REPOSTED WITH A CORRECTION IN LINE 6I present both the following quote from a recent essay on Boko Haram, my response to the quote and the essay itself to further make my point that this terrorist group is seen by some, particularly some Northern Nigerian Muslims, as a revolutionary force:'One arm of the tripod is the Boko Haram insurgency. Despite the religious colouration, the movement is basically a rebellion against a feudal system that seeks to enslave the majority while a privileged few – mostly traditional rulers, military brass and business elite – control the political and economic spaces. As a reaction against decades of oppression, a deliberate policy of emasculation and ever growing poverty, the group is only the most visible and violent.'This is not right.The group describes itself as a group pursuing a jihad of imposing Islam, yet people, particularly from Northern Nigeria, keep struggling to present the group as having a vision of some nobility.The writer also avoids the fact that Boko Haram sees Western education as evil while it uses the technological fruits of that education, demonstrating the group's ideological confusion and religiously inspired myopia.This is one reason why it is proving difficult to dislodge the group. They have some sympathy in the North.toyinBuhari, Boko Haram and Northern EstablishmentBy Salisu Suleiman
One of the greatest ironies of Nigeria's current political dialectics is the fact that the only man who probably has the moral authority to end the Boko Haram imbroglio also happens to be one of the men most distrusted by the northern establishment and the government.
Characteristic of the sectionalism and obduracy that followed the bitterly divisive 2011 presidential elections, some Nigerians still hold on to the idea that former Head of State and opposition leader, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, is behind Boko Haram and had promised to make Nigeria ungovernable if he lost the election.
This charge goes against the grain and substance of Buhari: As an army captain in the 1960s, he fought for Nigeria's unity. As a general in the 80s, tasked with removing marauding Chadian rebels and bandits who had been pillaging Nigerian towns and killing citizens, Buhari not only chased them out, he followed them far into Chad and, in his own words, gave them a `bloody nose'. His action secured that border from foreign fighters for the next 20 years. Would Buhari have betrayed the people of Bakassi?
Anyway, what is the connection between Buhari, Boko Haram and the Northern establishment?
One arm of the tripod is the Boko Haram insurgency. Despite the religious colouration, the movement is basically a rebellion against a feudal system that seeks to enslave the majority while a privileged few – mostly traditional rulers, military brass and business elite – control the political and economic spaces. As a reaction against decades of oppression, a deliberate policy of emasculation and ever growing poverty, the group is only the most visible and violent.
The second arm of the tripod is the Northern establishment. Before the British conquest in the early 20th century, the emirates in the north had well developed and highly efficient social and political systems that were essentially feudal in nature, separating rulers from peasants. With British control came Western education. As in many parts of Africa, initially only the children of peasants were sent to schools – only to come back as powerful colonial clerks and messengers. Realizing the powers of western education, the establishment quietly tried to limit the `commoners' access to education.
Which was why, when the then Premier of the Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, introduced Free Education in 1955, the North, already educationally disadvantaged, did not copy the policy. And that is why today, for example, Ogun state alone has more universities than the entire six states in the North-east Zone. There are more private universities in Ogun state than the entire north has. Is that to say that northerners cannot privately fund universities? The result is that in virtually every area of human enterprise, the region lags behind other parts of Nigeria.
The third arm of the tripod is Gen. Buhari. The simple fact that he is educated should make him part of the establishment. That he joined the military and rose to the rank of General should make him a prominent leader of the establishment. That he was a military governor, petroleum minister and head of state should make him one of the richest members and de facto leader of the establishment.
But Buhari is none of these. Not only has he displayed an aversion to the politics of exclusion that is the ideology of the establishment, he also committed a cardinal sin when as Head of State, he offended (and even arrested) high-ranking members of the clique. Theoretically, Buhari lost his bid for the presidency in 2003, 2007 and 2011, but in reality, he lost long before then. Actually, Jonathan had no reason to campaign in the north, nor expend as much public funds as he did during the elections because the establishment would have stopped Buhari by any means. It was a matter of life and death.
