Omarbah:
Going back to the main topic itself, as an outside observer who have been "studying" Nigeria for a while and have spoken to mainly fulanis there, the northwest seems to be a more or less homogeneous with everyone speaking Hausa. Fulanis who live there for generations may identify as such but they only speak Hausa. The term Hausa-Fulani truly gains significance there because the local culture is the result of contribution from multiple groups mostly Hausa and Fulani with the dominant language being Hausa. In that sense, it isn't too different from the French culture today being a product of Gaulish (Gallic), Roman, and Germanic influence. If one is looking for "purer" Fulani, the northeast is the best region to search in. The stereotypical look of the Pullo is that he is lighter, has finer features. I could probably pick a Fulani from a crowd of Yoruba and Igbos even if they were light but I can't from a crowd of Hausa simply because they probably have a parent or grandparent from one of the two groups.
As for the Emirate issue in Kano, I gather that it's mainly in internal issue with the Bayeros trying to get back to Sanusi but I could be wrong.

Ethnicity is a social construct so despite the cohesion they have in the northwest, it'd be wise to not play that card. Ethnic sentiment can lay dormant for decades and then rise just out of a feeling of being threatened. Hausa and Fulani are probably the most connected groups in west Africa. This Kano Emirate business should be handled in the most quiet and diplomatic manner as to not satisfy those seeking to divide them.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity. Truth is these people have been trying to instigate Hausas against Fulanis and vice versa. For them it's wishful thinking. The reality is as someone who has lived in the north west all my life I don't see any possibility of an ethnic feud between Hausas and Fulanis. It's really amazing how deep our connection is. It's almost as implausible as a white American going at another white american because he's Italian and the other is German. Culture is the most important think as far as social constructs are concerned and in that regard we've been able to create something special here that a lot of African ethnicities can learn from.

As far as what's going on in Kano it's nothing but political. The governor feels the emir worked against him and he's punishing him. Rather than banishing him which I feel would be much better he's trying to ruin the heritage of Kano. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. The new emir's aren't even Hausa so why should Hausa be happy or aggrieved because of this new development? Like i said, the Hausa / Fulani divide is something they've been trying to instigate for a while because they feel the north will be weaker because of it. Trust me, it's an exercise in futility.

JikanBaura:
But OP where do you heard this rumours from, it's either its a rumour that only prevail in you region or you just want to start a properganda. It's even unimaginable for our people to even think of such disagreement in Kano, it wouldn't even comes to mind.

But why do you think Hausa are Happy and Fulani arent happy? Is the one who decided the emirate Hausa? Or Are the new Emirs Hausa?

Lol ka kyale mutanen nan. Burin su su ga hausawa da Fulani na gaba. Zasu bushe suna jira.

KarnThornheart:

As far as what's going on in Kano it's nothing but political. The governor feels the emir worked against him and he's punishing him. Rather than banishing him which I feel would be much better he's trying to ruin the heritage of Kano. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. The new emir's aren't even Hausa so why should Hausa be happy or aggrieved because of this new development? Like i said, the Hausa / Fulani divide is something they've been trying to instigate for a while because they feel the north will be weaker because of it. Trust me, it's an exercise in futility.

Well I hope they find a satisfying resolution to the "crisis" which will very difficult at this point since the Governor has gone ahead with his threat to install other emirs.

Omarbah:


Well I hope they find a satisfying resolution to the "crisis" which will very difficult at this point since the Governor has gone ahead with his threat to install other emirs.

The best part about it is another governor can come in at any time and undo this despicable evil. This clown shouldn't even be governor to begin with, he rigged himself into office.

KarnThornheart:

This is a very ignorant statement. Is there any culture in this world that hasnt been influenced by the cultures of those around them especially for cultures that have been in constant contact for a thousand years? To call islam a colonizing presence is also ridiculous. Islam was invited by hausas into hausaland to begin with, go and read on Ali yaji dan tsamiya. It was muhammad rumfa who invited al maghili to hausa land to help set up an administrative system. If you read the kano chronicles, this is the trend among hausa kings, no one forced anything on them. To call islam a colonizing presence is just willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.


So tell me is there anywhere in persia where durbar is celebrated exclusively during eid or is that unique to hausa land? Sultan and emir are just mainstream words, when we speak in hausa we call them "sarki".


NOo, you have it entirely wrong. I'm just saying the dynamics is not what you think. Its not a situation where one ethnic group envies the other or intentionally tries to put them down. Certain things already determined these dynamics to begin with and its certainly not based on ethnicity, like i told you, especially in the north west these ethnic groups dont differentiate between each other. How does dan tata a hausa man become one of the richest west africans and dangote his grand son become the richest black man alive under so called "fulani opression"? How does isyaka rabiu a hausa cleric become revered and wealthy and his son, Abdulsamad Rabiu a hausa man become worth according to forbes over $1bn under so called opression? The fact that families with fula ancestry got educated first in the north because they were in a better position to do so is the reason for this misconception you lot have. Not to brag but i think my dad was well to do, he got to where he got to because he got educated. No one ever tried to hold him down based on his ethnicity. Theres not one benefit a kanoan would enjoy that was denied to him because of it. What you REALLY need to understand is what i told you earlier, In the north west, state identity is way ahead of ethnic identity because these ethnic lines are too blurry.

I attached an excerpt from the kano chronicles for you. This is about Muhammad Kisoki, grand son of Muhammad rumfa. Two of the greatest kings kano has ever seen, Under kisokis watch kano became an empire. Maybe reading the highlighted part will help you understand some of the dynamics of kano. Mind you, madaki (h)auwa is the daughter of askiya the great of the songhai empire who was rumfas wife after the songhais incorporated kano into their empire. Of course Muhammad Kotal kanta of kebbi defeated the songhais soon after but auwas influence still grew. Point is, this woman is songhai and so is her brother and they have "hausa" descendants in kano.

So tell me is there anywhere in persia where durbar is celebrated exclusively during eid or is that unique to hausa land? Sultan and emir are just mainstream words, when we speak in hausa we call them "sarki".

So I think you're having the argument you want to have as opposed to the debate that's currently on the table. I'm saying that a lot of what's called 'hausa/northern/fulani' culture is Islam - which isn't African. If we can't admit celebrating anything during 'eid' is an arabic concept, I don't know if we can move that much further in this conversation. That should be a fundamental understanding we both share. If it told you that it's 'igbo tradition' to go home during Christmas I would be a very ridiculous person. But again, there's a difference between 1000 years of cultural colonization and 200. You also have quotes of things I never said which is very bizarre so I hope you're not trolling because I'll answer you respectfully.

Islam was often invited into the Sahel through trade. Given that the primary trade which brought it in was slavery, and it was usually adapted by the ruling class first, I don't see a difference between it and the spread of Christianity through the same route. And I wouldn't dare call Christianity anything but a colonial religion and product of cultural conquest, as was Islam. Islam spread through the Sahel with the sack of Ghana. It spread beyond the ruling, merchant and noble classes of the urbanite people in the Hausa states with the conquest of the states by Dan Fodio.

