Comments by "" (@orboakin8074) on "Triggernometry"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@obajuluwaoluwatomisin3883 The curse of geography for Africa is real and simply having resources means nothing. If that were the case, Japan would be poor while Congo would be rich today. Our geography is a mix of arid desserts, dry savannahs, and thick jungles. This meant for a long time, much fo Africa was still in the iron age and human settlements and societal development was hindered and very few nation states or viable settlements or borders existed here. Most of our soil is notoriously poor for large scale agriculture. This didn't change until westerners brought mechanized farming, GMO crops, and fertilizer here. There was also the problem of diseases like malaria and Tse-tse fly parasite being unchecked here that lowered population growth.
Finally, the resources are more of a trap than anything due to our history of poor institutions, poor national unity and poor economic decision making. Rather than use them for development and improvement, they are used to accrue wealth for corrupt people or to fuel conflict due to tribalism. The few exception where this didn't happen include Botswana with their diamonds but that was mainly due to their pre-colonial culture that had similarities to that of the British and when they were colonized, they simply used both systems to properly develop their country and use their resources properly compared to Zimbabwe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mansamusa8410 Oh, believe me, I never once assumed that muslims created slavery. I know it has existed in all human societies (from nomadic to sedentary) throughout history. My main issue when it comes to how modern people view the subject of slavery is that they tend to over focus on the western world's relatively short phase of partaking in slavery and even revise history to make it seem that they were the only ones responsible for it, especially with regards to Africa. They completely ignore how it was largely because of the Europeans that the Arab, trans-Atlantic, and African slave trades were ended or at least greatly diminished. Plus, unlike the Arab world and, unfortunately, some parts of Africa, the Europeans admitted to the errors of slavery and their own part in it and were the main group who worked more than anyone else to abolish the evil of slavery. Much of the Arab world rarely condemns it and even tries to justify the practice of it, even to this day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pauljrechezona3126 you make good points, sir. And if you read my initial comment, you will see that I clearly stated the colonial actions of the British were brutal so I already acknowledged that.
As for slavery, the simple and sad fact is that it already existed across our area of west Africa long before they ever came and likely would have continued much longer. The best ways we have seen in history to abolish slavery is usually when a stronger power enforces the abolition of it. This was how Menelik II of Ethiopia did it. It's how the Americans also did it.
Finally, the issue of various self-sufficient tribes being forcibly assimilated is also not as new as you think. Such kind of colonialism and assimilation was already happening before the British. The Sokoto Fulani caliphate did this to the Hausa, Tiv, Kanuri and other northern tribes and they even made several attempts to assimilate some of the southern tribes. My own state of Edo also did this during their expansion and had it done to them by other tribes. The Oyo Kingdom frequently fought the Dahomey kingdom for territory and slaves with both sides winning and losing. Ethiopia (that was never colonized) also did this. Menelik II subjugated several tribes to create their modern country and this still causes division and tribalism there as seen in their various civil wars (they even tried to colonize Eritrea brutally) So, this forced assimilation you decry was already happening here. If the British or Europeans hadn't done it, it would have happened to us and likely not by a better power (either the Sokoto caliphate or some other Muslim power)
At the end, I am not calling the British a perfect or kind or angelic empire because Nonsuch exists. I am calling them the better option compared to what else was available that time. And if I may ask, would you prefer that we go back to pre-colonial times in Africa? Should we in Nigeria break up and have tribal enclaves instead of trying to work with what we have?
2
-
@pauljrechezona3126 Again, you make good points, friend. Also, respect to you for being cordial and objective during this discussion (unlike many Africans I deal with)
Your point on most of our tribes being dysfunctional and assimilated post-colonialism compared to the north, is true but it is really not unique to the British empire. Also, you should consider how our two regions differ today. Yes, the British didn't push to far into the north and so their states were more intact and allowed to keep their traditionally institutions while we in the south had ours reduced. But the British also spent more time in the south transferring their sociopolitical, cultural and economic values and systems (capitalism, democracy, modern education, industry, etc) onto us. That's one of the major reasons why the south today is the economic power house of Nigeria and also is more developed in terms of infrastructure. We are also more secular and get along better with other tribes (despite tribalism, we do) and less prone to instability compared to the north where despite their ethnic and religious homogeneity, they are plagued with insecurity, corruption, illiteracy and underdevelopment. Same thing with Botswana, India, the southern part of Ghana and Hong Kong compared to the rest of China. So, in retrospect, we got a better deal post-colonialism.
Finally, regarding the issue of exploitation, yes, that did happen, as it did with much of their colonies and that must be condemned but one thing people tend to forget is that colonialism was not a cheap or free venture for the British or most Europeans, and that is not me defending the practice, just showing more objective viewpoints. Keep in mind that they had to built up the infrastructure, political systems and finance all of that resource extraction. In the end, they lost more money on colonialism in Africa than they ever got. if you want to see a truly exploitative empire, look at the Spanish in South America, the Japanese in East and South-East Asia, or the Arabs in Africa during their colonialism. Ironically, it's teh same system foundations that many of our countries are still building on to develop i.e. we still use democracy, capitalism and industrial manufacturing to grow our economies. So, my main points overall are that colonialism was brutal but not as black-and-white as most assume.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1