Back to the tripod. For analysts trying to understand Buhari's popularity among the northern masses, there is no magic to it; he is adored simply because he represents their best chance to topple a class that has systematically impoverished the region and its people. The establishment fears Buhari because they know he will dissipate their power base and end their corruption and nepotism. In essence, Buhari has the moral authority without the political power; the establishment has political power without the moral authority, while Boko Haram is fighting the establishment to create their view of a moral authority.
The tragedy is that many of those who would have championed a moderate transition from old traditions to a progressive society have been largely assimilated into the establishment, leaving the fight to the Boko Haram extremists. Where are the progressives in the North today? Rather, the dream of many young Northerners not born into the establishment is to acquire wealth and power by whatever means to buy their ways into the system and to repress the less fortunate – who are responding with bombs and bullets.
Until the establishment develops just and equitable systems that would confer them with moral authority, until leaders with moral authority get the needed political influence to create a progressive society and until Boko Haram realizes that killing and maiming innocent people will bring neither political clout nor moral authority, the region may continue to reel in confusion.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:27 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadepoju@gmail.com> wrote:
I present both the following quote from a recent essay on Boko Haram, my response to the quote and the essay itself to further make my point that this terrorist group is seen by some, particularly some Northern Nigerian Muslims, as a revolutionary force:'One arm of the tripod is the Boko Haram insurgency. Despite the religious colouration, the movement is basically a rebellion against a feudal system that seeks to enslave the majority while a privileged few – mostly traditional rulers, military brass and business elite – control the political and economic spaces. As a reaction against decades of oppression, a deliberate policy of emasculation and ever growing poverty, the group is only the most visible and violent.'This is not right:The group describes itself as a group pursuing a jihad of imposing Islam, yet people, particularly from Northern Nigeria, keep struggling to present the group as having a vision of some nobility.The writer also avoids the fact that Boko Haram sees Western education as evil while it uses the technological fruits of that education, demonstrating the group's ideological confusion and religiously inspired myopia.This is one reason why it is proving difficult to dislodge the group. They have some sympathy in the North.toyinBuhari, Boko Haram and Northern EstablishmentBy Salisu Suleiman
One of the greatest ironies of Nigeria's current political dialectics is the fact that the only man who probably has the moral authority to end the Boko Haram imbroglio also happens to be one of the men most distrusted by the northern establishment and the government.
Characteristic of the sectionalism and obduracy that followed the bitterly divisive 2011 presidential elections, some Nigerians still hold on to the idea that former Head of State and opposition leader, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, is behind Boko Haram and had promised to make Nigeria ungovernable if he lost the election.
This charge goes against the grain and substance of Buhari: As an army captain in the 1960s, he fought for Nigeria's unity. As a general in the 80s, tasked with removing marauding Chadian rebels and bandits who had been pillaging Nigerian towns and killing citizens, Buhari not only chased them out, he followed them far into Chad and, in his own words, gave them a `bloody nose'. His action secured that border from foreign fighters for the next 20 years. Would Buhari have betrayed the people of Bakassi?
Anyway, what is the connection between Buhari, Boko Haram and the Northern establishment?
One arm of the tripod is the Boko Haram insurgency. Despite the religious colouration, the movement is basically a rebellion against a feudal system that seeks to enslave the majority while a privileged few – mostly traditional rulers, military brass and business elite – control the political and economic spaces. As a reaction against decades of oppression, a deliberate policy of emasculation and ever growing poverty, the group is only the most visible and violent.
The second arm of the tripod is the Northern establishment. Before the British conquest in the early 20th century, the emirates in the north had well developed and highly efficient social and political systems that were essentially feudal in nature, separating rulers from peasants. With British control came Western education. As in many parts of Africa, initially only the children of peasants were sent to schools – only to come back as powerful colonial clerks and messengers. Realizing the powers of western education, the establishment quietly tried to limit the `commoners' access to education.
Which was why, when the then Premier of the Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, introduced Free Education in 1955, the North, already educationally disadvantaged, did not copy the policy. And that is why today, for example, Ogun state alone has more universities than the entire six states in the North-east Zone. There are more private universities in Ogun state than the entire north has. Is that to say that northerners cannot privately fund universities? The result is that in virtually every area of human enterprise, the region lags behind other parts of Nigeria.