Almost all of the christians in the south converted willingly. There are no reports of forced conversion. Churches are invited into villages and towns. But again, I'm not going to call Christianity 'African Culture'

Omarbah:

I saw the post on whipping you are referring and vividly remember the comments on it. Though I don't fully agree with them, I believe it is important to understand why they reacted the way they did.
I'd like to start by stating that culture is not static and is shaped by geography and climate. The most culturally "pure" people on earth are generally the most backward ones. Technologically speaking that it is. One of the reasons that allowed our colonization was precisely our isolation from the rest of world which was possible by the lack on harbors on our coast that support trade with the outside world. The Chinese, a great civilization were dominated by the UK, a country with a fraction of its population because of the self-imposed isolation of the Qing dynasty had kept them from the benefits of the industrial revolution. So to bring up these customs that Fulanis used to follow in majority as proof that they have gone astray only proves that at some point in their history, they made a decision to rid themselves of elements of their culture that they believe wouldn't help them get ahead. There are Fulani herdsmen who will tell you a Pullo (Fula) who doesn't own cows isn't a true Pullo because that's what they believe. They have a mindset frozen in a past. Without contacts with other groups and having the courage to question themselves, the vast majority of Fulanis in west Africa would still be herdsmen, they'd be subject to derision, they'd be disenfranchised as Bororo fulanis are in Cameroon. By "this is not our culture, please take it down", those Fulanis were simply saying that what they have been brought up to believe is the Fulani way (Pulaaku) is contrary to what they were seeing on that video. Therefore, you can say that Islam has changed the culture of ethnic groups in West Africa but it has not replaced it. Not only have Africans africanized the arab sounding names (Momodu, Mamadou, Amadou instead of Muhammad, Ahmed) but they continue to speak , promote their language, maintain cultural traditions as long as they do NOT go against Islam. Traditional Fulani weddings, baby naming ceremonies, graduation ceremonies are completely different from Arab ones. Furthermore, most Fulanis in the western part of our region (Senegal, Guinea, Mali, Sierra Leone, Gambia) have a middle name that is purely Fula (Sadio, Chernor, Julde, Bailo) , they have kept their last name and have a Fula equivalent for most Arab sounding names they chose. I've found some interesting purely fulani names in northern Nigeria like Barkindo which means blessed, Gidado (The loved one), Bodéjo (Red) etc. To the uninformed, these are foreign to the continent but you can't get more Fulani than that.

What I find alarming though, is the arabisation of Africans in some regions. That comment you made about a father getting angry with his daughter because she does not speak arabic is telling about a growing number of families. It's mainly due to wahhabi Islam that seeks to make Bedouin Arabs out of anyone they contact whether African, Pakistani, other Arabs that they persecuted, Indonesian. Wahhabism should be combated but should not be confused with the Islam that west African have been practicing for centuries. Wahhabism is as dangerous to our continent as Evangelical Christians who exploit the naiveté our people are.

Your post is built on two misconceptions.
The first is that I'm talking about cultural purity.
The second is your inaccurate perception of 'isolation' among pre-colonial africans.


So I'm not saying that the north 'should be' pure, I'm saying that a lot of what is called 'northern culture' is 'islam', which isn't from northern nigeria or africa. Since islam has been there for thousands of years, the level of islamization extremely deep and african elements are either rare or islamized to an extent. So again, I'm not posting to make a suggestion about how the North should be. I'm saying that it is.

To your second point. By the time the British took over Southern Nigeria, there had been 600 years of continuous trade and communication with europeans. Cities throughout the south are also home to many from Mali, Songhai, Fulani etc. Many leaders in the south had libraries of books from around the world. Then there's the North where leaders had been making regular trips to the middle east and communicating with europeans for no less that 1000 years. I strongly disagree with the notion of an isolated west africa and all historic evidence shows it.

Nonetheless they were conquered. Not because of isolation but because the invention of the maxim machine gun. A lot africans will attribute colonization to one thing or another for the sake of making sense of the situation but it truly was simple. The British developed a machine gun and from there they could finally move in. Attempts to colonize prior led to 50-100 year stalemates throughout the region (Ashante wars etc). Once the machine gun was in play, the scale lost balance. The middle east is the center of the worlds 3 most dominant religions and a geographical connector of 3 continents, but it was conquered as well, so it's not an isolation thing.

I understand the point your trying to make. With time cultures change and adapt things from other places. that's fine, but again my only point in this discussion is that a lot of what is called 'hausa culture' is islam. You have admitted that there was heavy adaptation and the adaptation is a natural part of cultural development and I agree with that. It only serves to re-enforce the point of this discussion: what we're calling 'hausa/fulani' culture is islam.

When actual Fulani culture (the whipping for example) and actual Hausa culture appear, the Fulanis and Hausas that have been taught Islam is 'african culture' find themselves confused.

on my ex-girlfriend. Yes I found the situation very strange but in the south many of the things we think are 'our culture' are also foreign imports. But someone people will insult you for not abiding by that foreign version of your culture. I didn't know that it was a product of Wahhabi influence. I asked her to ask him what their language was before Islam and he said a word she had never heard before which I thought was profoundly telling.

Their region had been muslim for so long that I simply thought he was convinced nothing came before it. I think both islam and Christianity are doing a lot of damage in Africa. I know it's hard for muslims to hear but it's the truth, we're not seeing net positives from either and the level of confusion, exploitation and violence is only growing.

As much as we think they're 'civilizing' forces, they're not. Unless we thinking we have reached a level of social, economic, scientific, or political development that Japan hasn't. Europe only rose once it starting thinking outside of Christianity, and if not for oil the middle east would be a pile of sand.

KarnThornheart:


This has nothing to do with ethnicity. Truth is these people have been trying to instigate Hausas against Fulanis and vice versa. For them it's wishful thinking. The reality is as someone who has lived in the north west all my life I don't see any possibility of an ethnic feud between Hausas and Fulanis. It's really amazing how deep our connection is. It's almost as implausible as a white American going at another white american because he's Italian and the other is German. Culture is the most important think as far as social constructs are concerned and in that regard we've been able to create something special here that a lot of African ethnicities can learn from.

As far as what's going on in Kano it's nothing but political. The governor feels the emir worked against him and he's punishing him. Rather than banishing him which I feel would be much better he's trying to ruin the heritage of Kano. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. The new emir's aren't even Hausa so why should Hausa be happy or aggrieved because of this new development? Like i said, the Hausa / Fulani divide is something they've been trying to instigate for a while because they feel the north will be weaker because of it. Trust me, it's an exercise in futility.

Everyone is already very aware of the armed conflicts between pastoral hausas and nomadic fulani in the north, I don't think my Nairaland post about islam not being from Africa is going to change that. I think your posts a very aggressive and this probably isn't the discussion for someone with your temperament.

I wanted to get an hausa view on things because 9/10 times when an opinion is given from the North it's from a Fulani person. You feeling threatened by me asking is odd but telling.

