jl115:

Yes they couldve had Ghana as a colony if they so wished..... They were much much much much more powerful.

their power was so diminished after the second world war.

They couldn't face being dragged on all front

Just30:
no one is discussing the status of SA political struggle

will you stop being a fool

the guy ask you a question..answer now

jl115:
riots or no riots doesn't matter, Ghana would have been decolonized regardless if you had riots or not

where in the world did you hear independence being gifted ?

vaxx1:
You mean when the only governance was only lead by the white minority. where the only Laws introduced by the British controlled union where upheld and strengthened and become something apartheid?

I remember my junior high school story book . sizwe banzi is dead ? that is exctally what happens in your country. you were still a stool to your white master.

I guess it's a good thing I'm white so there goes your argument!!

Just30:

where in the world did you here independence being gifted ?

Because the British already decided in 1945 it would decolonise its colonies.... And not because Ghana had a few riots

gallivant:


That's stupid reasoning. Countries have many other types of visas the problem in West Africa is fraud. Even refugees claim to be tourists.

exactly

that is why, if you come on a tourist VISA you become a tourist.

jl115:

I guess it's a good thing I'm white so there goes your argument!!

Then don't argue about having republic in 1961 since the white minority still control the destiny of the black majority then? they made rules and the rules were labelled as apartheid .

Just30:


their power was so diminished after the second world war.

They couldn't face being dragged on all front

some what true yes!!! Great that you finally acknowledge that Ghana's independence had nothing to do with Ghanaian resistance and everything to do with the British decision to decolonise its empire

jl115:

Bro think logically for a moment, how is Ghana any different to the dozens of other African colonies that gained their independence at the same time??

Ghana kept it own governance and political systems

that is how Ghana was different

Just30:
will you stop making stupid noise
Everyone who enters a country on a tourist VISA is a tourist even if they are your citizens from abroad.

You count your incoming diaspora as tourists and we still beat you. Imagine if you didn't.

mtisTheQubit:

only 3% of international tourist visiting Africa actually visit Nigeria..that official statement from their government...the ogas you see in the airport are just coming home to roost

Their numbers are very low

jl115:

If they feared that other countries would become independent after allowing Ghana to become independent then why oh why did they already make the decision to decolonized all their colonies back in 1945??

And NO I did not forget that.... I actually had decent schooling unlike you.... Never mind the fact that South Africa was also a British union

They didn't make the decision to decolonised

They were forced to sign an agreement.

Even after they signed that agreement, they refused to grant countries the free will to determine their political path.

vaxx1:
You mean when the only governance was only lead by the white minority. where the only Laws introduced by the British controlled union where upheld and strengthened and become something apartheid?

I remember my junior high school story book . sizwe banzi is dead ? that is exctally what happens in your country. you were still a stool to your white master.

he doesnt know what it means to be a true constitutional republic

mtisTheQubit:
Yes democracy at work... ths is so African in making

the structure of governance in all countries are different

mtisTheQubit:

the guy ask you a question..answer now

which guy asked me a question ?

vaxx1:
Then don't argue about having republic in 1961 since the white minority still country the destiny of the black majority then? they made rules and the rules were labelled as apartheid .

I don't get your point?? The Whites of South Africa are not the same as the ones in europe. To the Boer people Africa was/is home and they died fighting for it against British colonisers just like any other Black nation in Africa.

Apartheid was simply one African group oppressing another.... Not anything new if you look at the recent history of Africa.

The Boers wanted independence just as much as any other black nation and despised the British just as much as any Black Nation.

Even today stats show that the Afrkaner minority is the least likely to emigrate to another country than any other ethnicity in South Africa, even though economically they have the most means to do so

Just30:
which guy asked me a question ?

you have the memory of a gold fish

jl115:

I guess it's a good thing I'm white so there goes your argument!!

that is why you talk stupidly

no wonder

you've pillage a country and come online making useless statements

Just30:
They didn't make the decision to decolonised

They were forced to sign an agreement.

Even after they signed that agreement, they refused to grant countries the free will to determine their political path.

forced?? Please bro forced by who? Themselves maybe certainly not by Ghana

samorobo:


Idiot..now is not a time to play and make silly comments...

If going to the same meeting that your changaa' president went to and was place at the second roll is medical tourism then Kenyatta to is equally in the UK for medical tourism..

WTF

Just30:
that is why you talk stupidly

no wonder

you've pillage a country and come online making useless statements

yeah white people pillaged South Africa....... Guess that why its the wealthiest country in Africa....... And before you use your "but white people own all the wealth" just remember the average black South-African was richer than any other black nation even during apartheid.... Even today South-Africas Black population hold more wealth than any other so called black country.

jl115:

Because the British already decided in 1945 it would decolonise its colonies.... And not because Ghana had a few riots

Britain did not decide
Roosevelt forced them to sign the agreement to allow countries who want to decide their own political future do so.

Britain signed that agreement and took the goodies that came with it but refused to allow any country go.

Those who were educated enough and had knowledge of the laws took them to court using their own laws whiles carrying out the physical fight.

jl115:
some what true yes!!! Great that you finally acknowledge that Ghana's independence had nothing to do with Ghanaian resistance and everything to do with the British decision to decolonise its empire

It had everything to do with Ghanaian resistance

independence are not granted on silver platters

Whoever can speak French can try to read the sign board

NairobiWalker:


You count your incoming diaspora as tourists and we still beat you. Imagine if you didn't.

who is a tourist?

you keep being dumb

you have never overtaken Ghana ever in sheer tourist numbers and neither have you ever overtook us in the revenue.

Suffering and smiling shows season 4 will soon be coming to an end

Just30:
Ghana kept it own governance and political systems

that is how Ghana was different

uhm Ghana only had self governance since 1957... .. South Africa had self governance since 1931.

go and say this to a black South African and see the slap he will give you

jl115:

I don't get your point?? The Whites of South Africa are not the same as the ones in europe. To the Boer people Africa was/is home and they died fighting for it against British colonisers just like any other Black nation in Africa.

Apartheid was simply one African group oppressing another.... Not anything new if you look at the recent history of Africa.

The Boers wanted independence just as much as any other black nation and despised the British just as much as any Black Nation.

Even today stats show that the Afrkaner minority is the least likely to emigrate to another country than any other ethnicity in South Africa, even though economically they have the most means to do so

Just30:
It had everything to do with Ghanaian resistance

independence are not granted on silver platters

it was though Regardless if Ghana resisted or not the decision to decolonised was taken years before things got violent in Ghana

jl115:

I don't get your point?? The Whites of South Africa are not the same as the ones in europe. To the Boer people Africa was/is home and they died fighting for it against British colonisers just like any other Black nation in Africa.

Apartheid was simply one African group oppressing another.... Not anything new if you look at the recent history of Africa.

The Boers wanted independence just as much as any other black nation and despised the British just as much as any Black Nation.

Even today stats show that the Afrkaner minority is the least likely to emigrate to another country than any other ethnicity in South Africa, even though economically they have the most means to do so

then subsequently, you have several independent. one from the British master, one from the white minority and one that was finnaly given when true independence arrive . Your new constitution that wasn't doctored based on British union rule is the real independence. and that was 1994, when all your citizens, no matter their race or ethnic origin, enjoying equal rights.... that is a common sense. all your aforementioned independence were just subjugation to the black majority .the original owner of south africa. remember the Boer were just a tenant that refused to go .

Pictures of togo Republic will soon be coming to an end