The third arm of the tripod is Gen. Buhari. The simple fact that he is educated should make him part of the establishment. That he joined the military and rose to the rank of General should make him a prominent leader of the establishment. That he was a military governor, petroleum minister and head of state should make him one of the richest members and de facto leader of the establishment.
But Buhari is none of these. Not only has he displayed an aversion to the politics of exclusion that is the ideology of the establishment, he also committed a cardinal sin when as Head of State, he offended (and even arrested) high-ranking members of the clique. Theoretically, Buhari lost his bid for the presidency in 2003, 2007 and 2011, but in reality, he lost long before then. Actually, Jonathan had no reason to campaign in the north, nor expend as much public funds as he did during the elections because the establishment would have stopped Buhari by any means. It was a matter of life and death.
Back to the tripod. For analysts trying to understand Buhari's popularity among the northern masses, there is no magic to it; he is adored simply because he represents their best chance to topple a class that has systematically impoverished the region and its people. The establishment fears Buhari because they know he will dissipate their power base and end their corruption and nepotism. In essence, Buhari has the moral authority without the political power; the establishment has political power without the moral authority, while Boko Haram is fighting the establishment to create their view of a moral authority.
The tragedy is that many of those who would have championed a moderate transition from old traditions to a progressive society have been largely assimilated into the establishment, leaving the fight to the Boko Haram extremists. Where are the progressives in the North today? Rather, the dream of many young Northerners not born into the establishment is to acquire wealth and power by whatever means to buy their ways into the system and to repress the less fortunate – who are responding with bombs and bullets.
Until the establishment develops just and equitable systems that would confer them with moral authority, until leaders with moral authority get the needed political influence to create a progressive society and until Boko Haram realizes that killing and maiming innocent people will bring neither political clout nor moral authority, the region may continue to reel in confusion.
__._,_.___On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Ken. When I said they crossed oceans I didn't mean they literally did. I meant that their empires and conquests encompassed regions divided by oceans and on different continents. Alexander the Great used the overland route through Persia to get to India but since Persia was not fully integrated into the Greek empire at that time but was itself a secondary military target and a staging ground for Alexander's ultimate prize, India, it's a small stretch to say there was contiguity between the Greek heartland and India. Rome mostly used overland routes to get to its conquests, although I am sure that sea power played a role in Roman expansion. Regardless, its empire encompassed regions and peoples on the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Indian, and the Baltic seas. Some of these conquered lands were not contiguous to the Roman metropole in the basic sense of being coextensive, land-wise, with Rome.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:quick question moses; didn't alexander conquer all the lands of persia between himself and india? the oceans weren't crossed, but he followed along the land of east mediterranean down to egypt from what was persia.
rome conquered all the lands around the mediterranean, and up to gaul, and then over to the british isles. were there lands in between india and greece that alexander didn't conquer? or between rome and britain?
however, when the greeks sent out colonies in the 6th century, they were not contiguous, but neither were they expanding an empire, they were extending the polis. and those cities became independent. maybe the difference between a city state and an emire-state?
ken
On 9/10/12 2:22 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Ken, I am not sure I am competent to answer all the interesting questions you're raising. But first a quick comment about contiguity as a distinction between ancient and modern empires. Neither Rome nor the Greek empire was contiguous. That's the point I was making. They didn't simply expand their borders; they crossed oceans and left their borders to conquer peoples far afield. How is India contiguous to the Greek Islands and the nearby Near Eastern or Mediterranean borders of the empire? The Roman empire was not contiguous at all; it spanned three oceans--if my geography is correct! The Romans left their "home" many times to subdue people in far corners of the world.
You're right that all previous empires constructed or maintained the foundational imperial distinctions between between citizen and subjects--some more so than others. That said, several early European and Asian empires did not enforce the distinction as rigorously as post-WWI European empires, and created more GENUINE pathways for obtaining citizenship and high status than the modern European colonialists did with their pretend and self-interested citizenship awards in a few enclaves. Perhaps huge African empires like Soghai, the Sokoto Caliphate, and others had more blurry distinctions between citizens and subjects (if one disregards slaves and varying degrees of unfreedom), but these empires had other parameters of distinction that excluded and included people perhaps as vigorously as European imperial distinctions did.