OruExpress:


Everyone is already very aware of the armed conflicts between pastoral hausas and nomadic fulani in the north, I don't think my Nairaland post about islam not being from Africa is going to change that. I think your posts a very aggressive and this probably isn't the discussion for someone with your temperament.

I wanted to get an hausa view on things because 9/10 times when an opinion is given from the North it's from a Fulani person. You feeling threatened by me asking is odd but telling.

That's the thing. You lot think you are aware but you don't know squat. There's no such thing as armed conflict between Hausa farmers and Fulani pastoralists. Fulanis aren't singling out Hausa farmers or that of any ethnicity to feud. Who told you there aren't Fulani farmers? I personally know Fulani farmers that have been affected by this feud. The feud isn't about ethnicity. It's about farmers vs herdsmen. As matter of fact it's been a while since I've heard of such conflicts in traditional Hausa / Fulani areas. Part of the issue is certain people, middle beltans especially have fallen for this fulani genocide propaganda. So the seed of hatred and distrust has already been planted. A lot of the time it's they who strike first. But you won't read that in the news.

LOL I don't feel threatened. If anything I find the whole idea very funny.

OruExpress:
on my ex-girlfriend. Yes I found the situation very strange but in the south many of the things we think are 'our culture' are also foreign imports. But someone people will insult you for not abiding by that foreign version of your culture. I didn't know that it was a product of Wahhabi influence. I asked her to ask him what their language was before Islam and he said a word she had never heard before which I thought was profoundly telling.

Their region had been muslim for so long that I simply thought he was convinced nothing came before it. I think both islam and Christianity are doing a lot of damage in Africa. I know it's hard for muslims to hear but it's the truth, we're not seeing net positives from either and the level of confusion, exploitation and violence is only growing.

As much as we think they're 'civilizing' forces, they're not. Unless we thinking we have reached a level of social, economic, scientific, or political development that Japan hasn't. Europe only rose once it starting thinking outside of Christianity, and if not for oil the middle east would be a pile of sand.

I wonder what ethnicity this girl is because even in most Sahellian countries very few ethnicities consistently speak Arabic so how do you equate that with your culture? Her father must be very ignorant. If she's sudanian then I may understand but there is no Sahelian country that speaks Arabic as a first or second language.

The impact of Islam/Christianity is another thing entirely. There are successful Islamic countries and very successful Christian countries. You can't apply such simple thinking to the complex issues that plague this continent. Your religious creed may be a problem, but religion is definitely not THE problem. Nigeria has oil, what have we done with it ?

OruExpress:




So I think you're having the argument you want to have as opposed to the debate that's currently on the table. I'm saying that a lot of what's called 'hausa/northern/fulani' culture is Islam - which isn't African. If we can't admit celebrating anything during 'eid' is an arabic concept, I don't know if we can move that much further in this conversation. That should be a fundamental understanding we both share. If it told you that it's 'igbo tradition' to go home during Christmas I would be a very ridiculous person. But again, there's a difference between 1000 years of cultural colonization and 200. You also have quotes of things I never said which is very bizarre so I hope you're not trolling because I'll answer you respectfully.

Islam was often invited into the Sahel through trade. Given that the primary trade which brought it in was slavery, and it was usually adapted by the ruling class first, I don't see a difference between it and the spread of Christianity through the same route. And I wouldn't dare call Christianity anything but a colonial religion and product of cultural conquest, as was Islam. Islam spread through the Sahel with the sack of Ghana. It spread beyond the ruling, merchant and noble classes of the urbanite people in the Hausa states with the conquest of the states by Dan Fodio.

Almost all of the christians in the south converted willingly. There are no reports of forced conversion. Churches are invited into villages and towns. But again, I'm not going to call Christianity 'African Culture'

Just because you find elements that are Islamic doesn't mean it's true for the whole culture. It's called paradox of composition. Let me explain somethings to you.

A Hausa wedding for instance. Of course we do what's mandatory islamically but then things like.

Kayan tambaya.

Kayan lefe. Which is clothes jewellery cosmetics and other things you prepare for the wife.

The husband will provide the house but the bride's family will furnish it.

Then there's events like Kamu, budan kai etc

These are exclusive to Hausa culture which you won't find anywhere in the world. It varies from state to state too. Is this Islamic?

Celebrating Eid is Islamic but is durbar Persian or Arabic or Islamic? Is there anywhere in Islam where durbar is required during Eid or is this unique to Hausa states? That's culture.

I told you, we do what is mandated by Islam, we cut out what is forbidden. But everything else that exists in between is still very much intact. If you lived here and understood how the fabric of our society is and if you actually went to an Arab country and compared it you'd find that it's very different.

OruExpress:
on my ex-girlfriend. Yes I found the situation very strange but in the south many of the things we think are 'our culture' are also foreign imports. But someone people will insult you for not abiding by that foreign version of your culture. I didn't know that it was a product of Wahhabi influence. I asked her to ask him what their language was before Islam and he said a word she had never heard before which I thought was profoundly telling.

Their region had been muslim for so long that I simply thought he was convinced nothing came before it. I think both islam and Christianity are doing a lot of damage in Africa. I know it's hard for muslims to hear but it's the truth, we're not seeing net positives from either and the level of confusion, exploitation and violence is only growing.

As much as we think they're 'civilizing' forces, they're not. Unless we thinking we have reached a level of social, economic, scientific, or political development that Japan hasn't. Europe only rose once it starting thinking outside of Christianity, and if not for oil the middle east would be a pile of sand.

Well from my encounters with Northern Nigerians, I have seen aspect of their culture inherent to their area. They do use the terms Emirs and Sultans but they also use "Lamido" which means King in Fulfulde and the turbans that I see their Emirs wear are unique to them. I have also heard the term Sarkin or Sardauna for traditional rulers. Their music is unique and they are deeply attached to their language. As I mentioned in a previous, even their names are true African names despite the combination with Arab ones. So I wouldn't say that what is called northern culture is mostly Islamic rather, their livelihood has a lot of Islamic influence to it as they have sincerely embraced the religion.
As for the influence of Islam and Christianity, I don't believe that either religion is in of itself bad for us. I believe they are tools that can be used to our benefit or detriment. Fulanis have had a positive influence from it I'd say. Before Islam, most of them were herdsmen. They embraced the religion and progressively became a sedentary people organizing themselves around a state with institutions and laws. Islam become a bad influence when you let foreign groups interpret the religion for us and impose us their point of view. The Islam we practiced in Africa ( North and West) all the way to the Iberian peninsula is of the Maliki School of thought which tolerates local cultures so long as they aren't explit ( lax sex rules for example). But since the early 1980s after the Islamic revolution in Iran, Saudi Arabia has been pushing its own version of Islam, Wahhabism which is very fairly recent (18th century). They exploit the poverty on the continent to setup, fund madrasas (schools) and provide scholarships for people to study theology in their country. All of these so called terrorist groups from BH to Al Shabab to ISIS and Al Qaeda are wahhabi. So to conclude, I'd say yes to Islam but African should be the ones interpreting the books and practicing the religion from their point of view.

