder effects' seen in the societies they went on to create...An example of a similar phenomenon in our own time are nations like America and Australia, both largely founded by marginal groups from elsewhere, who went on to create nations with distinct personalities.

The TRUTH is, both groups need each other, to balance their own worst excesses. The 'adventurers' have to be respectful and patient with the traditionalists, and they in turn must stop fearing and tolerate some of the imperfections in their fellow man.


Its just my theory, anyway. Thanks for listening, and carry on...

Thanks for your fertile imagination.

OLAADEGBU:
9 February 2014 ·
THE BITTER TRUTH

Interviewer: Why is the Negro so behind economically?

Ashkenazi Jew: Not only does the Negro have the slowest wit, he does not practice group economics.

The only aspect of economics the Negro understands is consumption.

He doesn't understand the importance of building wealth.

The fundamental rule is to keep your money within your racial group.

We build business Jewish, hire Jewish, spend Jewish and buy Jewish.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But it's a basic rule that the Negro cannot comprehend and follow.

He kills his fellow Negro daily over crack cocaine and heroin or for the sake of ''keeping it real'' instead of wanting to see his fellow Negro do well.

93% of blacks killed in America are by other blacks.

Statistics show that, the Jew's money exchanges hands 18 times before leaving his community.

The Negro's is probably a maximum of once.

Only 6% of his money goes back into his community.

That's how Jews are at the top and they are at the bottom rung of every ladder of every society.

1 in 104 Negroes build businesses in America and there is an inverse correlation with the percentage of the prison population being at 51%, despite only being 13% of the aggregate American population.

Interviewer: The Negro's buying power in America is $1,000,100,000,000.00 trillion dollars. $100 billion dollars more than the entire GDP of Africa ($1 trillion dollars) and it's set to rise to $1,700,000,000,000.00 trillion dollars by 2017 according to an analysis from economic experts. But what could the Negro do with $1,000,100,000,000.00 trillion dollars a year?

Ashkenazi Jew: Negroes of the American diaspora?

Interviewer: Yes

Ashkenazi Jew: Well, Instead of buying Louis Vuitton, Hermes and Cristal
(Corporations that could influence politics at his own expense and are also not big fans of him).

He could industrialise the whole of Africa, build national banks, rid of majority of colonial banks and institutions on his continent by putting them out of business.

This will make room for economic growth in Africa.
He could hold onto more of his resources whilst actually selling them at market rates, without the requirement to sell the rights.

He could reduce poverty substantially, become self-reliant and not rely on the aid of the European.

He could build a nuclear arsenal for a united Africa, invest in infrastructure, educational institutions, scientific research and technological innovations for his benefit.

With $1,000,100,000,000.00 trillion dollars, the Negro could rapidly catalyse Africa's ascent to becoming a world power.

Interviewer: What are your thoughts on the Negro's remarkable failures after 150 years?

Ashkenazi Jew: Well, nothing is ever the Negro's fault.

His compulsive habit of killing his own, his compulsive material consumption.

His inabilities to build businesses and preserve wealth are usually somebody else's fault.

Interviewer: What can the Negro do to liberate himself from his economic plight?

Ashkenazi Jew: The Negro must take responsibility.

The Negro must unite.

He must build businesses; he must invest in his own institutions and infrastructure.

He must keep money in his community and he must learn to control his own means of production.

Interviewer: Thank you for your time.

Ashkenazi Jew: my pleasure

Submited by Jarrad Abdalla

Is the black man wiser now?