On the age-old tension between empires and nation-states, I will say this: following Mamadou Diouf, I will argue that the nation-state is perhaps the most intolerant, jealous, and insecure state model ever created. It brooks little or no deviation from the modes of citizenship and belonging it prescribes, and it punishes rival modes of aspiration and self-determination more brutally than previous political collectivities ever did. That said, I am not sure that empires were/are necessarily more tolerant. Even if they were, is that because tolerance flows organically from diversity or because, being very diverse, these empires had to pragmatically cultivate tolerance and ecumenism as a way to sustain themselves and keep a semblance of order and coherence? I am not sure, but I would hesitate to credit empires with more tolerance of diversity than nation-states. Empires are by nature more diverse. That may enable imperialists to learn more about, and thus be more tolerant of, diversity than nation-state pioneers or leaders. But if you're an empire, isn't being tolerant of diversity simply an embrace of your identity? I mean, how's that a big deal?--
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:
hi moses
what struck me about past empires was their contiguity. even alex the great conquered territory after territory that bordered on lands he ruled. the maps of rome remain fixed in my memory. they are no breaks between rome and the lands then conquered. maybe that doesn't entirely matter, maybe it is irrelevant in that they conquered people they considered "other," but they were really just expanding their borders. and, more importantly, as you point out, it was to control still more resources and, of course, to import more and more slaves. the distinction between citizen and subject was central to them. wasn't it central to all empires, in one way or another? one of the fascinating stories in african history is how the french and british extended citizenship to some people living in the enclaves in their colonies, like the 4 communes in senegal, and, i believe like lagos, early on.
because they extended citizenship and self rule to white in s africa, apartheid came to be created, reversing earlier brit rule there.
here is my real question for you: were empires better than what followed? i don't mean the recent european colonial empires. but before WWI, when europe had autria-hungary, and the turkish empire, and others still earlier that you cite, like the persian, which ruled over a multitude of peoples. like yugoslavia under tito. it was not democratic; it was authoritarian; but it was also more diverse and, i am guessing, more tolerant of diversity than what nation-states have created, with their xenophobia and chauvinism and ultimately violent political aspirations.
we need social scientists to begin to account for the extraordinary degree of warfare and violence of our times, and our political system is nation-state. is that actually the problem?
ken
On 9/10/12 9:56 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Ken,
Some of the points you outlined in your demarcation of ancient and modern imperialisms seem arbitrary to me. The Greeks under Alexander the Great conquered territory as far as India. The Romans did not just conquer peoples "within" their borders; they crossed several oceans to subdue peoples of different religions, ethnicity, and races in different continents--much like their modern European imperial counterparts. The Persian empire also ruled many parts of Asia and controlled peoples of many faiths and ethnicities. I might agree with you that modern empires were probably more explicitly inspired by mercantilist logics than ancient ones and were probably more brutal in trying to realize their economic objectives. However, we should not forget that ancient and medieval imperial formations were also geniuses of economic exploitation--most of them expanded in the first place in search of exotic treasures like gold, spices, silver, and of course slaves. And who is to say that if they had had the modern military instruments of mass destruction like their modern European counterparts did they would not have committed atrocities and inflicted indignities on their subjects on the scale of modern empires? I'll concede one point to you outright, which is that the clear racism and racial hierarchies that underpinned modern empires were for the most part lacking in ancient imperialisms. But we should point out that that racism has a history and did not inhere in the character of modern European imperialists. That racism in fact grew out of a long period of economic revolutions and transitions, some of which started in ancient, medieval, and early modern times.--
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:
thanks for the history here, moses--
as for empire, i agree it was, and in new senses, still is, a feature of powerful states. the difference between european empires of the modern period, or late 19th and20th c varieties, is that they were created by states that conquered vast territories in lands that were distant from their own, and that a major, the major incentive was to control the resources and trade associated with those territories. it also became a sign of competing for prestige.