Now going back to colonialism, 600 years of contact is relatively short in human history specially when you consider the level of contact and the regions. It was fairly limited to the coast. Japan had had trade links with the outside world too but nevertheless due to the limited nature of those contacts, they were left out of the first wave of industrialization. They had to open up to the outside world by sending their own people to study overseas in droves, which we didn't do as far as I know, modernize their political and economic systems to avoid being colonized (we also didn't do that). Africans were mostly ignorant of whites while they were studying us, gathering information before striking us. Granted the geographical location of Japan offers them benefits, they still manage to stay free. Ethiopia managed to stay free by more or less modernizing itself just enough to keep foreigners out.

I will tell you that there are elements of anglo-saxon culture that I'd love for Fulanis to embrace like their work ethic, their innovative spirit, their risk taking nature, a stronger emphasis on production rather than trade (Dangote is an example of someone who succeeded that transition) . I wouldn't want Fulani culture half a century from now to be the same. It has to evolve with the rest of world .

OruExpress:


Everyone is already very aware of the armed conflicts between pastoral hausas and nomadic fulani in the north, I don't think my Nairaland post about islam not being from Africa is going to change that. I think your posts a very aggressive and this probably isn't the discussion for someone with your temperament.

I wanted to get an hausa view on things because 9/10 times when an opinion is given from the North it's from a Fulani person. You feeling threatened by me asking is odd but telling.

It's a feud about land resources not about ethnicity. Have you ever heard of the range wars in the American west in the late 19th and early 20th century? You should look it up. None of the problems that Nigeria and African countries in general are going through are specific to us. It took an act of Congress in 1934 to provide millions of hectares of land for grazing cattle. African countries can do the same. Creating and maintain grazing reserves, have people apply for a permit , use the proceeds to build an irrigation system to maintain it all year round and the problem is solved.

Omarbah:

Well from my encounters with Northern Nigerians, I have seen aspect of their culture inherent to their area. They do use the terms Emirs and Sultans but they also use "Lamido" which means King in Fulfulde and the turbans that I see their Emirs wear are unique to them. I have also heard the term Sarkin or Sardauna for traditional rulers. Their music is unique and they are deeply attached to their language. As I mentioned in a previous, even their names are true African names despite the combination with Arab ones. So I wouldn't say that what is called northern culture is mostly Islamic rather, their livelihood has a lot of Islamic influence to it as they have sincerely embraced the religion.
As for the influence of Islam and Christianity, I don't believe that either religion is in of itself bad for us. I believe they are tools that can be used to our benefit or detriment. Fulanis have had a positive influence from it I'd say. Before Islam, most of them were herdsmen. They embraced the religion and progressively became a sedentary people organizing themselves around a state with institutions and laws. Islam become a bad influence when you let foreign groups interpret the religion for us and impose us their point of view. The Islam we practiced in Africa ( North and West) all the way to the Iberian peninsula is of the Maliki School of thought which tolerates local cultures so long as they aren't explit ( lax sex rules for example). But since the early 1980s after the Islamic revolution in Iran, Saudi Arabia has been pushing its own version of Islam, Wahhabism which is very fairly recent (18th century). They exploit the poverty on the continent to setup, fund madrasas (schools) and provide scholarships for people to study theology in their country. All of these so called terrorist groups from BH to Al Shabab to ISIS and Al Qaeda are wahhabi. So to conclude, I'd say yes to Islam but African should be the ones interpreting the books and practicing the religion from their point of view.

Now going back to colonialism, 600 years of contact is relatively short in human history specially when you consider the level of contact and the regions. It was fairly limited to the coast. Japan had had trade links with the outside world too but nevertheless due to the limited nature of those contacts, they were left out of the first wave of industrialization. They had to open up to the outside world by sending their own people to study overseas in droves, which we didn't do as far as I know, modernize their political and economic systems to avoid being colonized (we also didn't do that). Africans were mostly ignorant of whites while they were studying us, gathering information before striking us. Granted the geographical location of Japan offers them benefits, they still manage to stay free. Ethiopia managed to stay free by more or less modernizing itself just enough to keep foreigners out.

I will tell you that there are elements of anglo-saxon culture that I'd love for Fulanis to embrace like their work ethic, their innovative spirit, their risk taking nature, a stronger emphasis on production rather than trade (Dangote is an example of someone who succeeded that transition) . I wouldn't want Fulani culture half a century from now to be the same. It has to evolve with the rest of world .

Very good point. No point retaining something counter productive just because it's yours.

Omarbah:

It's a feud about land resources not about ethnicity. Have you ever heard of the range wars in the American west in the late 19th and early 20th century? You should look it up. None of the problems that Nigeria and African countries in general are going through are specific to us. It took an act of Congress in 1934 to provide millions of hectares of land for grazing cattle. African countries can do the same. Creating and maintain grazing reserves, have people apply for a permit , use the proceeds to build an irrigation system to maintain it all year round and the problem is solved.

yes and no. The US government signed an act to counter their disorganized homestead act. The homestead act said that any white male can have any land they wanted if they could put a fence around it. This caused conflict with the ranchers that were already in the area or dependent on the land.

But the US government was never in the business of 'creating and maintain(ing) grazing reserves lol. The ranchers had to buy the land they wanted to use because it was a private business. This 'you should give us free land and build ranches for us so we'll stop killing people' is peak ignorance.

Omarbah:

Well from my encounters with Northern Nigerians, I have seen aspect of their culture inherent to their area. They do use the terms Emirs and Sultans but they also use "Lamido" which means King in Fulfulde and the turbans that I see their Emirs wear are unique to them. I have also heard the term Sarkin or Sardauna for traditional rulers. Their music is unique and they are deeply attached to their language. As I mentioned in a previous, even their names are true African names despite the combination with Arab ones. So I wouldn't say that what is called northern culture is mostly Islamic rather, their livelihood has a lot of Islamic influence to it as they have sincerely embraced the religion.
As for the influence of Islam and Christianity, I don't believe that either religion is in of itself bad for us. I believe they are tools that can be used to our benefit or detriment. Fulanis have had a positive influence from it I'd say. Before Islam, most of them were herdsmen. They embraced the religion and progressively became a sedentary people organizing themselves around a state with institutions and laws. Islam become a bad influence when you let foreign groups interpret the religion for us and impose us their point of view. The Islam we practiced in Africa ( North and West) all the way to the Iberian peninsula is of the Maliki School of thought which tolerates local cultures so long as they aren't explit ( lax sex rules for example). But since the early 1980s after the Islamic revolution in Iran, Saudi Arabia has been pushing its own version of Islam, Wahhabism which is very fairly recent (18th century). They exploit the poverty on the continent to setup, fund madrasas (schools) and provide scholarships for people to study theology in their country. All of these so called terrorist groups from BH to Al Shabab to ISIS and Al Qaeda are wahhabi. So to conclude, I'd say yes to Islam but African should be the ones interpreting the books and practicing the religion from their point of view.

