Comments by "" (@orboakin8074) on "Was Colonialism Good or Bad?" video.

  1. 2400
  2. 37
  3. 26
  4.  @Luid101Clips  My guy, I see some of the points you are making but let me offer some counters: 1) One the issue of colonialism never happening, the two countries in Africa that were never colonised (Ethiopia and Liberia) didn't end up better than most of the colonized ones. both have been plagued with tribal conflicts and civil wars. Ethiopia has one currently ongoing and has no strong national unity, despite no colonialism and both their economies lag behind ours. A lack of colonialism doesn't automatically equal prosperity. 2) Regarding our country, is it as bad as you imagine? In the south, we are more tribally and culturally different than the north where they are more culturally and religiously homogenous. Yet, the south is more stable and economically rich and more developed with infrastructure than the north. Clearly we have shown that our diverse country can work if we have done it well in teh south. It's a matter of political leadership, not just tribe. 3) Even if the Europeans had never colonized us, it would have happened with another power; most likely teh Arabs in the Sahel region. They were an encroaching force in west Africa before the Europeans and had they gained more inroads, we would probably be a country like Sudan. Power imbalances and differences in economic strength and development always leads to colonialism. It would have happened to our region regardless. I am just glad it was by a better group like the British. 4) Finally, on the issue of technology and modernity, it would have been nice for us in Africa to get all those things via trade or diplomacy but in reality, this is not how it happens. Even in western Europe, the ancestors of the French and British got development and modernity and their identity after being conquered by Romans and adopting stuff from them. Same thing in Singapore where their own founder said the British were teh reason their civilization became established. This is the sad but true basis of human history.
    16
  5. 14
  6. 11
  7. 10
  8. 9
  9. 7
  10. My guy, I see some of the points you are making but let me offer some counters: 1) One the issue of colonialism never happening, the two countries in Africa that were never colonised (Ethiopia and Liberia) didn't end up better than most of the colonized ones. both have been plagued with tribal conflicts and civil wars. Ethiopia has one currently ongoing and has no strong national unity, despite no colonialism and both their economies lag behind ours. A lack of colonialism doesn't automatically equal prosperity. 2) Regarding our country, is it as bad as you imagine? In the south, we are more tribally and culturally different than the north where they are more culturally and religiously homogenous. Yet, the south is more stable and economically rich and more developed with infrastructure than the north. Clearly we have shown that our diverse country can work if we have done it well in teh south. It's a matter of political leadership, not just tribe. 3) Even if the Europeans had never colonized us, it would have happened with another power; most likely teh Arabs in the Sahel region. They were an encroaching force in west Africa before the Europeans and had they gained more inroads, we would probably be a country like Sudan. Power imbalances and differences in economic strength and development always leads to colonialism. It would have happened to our region regardless. I am just glad it was by a better group like the British. 4) Finally, on the issue of technology and modernity, it would have been nice for us in Africa to get all those things via trade or diplomacy but in reality, this is not how it happens. Even in western Europe, the ancestors of the French and British got development and modernity and their identity after being conquered by Romans and adopting stuff from them. Same thing in Singapore where their own founder said the British were teh reason their civilization became established. This is the sad but true basis of human history.
    6
  11.  @bevvy.bee9  Okay, my guy. Let's discuss: 1) You are correct that the British allowed the North to remain more intact and they didn't influence them as much or "they gave them power" as you say while they stayed longer in the south. But look at the result. The north was allowed to remain culturally and religiously the same with little British influence and as a result, they didn't get the positive British influence or infrastructure the we in teh south got. That is why the north remains poorer, less educated, less infrastructure and more insecure with terrorism and also have less co-existence compared to us in the south where our economies are richer, we have more infrastructure, better education, and co-existence with different tribes and religions here. We clearly benefitted more. 2) Yes, Ethiopia was not colonized but they also took far FAR longer to get modernity, better technology and good economics and even food stability. They also have less national unity than most colonized African countries. They tried to assimilate other tribes like Eritrea and have had more civil wars than us and still have terrible national unity and their economy is less developed than ours. 3) Friend, if the British and a few Europeans had not abolished slavery, as a result of colonialism, what makes you think it would not exist here? The last country on earth to abolish slavery was Mauritania and they did it in the 1980s and ONLY made it illegal in the mid 2000s but it still exists there. Slavery was a cultural and economic institution in much of Africa and it simply wouldn't have disappeared as you like to imagine without foreign (British) influence. Final note, colonialism sucks but it is something that tends to happen in all societies, cultures and throughout history. Our Bantu group of West Africa ended up becoming the dominant ethno-group in much of Africa. is that not colonialism? What matters is he reflect on teh after-effects and based on this, those of us who had more European (British, mainly) influence ended up better than those who didn't like Sudan that was colonized first by Arabs and the black Christian population was oppressed for centuries until they split up and they lag behind us in terms of development.