Now going back to colonialism, 600 years of contact is relatively short in human history specially when you consider the level of contact and the regions. It was fairly limited to the coast. Japan had had trade links with the outside world too but nevertheless due to the limited nature of those contacts, they were left out of the first wave of industrialization. They had to open up to the outside world by sending their own people to study overseas in droves, which we didn't do as far as I know, modernize their political and economic systems to avoid being colonized (we also didn't do that). Africans were mostly ignorant of whites while they were studying us, gathering information before striking us. Granted the geographical location of Japan offers them benefits, they still manage to stay free. Ethiopia managed to stay free by more or less modernizing itself just enough to keep foreigners out.

I will tell you that there are elements of anglo-saxon culture that I'd love for Fulanis to embrace like their work ethic, their innovative spirit, their risk taking nature, a stronger emphasis on production rather than trade (Dangote is an example of someone who succeeded that transition) . I wouldn't want Fulani culture half a century from now to be the same. It has to evolve with the rest of world .

A few things I wanted to address in this post. I think the 'Maliki school was peaceful' trope is a myth. It still facilitated and perpetuated a multi-generation slave selling network predicated on castration among other things. There's nothing that's happening in today's Northern Nigeria that historic evidence doesn't say was always happening. It was spread by and launched violent jihad. There were probably benefits in comparison to what's happening now as countries with the older versions of islam (like senegal) are consistently in a better place socially and politically than wahabist ones (northern nigeria).

I don't believe wahabist islam is less islamic than any other school. I also think the end destiny of all islamic societies is to become stricter with time. My reason for this is islam is unique for giving social status and social authority to someone based on piety or the fact that they're exemplary muslims. Even in the dark ages, a persons status wasn't determined by how good they were at being christian or jewish. This is a muslim trait. The end result is society will always be a race of people trying to 'prove' they're 'more muslim' than the next man. Some will take this race further than others until you have what you had today. wahabist islam thrives because it allows it's followers to 'prove' they're more muslim than those that don't follow it. That also makes it hard to argue against but people that are moderate (bad muslims).

There are also things about the colonization of Japan and Ethiopia that we're not told. Europeans made one attempt at colonizing ethiopia and failed. If there was one attempt made at the Zulu Ashante Bini Igbo Yoruba or Wolof, the same would be the case. The colonization of Africa took 200-300 hundred years of continuous aggression until the invention of the machine-gun. Ethiopia's unity also made it stronger even after the invention of the maxim gun, plus it's mountainous terrain and lastly the incompetence and inexperience of the Italians.

There was 0 attempts made on Japan. What would be the point in history where if things went another direction japan would be colonized? The Russo-Japanese war is the closest, then the US occupation from WWII til today which was successful despite modernization.

OruExpress:


yes and no. The US government signed an act to counter their disorganized homestead act. The homestead act said that any white male can have any land they wanted if they could put a fence around it. This caused conflict with the ranchers that were already in the area or dependent on the land.

But the US government was never in the business of 'creating and maintain(ing) grazing reserves lol. The ranchers had to buy the land they wanted to use because it was a private business. This 'you should give us free land and build ranches for us so we'll stop killing people' is peak ignorance.

Here is what a quick search on wiki yields "The law initially permitted 80,000,000 ac (32,000,000 ha) of previously unreserved public lands of the United States to be placed into grazing districts to be administered by the Department of the Interior."
Also "Surrounding land owners may be granted right of passage over these districts. Permits are given for grazing privileges in the districts. Also permits can be given to build fences, reservoirs, and other improvements. "

As far as I know people aren't buying the public lands , they have a permit to use it which is different. In my previous post, I did not suggest that government buy land and gives it to people for free, NO. Rather they should use PUBLIC LANDS, create (place under grazing districts if you prefer) grazing areas out of them and maintain them. Those reserves that the government will create here will be managed to have grass throughout the year. If cattle owners want to go above and beyond that and need a ranch, they should buy one or get a loan to purchase land using their cows as collateral. The federal government can set up a fund for that to encourage banks to do so. Anyone whose property will be seen roaming outside of those reserves will see their property confiscated, this will force them to get a ranch and at the same time have some space for their cows to graze on from time to time. The recently created radio can help educate herdsmen. It is one solution among many . But we should just sit around, continue to witness bloodshed, play ethnic or religious sentiment when the issue is that of land/resource management.

lastly, yes there's a lot of great things to take from other cultures and all cultures should be in the process of taking what works and shedding what doesn't.

But to say the Fulani didn't have institutions before islam is a bit much. I have done extensive research on my own culture before colonialism and what I learned genuinely blew my mind. I don't believe it was or would be different for the Fulani. I implore you to look into that. What we have isn't adaption. It's absorption based on inferiority complex...and that's the difference.

So today we don't have a situation where people are taking in what works elsewhere, and shedding what doesn't work in their own place. That's what we had prior to colonialism. What's happening now is the whole of africa feels so inferior to the outside world that we take in things just because they happen elsewhere, better or not. Sadly, it's the negative that's easy to mimic.

Today we are unique in humanity because we do things that are detached from our survival. In fact, survival and advancement are not our primary motivators, being like others is. This will all end eventually, but the beginning of the process is realizing what's yours and what isn't first, which is why I'm pretty passionate about topics like this.

OruExpress:


A few things I wanted to address in this post. I think the 'Maliki school was peaceful' trope is a myth. It still facilitated and perpetuated a multi-generation slave selling network predicated on castration among other things. There's nothing that's happening in today's Northern Nigeria that historic evidence doesn't say was always happening. It was spread by and launched violent jihad. There were probably benefits in comparison to what's happening now as countries with the older versions of islam (like senegal) are consistently in a better place socially and politically than wahabist ones (northern nigeria).

I don't believe wahabist islam is less islamic than any other school. I also think the end destiny of all islamic societies is to become stricter with time. My reason for this is islam is unique for giving social status and social authority to someone based on piety or the fact that they're exemplary muslims. Even in the dark ages, a persons status wasn't determined by how good they were at being christian or jewish. This is a muslim trait. The end result is society will always be a race of people trying to 'prove' they're 'more muslim' than the next man. Some will take this race further than others until you have what you had today. wahabist islam thrives because it allows it's followers to 'prove' they're more muslim than those that don't follow it. That also makes it hard to argue against but people that are moderate (bad muslims).

You are venturing on another field, moving from the influence of islam on culture to which version is more peaceful. There are no moderate or radical muslims. A Muslim is one who practices his religion the way Allah has commanded him or her to do so. He/She is either is practicing it correctly or not, in which case improvements have to be made. I won't go down this route with you but I'd like to point out that we do respect and elevate those among us who are pious. That doesn't mean they are granted power or wealth because of it. They are granted respect and trust which comes with social benefits. I do believe those are necessary to incentivize people to be pious.

As for slavery , didn't the pagan Kingdoms like Dahomey (Benin) practice it? Africans love to make it seem like our ancestral religions were so good and much better than what they call "imported" religious. Even westerners , who are the most technologically advanced people currently practice a religion that didn't originate from their land. They , however, adapted it and appropriated it to their benefit. The Pope isn't from Israel. He is from Europe . We only had one from South America. So let African Muslims practice their own version of Islam, appropriate to their benefit. We ain't going back to worshiping ancestors. Tell an Italian to practice the religion of Romans.

Omarbah:


Here is what a quick search on wiki yields "The law initially permitted 80,000,000 ac (32,000,000 ha) of previously unreserved public lands of the United States to be placed into grazing districts to be administered by the Department of the Interior."
Also "Surrounding land owners may be granted right of passage over these districts. Permits are given for grazing privileges in the districts. Also permits can be given to build fences, reservoirs, and other improvements. "

As far as I know people aren't buying the public lands , they have a permit to use it which is different. In my previous post, I did not suggest that government buy land and gives it to people for free, NO. Rather they should use PUBLIC LANDS, create (place under grazing districts if you prefer) grazing areas out of them and maintain them. Those reserves that the government will create here will be managed to have grass throughout the year. If cattle owners want to go above and beyond that and need a ranch, they should buy one or get a loan to purchase land using their cows as collateral. The federal government can set up a fund for that to encourage banks to do so. Anyone whose property will be seen roaming outside of those reserves will see their property confiscated, this will force them to get a ranch and at the same time have some space for their cows to graze on from time to time. The recently created radio can help educate herdsmen. It is one solution among many . But we should just sit around, continue to witness bloodshed, play ethnic or religious sentiment when the issue is that of land/resource management.

lol no, the ranchers were already there and owned that land. So they would have their cattle reserve and the cattle could roam beyond it. That 'beyond it' was the area in contention. So the Dept of Interior oversees the land outside of the ranches that are open for grazing and closed off to farming. It is no different than how the US government also allocations land for housing development but it's up to the private sector to build the houses on that land. What the fulani in nigeria are asking for is that the government build and maintain a house for them so they can stop killing people lol.


This is what I mean be absorption based on inferiority and ignorance. Without understanding what is happening in the US, the US or it's history we want to do something and the justification of it is 'well the americans did it'. There's nothing in America that an American will justify by saying 'well the Fulani did it' but here we are.

Ranching in the US was made possibly by massacring 25-50 million native americans. Not only is that nothing like the situation you have in Nigeria, the fact that it seems the Fulani want that to be the situation in Nigeria to other Nigerians is why the idea is steeped in parasitic ignorance and work be permitted in the least way. There are people in Nigeria that actually think the US government found empty land, and started building ranches for people.

A ranch, or cattle reserve as we ridiculously call it in Nigeria, isn't a patch of land, it's an entire ecosystem for maintaining and developing a crop of cattle. It's entirely a private venture. Land is unbelievably cheap in the north. Worst, emirs have the ability to allocate it. Yet here we are. Someone without the industry to buy land and maintain cattle on it does not have the industry, intelligence or strength of will to run a 'cattle reserve'.

This idea of taking from others via the government has not worked for the fulani or north in the past. I don't think the level of coordination and focus necessary to kill 25 million people then build something on top of their former lands exists and there's nothing to show me that it does. I think elements in the north want to play the role of taker but don't have the capacity of a builder. Outside of all conventional logic and market sense refinery after refinery has been opening in the north, but they've all failed. Someone that can't run an oil refinery in 2019 can't run a ranch.

prt 2

so again so it's clear. US ranchers build and own their land into ranches and the government permits them to roam outside of that land on public domain land. They acquire their land through public land leasing, which they go with a down payment upon approval and buy a piece of land. Over time they will pay off the cost of the land. The land its self is the former homes of native americans, and eliminating them took way more than what the Fulani have.

Omarbah:

You are venturing on another field, moving from the influence of islam on culture to which version is more peaceful. There are no moderate or radical muslims. A Muslim is one who practices his religion the way Allah has commanded him or her to do so. He/She is either is practicing it correctly or not, in which case improvements have to be made. I won't go down this route with you but I'd like to point out that we do respect and elevate those among us who are pious. That doesn't mean they are granted power or wealth because of it. They are granted respect and trust which comes with social benefits. I do believe those are necessary to incentivize people to be pious.

As for slavery , didn't the pagan Kingdoms like Dahomey (Benin) practice it? Africans love to make it seem like our ancestral religions were so good and much better than what they call "imported" religious. Even westerners , who are the most technologically advanced people currently practice a religion that didn't originate from their land. They , however, adapted it and appropriated it to their benefit. The Pope isn't from Israel. He is from Europe . We only had one from South America. So let African Muslims practice their own version of Islam, appropriate to their benefit. We ain't going back to worshiping ancestors. Tell an Italian to practice the religion of Romans.

It doesn't incentivize people to be pious but it does create a race where people try to prove they're more pious than the next man whether it's real or not. From bruising their own forehead to physical violence to others. I think we can both agree this is a part of muslim society worldwide and in africa in particular where a mix of inferiority complex makes it a notch worst.

lol, you said that islam improved society and was a civilizing force. If pagan dahomey and pagan muslims both practiced slavery then no, that's not an improvement, which is what my point. The west became the west be abandoning Christianity (Renaissance) and returning to Greek and Roman learning. There's nothing that's in Islam which builds a person and society that isn't in 'pagan' beliefs as well. A level of thought that surpasses both is now available to us. The difference between 'pagans' and Islam is that Islam forbids you to follow the superior method. That's why the north is where it's at.


I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. blindly going back to the past will leave you in the past. As will christianity and islam. The origin place of christianity and islam aren't why they don't predicate personal and social growth. It's what both doctrines preach. The Scientific Method (which is un-islamic and un-christian) is a foreign import from the West (greek and roman), and anyone rejecting in the name of sentimentalism about african's past is an enemy to themselves. You're assuming I'm saying that african culture will develop africa. I'm saying that what's being called african culture in the north is actually islam and when real african culture is exhibited there, the disparity is clear.

OruExpress:
lastly, yes there's a lot of great things to take from other cultures and all cultures should be in the process of taking what works and shedding what doesn't.

But to say the Fulani didn't have institutions before islam is a bit much. I have done extensive research on my own culture before colonialism and what I learned genuinely blew my mind. I don't believe it was or would be different for the Fulani. I implore you to look into that. What we have isn't adaption. It's absorption based on inferiority complex...and that's the difference.

So today we don't have a situation where people are taking in what works elsewhere, and shedding what doesn't work in their own place. That's what we had prior to colonialism. What's happening now is the whole of africa feels so inferior to the outside world that we take in things just because they happen elsewhere, better or not. Sadly, it's the negative that's easy to mimic.

Today we are unique in humanity because we do things that are detached from our survival. In fact, survival and advancement are not our primary motivators, being like others is. This will all end eventually, but the beginning of the process is realizing what's yours and what isn't first, which is why I'm pretty passionate about topics like this.