    5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21.  @dylangtech  This will be a long read, friend. Honestly, my base prediction is that our country will have a rough patch as we are still working on maintaining our democracy and national unity but things will continue in an upward trajectory for us. Insecurity is a huge problem, mainly in the north due to proximity to unstable countries like Niger and Chad. Our military has undergone intense modernization and improved training to combat this. So there is some hope While tribalism is still a factor here, it's not nearly as endemic as you would think. Good political leadership is what we mainly strive for. In the north, they are more cultural and tribally and religiously homogenous but also the most economically underdeveloped and insecurity-plagued region here meanwhile in the south, with more cultural and tribal and religious diversity, we are more economically strong and tend to have better co-existence among different tribes. e.g., me being Edo but growing up in Lagos. That's partly because here we got more of the British systems before the north did. Even in the East, the Igbo people are more aware of how corrupt and inept leadership is what plagues their region, rather than discrimination by other tribes. On the economic side, our industrialization is increasing and we still maintain our status as the largest economy in Africa and it is projected to only grow. The issues we need to address are infrastructure challenges and insecurity. Demographics-wise, our population is largely young and increasingly getting more skilled and educated but, again, due to economic mismanagements, this has hindered growth and development. However, even this is gradually changing. Politically-wise, democracy is here to stay as many of us simply have no desire to return to military rule or to see our country balkanize as this would screw over so many of our smaller tribes and economically ruin even the larger one. We also still maintain our national language and a more secular-ish form of national laws. i.e., stuff like Sharia law doesn't apply to all areas or even to all Muslims in the country. We even tend to maintain an unwritten power-sharing deal between the north and south and we are working towards more federalism. On the issue of religion, it is true that Christian, especially us Catholics, do tend to be targeted but mainly in the northern regions where insecurity and Islamic terrorism is a problem but they also tend to target mostly Muslims too. The future of relations between our two dominant faith is likely one of civic nationalism as there is no serious animosity between most people of both faiths, especially here in the south where Christians and Muslims tend to get along far better. Basically, to sum it up, I am cautiously optimistic as a Nigerian. Socioeconomic, cultural, demographic and political pressures are what are ensuring that we maintain some sense of stability and given how most of our tribes and people (elites and non-elites, included) tend to benefit more from our nation's continued existence, i strongly feel we will continue to exist and things will improve. Plus, given how I grew up mainly in the 2000s and saw how the country changed and improved economically and socially after decades of military misrule (2000-2014 under PDP), I can strongly say that all we need is good political leadership again and most Nigerians would agree with me.
    4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47.  @emanuelsadu263  honestly, the issue with French versus British colonialism is for the following: The British were more selective than the French. They mainly colonized coastal areas or areas that could facilitate colonies. The French mainly just went for massive territory and were not as selective. Also, the British had a habit of instilling their socioeconomic and political structures and systems onto their colonies. This is why many former British colonies were quick to embrace and maintain democracy, capitalism, liberalism and civic nationalism even after the British left. The French mainly focused on maintaining control and didn't nearly impart more beneficial systems like democracy or capitalism and liberalism, plus the pre-existing poor geography and social issues in their colonies made it difficult to impart these values and systems. Finally, the British, for all their flaws and bad actions, actually did more good in their colonies like building infrastructure, creating economic development, modernity, and also abolishing slavery (which the French also did) The British also had a more humanist viewpoint as time went on with how they related to the colonies. A European journalist once asked some British administrators in Kenya why they were teaching the local Africans administration, democracy, economics, engineering etc. He wondered why since they would just use it to gain independence. The administrator responded that because it felt right and that the Africans were essentially part of the human brotherhood.
    1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1