We've had prior states like the Denianko Kingdom is northern Seneal whose rulers practiced a traditional form of religion . They worshiped Geno ( The Eternal) but from studying works of Tierno Monemembo (Peuls), I gather that there was too much infighting between us , too many conflicts (still today) with other groups due to our constant migration. It had (has) to change. Islam had been embraced by some of us who progressively proselytized and brought others into it before the Jihads of the 18th century. Like I said in my previous posts, Fulanis in west Africa have to go through another cultural revolution if we want to be relevant. We have been dormant for far too long.

OruExpress:


It doesn't incentivize people to be pious but it does create a race where people try to prove they're more pious than the next man whether it's real or not. From bruising their own forehead to physical violence to others. I think we can both agree this is a part of muslim society worldwide and in africa in particular where a mix of inferiority complex makes it a notch worst.

lol, you said that islam improved society and was a civilizing force. If pagan dahomey and pagan muslims both practiced slavery then no, that's not an improvement, which is what my point. The west became the west be abandoning Christianity (Renaissance) and returning to Greek and Roman learning. There's nothing that's in Islam which builds a person and society that isn't in 'pagan' beliefs as well. A level of thought that surpasses both is now available to us. The difference between 'pagans' and Islam is that Islam forbids you to follow the superior method. That's why the north is where it's at.


I think you're mistaking what I'm saying. blindly going back to the past will leave you in the past. As will christianity and islam. The origin place of christianity and islam aren't why they don't predicate personal and social growth. It's what both doctrines preach. The Scientific Method (which is un-islamic and un-christian) is a foreign import from the West (greek and roman), and anyone rejecting in the name of sentimentalism about african's past is an enemy to themselves. You're assuming I'm saying that african culture will develop africa. I'm saying that what's being called african culture in the north is actually islam and when real african culture is exhibited there, the disparity is clear.

LOL I have noticed something with a few folks on this forum, they love to twist one's words. Where did I say that Islam is a civilizing force? That's a loaded expression my friend. I did recognize that it has improved Fulani society, I can speak to that. But civilizing it is taking it way too far.
Let's take a look at a few societies so determine the impact religion can have. North American for instance was mostly built by protestant Christians who attribute much of the success to their ethics that emphasizes hard work and specially savings. That sense of sacrifice and deferred consumption is what allowed them to save so much capital to build the infrastructure they did. Without that discipline and pressure from society to do so, the country would have been a huge wasted potential. You can see the contrast between Quebec (Francophone and Catholic) and the rest of Canada that is far more developed and yet Quebec has plenty of resources. If the US was ruled by Catholics it would have been like Quebec not what is currently is. You can see these differences between France and the UK. The former didn't fully embrace industrialization, romancing artisans . They don't work as much as their anglo-saxons counterparts and thus cannot fully benefit from their potential. Sarkozy, their former president , said they don't work hard enough (35 hrs a week).
You can see these differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia. One invests in industries, the other just likes to take the oil and build nice cities. Between Turkey and Saudi Arabia, you'll notice a bigger difference though they are both Sunni but have different versions of Sunni Islam. While Turkish clerics have interpreted the religion and commanded people to learn science and technology as Muslims used to do in the Islamic Golden age, in Saudi Arabia, religious education is a much bigger emphasis. To claim that Islam forbids you from following the "superior method" ( scientific method) is to be totally ignorant of Islamic history. Without people like Ibn Sina, there would not have been a European renaissance. When Europe was in the dark ages, it was Muslims who were studying the works of Aristotle, chemistry, algebra , medicine with Ibn Sina using the scientific method. As a matter of fact, the libraries that Muslim left in Spain after the reconquista were instrumental in reviving scientific learning in the west.
Turkey by the way, makes components of US fighter planes. They wouldn't have been able to do so if they rejected "the superior method". The issues you are seeing in northern Nigeria are related to the backward, bedouin form of Islam that some elements have adopted like BH. In my country, we used to reject western education too during the colonial times. It took clerics to convince people to send their kids to learn what the white men knows. Don't blame Islam. Blame local leaders who have let a foreign ideology to slowly gain ground on their territory.

There was a point in time that I believed a lot of what people tell you about their own history. Then I grew out of it and started doing my own research. American didn't develop because of a 'protestant work ethic'. It succeeded because it was an entire continent's worth of land that can be acquired by shooting people armed with arrows at best.


If someone takes over West Africa, which is roughly the size of the US, kills everyone there, then owns the land and resources after, they'll be rich. 'Protestant work ethic' is what many protestants tell themselves about how America developed so that they don't have to have the real conversation. If you do what the Americans did, even with a catholic work ethic or whatever you'll be rich. America was populated by Catholics (Massachusetts) and protestants (South Carolina), and there's no evidence that the catholic places took a different course in physical development or economic production than the catholic ones.

There's also this idea that 'anglo saxons' work hard. That's very bizarre because nobody has ever accused the british of being hard working people lol. When they call themselves 'anglo saxon' people will say they work hard but when they call themselves english or british the notion becomes funny because we can all look at them in real time and deduce how ridiculous that is. There's nothing to imply they're working harder than others or ever did. You'll begin to really questions these propagandist pseudo historic ideas when you realize that there was never an Anglo Saxon invasion and it's a fictitious ethnic/historic group. the English weaponized industrial machine output before others if you're wondering how they had an advantage which led to getting 2 free continents of land, but that's it.

also, you said that Islam improved things for a group of people. That's the definition of a civilizing force.

civilizing in British. or civilising (ˈsɪvɪlaɪzɪŋ) bringing a higher state of culture and social development. It exerts a civilizing influence on mankind.

https://www.google.com/search?q=civilizing+force+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS838US838&oq=civilizing+force+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.8082j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Arabs also tell this myth that they were highly secular minded and scientific and 'led to the european renaissance' because they were introducing ideas from old Greece, india and the far east to europeans and claiming them as their own. When the ideas ran out they stopped their mythical scientific production and capability. It's consistent.

Asking critical questions based on the foundation that there is no 'allah' and religious books + the history around them are fiction. Anything that discourages that thinking (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) are forces that will get in the way when you're in any scientific field. There are great scientists that will emerge for societies that are religious but the religion will almost always be something they had to work in spite. Never an aiding force.

Science is a great thing, and can't be advanced without difficult truths.

Thread has been derailed but a summary is in the north west it's difficult. But stereotypically speaking, both ethnic groups have different phenotypes.

Fulanis range from chocolate to extremely light skinned, skinny/lanky, extremely tall, Roman noses with high nose bridge and generally keen features, tend to have curly hair.

Hausas are mostly dark skinned, have a lean but muscular build, mostly range between average to tall height, sharp wider noses but with a lower nose bridge.

You can always ask though to be 100% sure.

OruExpress:
There was a point in time that I believed a lot of what people tell you about their own history. Then I grew out of it and started doing my own research. American didn't develop because of a 'protestant work ethic'. It succeeded because it was an entire continent's worth of land that can be acquired by shooting people armed with arrows at best.


If someone takes over West Africa, which is roughly the size of the US, kills everyone there, then owns the land and resources after, they'll be rich. 'Protestant work ethic' is what many protestants tell themselves about how America developed so that they don't have to have the real conversation. If you do what the Americans did, even with a catholic work ethic or whatever you'll be rich. America was populated by Catholics (Massachusetts) and protestants (South Carolina), and there's no evidence that the catholic places took a different course in physical development or economic production than the catholic ones.

There's also this idea that 'anglo saxons' work hard. That's very bizarre because nobody has ever accused the british of being hard working people lol. When they call themselves 'anglo saxon' people will say they work hard but when they call themselves english or british the notion becomes funny because we can all look at them in real time and deduce how ridiculous that is. There's nothing to imply they're working harder than others or ever did. You'll begin to really questions these propagandist pseudo historic ideas when you realize that there was never an Anglo Saxon invasion and it's a fictitious ethnic/historic group. the English weaponized industrial machine output before others if you're wondering how they had an advantage which led to getting 2 free continents of land, but that's it.

also, you said that Islam improved things for a group of people. That's the definition of a civilizing force.


https://www.google.com/search?q=civilizing+force+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS838US838&oq=civilizing+force+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.8082j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

LOL you're obsessed with land and think it's all there is to prosperity. The native Americans had all that land, what did they do with it? What are Africans doing with it? the genocide must be condemned but give credit where it's due. The founding fathers and frontiersmen were certainly not lazy. They were innovative, dogged and had a vision. Above all they valued success and hard work. They may be losing that to an extent now but that doesn't mean it was never there. Dude, Niger is almost twice the size of Nigeria. You keep applying trivial solutions to complex questions.

There are a lot of factors that have led to Africa's level of development or lack thereof. From geography, to climate which hindered trade and transference of knowledged and affected productivity and other factors. If you look closely you'll find that the best African civilisations are those that experienced transference of knowledge through trade and education. And now, lack of institutions and proper structure is the main issue. We've also not been able to create a culture that allows assimilation and progress. If Nigeria as a whole can reach the level of cultural uniformity sahelians have certain things will be easier to solve. Read up on institutional economics, it'll help you get a better understanding. Or read "why nations fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson. This exchange of knowledge is what helped so many other regions improve.

Think to yourself, why is it the Africans and native Americans getting colonized and not the other way round to begin with? Even at these junctures they had already made headway as to prosperity and opulence.

KarnThornheart:


LOL you're obsessed with land and think it's all there is to prosperity. The native Americans had all that land, what did they do with it? What are Africans doing with it? the genocide must be condemned but give credit where it's due. The founding fathers and frontiersmen were certainly not lazy. They were innovative, dogged and had a vision. Above all they valued success and hard work. They may be losing that to an extent now but that doesn't mean it was never there. Dude, Niger is almost twice the size of Nigeria. You keep applying trivial solutions to complex questions.

There are a lot of factors that have led to Africa's level of development or lack thereof. From geography, to climate which hindered trade and transference of knowledged and affected productivity and other factors. If you look closely you'll find that the best African civilisations are those that experienced transference of knowledge through trade and education. And now, lack of institutions and proper structure is the main issue. We've also been able to create a culture that allows assimilation and progress. If Nigeria as a whole can reach the level of cultural uniformity sahelians have certain things will be easier to solve. Read up on institutional economics, it'll help you get a better understanding. Or read "why nations fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson. This exchange of knowledge is what helped so many other regions improve.

Think to yourself, why is it the Africans and native Americans getting colonized and not the other way round to begin with? Even at these junctures they had already made headway as to prosperity and opulence.

lol if you don't know there's a connection between land and wealth then we can't move further in this conversation. Your contribution is appreciated, take care.

OruExpress:


lol if you don't know there's a connection between land and wealth then we can't move further in this conversation. Your contribution is appreciated, take care.

You've missed the point entirely.

You can have all the wealth in the world if you don't know how to exploit and manage it it's useless.

OruExpress:
There was a point in time that I believed a lot of what people tell you about their own history. Then I grew out of it and started doing my own research. American didn't develop because of a 'protestant work ethic'. It succeeded because it was an entire continent's worth of land that can be acquired by shooting people armed with arrows at best.


If someone takes over West Africa, which is roughly the size of the US, kills everyone there, then owns the land and resources after, they'll be rich. 'Protestant work ethic' is what many protestants tell themselves about how America developed so that they don't have to have the real conversation. If you do what the Americans did, even with a catholic work ethic or whatever you'll be rich. America was populated by Catholics (Massachusetts) and protestants (South Carolina), and there's no evidence that the catholic places took a different course in physical development or economic production than the catholic ones.

There's also this idea that 'anglo saxons' work hard. That's very bizarre because nobody has ever accused the british of being hard working people lol. When they call themselves 'anglo saxon' people will say they work hard but when they call themselves english or british the notion becomes funny because we can all look at them in real time and deduce how ridiculous that is. There's nothing to imply they're working harder than others or ever did. You'll begin to really questions these propagandist pseudo historic ideas when you realize that there was never an Anglo Saxon invasion and it's a fictitious ethnic/historic group. the English weaponized industrial machine output before others if you're wondering how they had an advantage which led to getting 2 free continents of land, but that's it.

also, you said that Islam improved things for a group of people. That's the definition of a civilizing force.


https://www.google.com/search?q=civilizing+force+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS838US838&oq=civilizing+force+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.8082j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The United States has the greatest water navigation system in the world which pretty allows farmers to produce , sell their goods cheaply to the world by shipping through the greater river system they have. The presence of Anglo-saxons on that territory has allowed in less than 300 years since the foundation of that country to build the world's greatest economic and military power. As Karn mentioned, Indians did have that land which by the way with easy transport routes that don't require much government involvement and yet they were not able to build a thriving nation. They were so secluded to the rest of the world that their immune system was weak and that above anything else explains the great tragedy they suffered.
I have given you the example of Quebec, Canada. A province rich in water , hydro-power, land resources and yet they lad behind English speaking regions. I have also given you the example of France, a country to romanticizes artisan work and never fully industrialized while England fully embraced it. Even here in Africa, anglophone countries tend to be more industrious than french speaking ones. They are cultural elements at play that cannot be ignored. North America and South America gained independence roughly around the same time. Northerners build the U.S.A and southerner built Gran Colombia. While the north cemented democracy ( for white people that is) by making sure land ownership is accessible , the south concentrated resources in the hands of few, the rest is history.
Another example. Argentina has about the same geographical (fertile land and river system for transport along with a good climate) as the USA and yet they don't come close in terms of economic power even adjusting for population. Mind you, Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries at the start of the 20th century but they are marred by economic crisis.There is a certain fiscal and monetary discipline in the US that does not exist in the Argentina and there has been an industrial drive since day 1 in the U.S that never existed in Argentina.