so rome, or charlemagne, or whoever in ancient times, conquered lands on their borders. control of land, or sea trade, was different from what england did in india or nigeria, where controlling trade and markets, acquiring goods, was important. finally this also meant, eventually, controlling labor--at times reinstituting forms of slave labor, imposing requirements to grow crops for international markets, like cotton or cloves, requiring subject territories to buy british goods, like cotton clothing in india or heroin in china, this was how contemporary state capitalism, mercantilism, marked european imperialism.
i keep getting the impression that these forms were more directly engaged in imposing their conditions and their psychological and intellectual values than earlier empires, like the turkish, that ruled over n africa but tolerated more the local people's ways. modern imperialists treated their subject peoples as inferior; but romans treated greeks as superior, and had greeks serve as tutors to their children. i don't know as much about turks, but i have the impression that the same was more or less true of their rule in arab lands. in the end, they became muslim, like those peoples whom they had conquered.
ken
On 9/9/12 8:06 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
I don't mean to pile on, but let me offer a few more nuances for Toyin's benefit. Linking the Fulani Jihad with Boko Haram is extremely problematic, not only because it is ahistorical and conflates movements set in different historical and sociopolitical contexts but also because it seems to impose present anxieties on a historical event. I'll also contribute my two cents to some of the other ancillary issues that have come up.
- The Jihad was a movement to revive orthodox Islam as understood by Uthman dan Fodio and his fellow Fulani clerics, and in line with the theological traditions of his Torodbe (sp) clan. It was not a call to extremism and intolerance in the sense that we understand these terms today. It was not a movement to impose extremism. I'll concede that some extremist movements also ground their claims on the need to return to some theological orthodoxy, but most movements of religious orthodoxy are not extremist in nature. To therefore equate or relate the Fulani jihad to Boko Haram is a stretch at best. Boko Haram is campaigning against Christians, rejecting Western education, and all forms of Western modernity (never mind that they use Western martial technology in their campaign). The leaders of the Fulani Jihad celebrated and produced SECULAR knowledge. They cavorted with Christian Europeans. Particularly, Mohammed Bello, Dan Fodio's son and successor, befriended a succession of European Christian explorers (Hugh Clapperton, the Lander brothers, etc), accommodated them in his palace, obtained Western books and items from them, and, fascinated by "Boko" (or Western knowledge and technology) requested more symbols and products of Christian Western England and Germany. So, instead of being anti-Christian or anti-Boko, the leaders of the jihad went out of their way to attract Christians and their modernity into their realm. It is thus very unlikely that Dan Fodio would approve of Boko Haram's narrow, bigoted extremism, which has little or no anchor in any brand of Islamic orthodoxy.
- Dan Fodio personally forbade or banned suicide attacks (harin bakin wake in Hausa) after he established the caliphate. He rooted his objection in mainstream orthodox Islamic exegesis, which forbids suicide. Before then, suicidal or self-sacrificial attacks were a staple of pre-Jihad Hausa warfare. It is thus clear that the Jihad leaders would not approve of the suicidal attacks and suicide bombings of Boko Haram.
- The empire that the Jihad produced was highly decentralized and was only sustained by symbolic gestures and tributes and the exchange of goods--mostly slaves. It was not a very coherent state. Thus the notion that there is some continuity, ideological or otherwise, between the Jihad and Boko Haram is problematic. And, of course, as someone said earlier, Boko Haram arose and spread from the Bornu area, an area that not only resisted the Jihad but had its own distinct tradition of Islam. Furthermore, Boko Haram and Mohammed Yusuf, its founding leader, were heavily influenced if not inspired by a fairly recent renaissance of Wahabi political and conservative Islam, many elements of which contradict the tenets of the Fulani Jihad as described in the canons of the Jihad, most notably the "manifesto of the Sokoto Jihad" translated by Bivar.
None of the above is meant to play down the disruptive impact of the Fulani Jihad. The fact is that a lot of BAD and horrible things were done by people who were or claimed to be acting in the name of the Jihad—people who had the Jihad leaders' endorsement but mostly simply went about to do as they pleased in areas where they operated. Common Hausa folk and traditionalist peoples on the frontiers (many areas in today's Middle Belt) suffered in the hands of Jihad agents and mavericks. Decentralization also enabled the emergence of parallel, simultaneous jihads and spinoffs in multiple sectors and Sokoto could not monitor or control all that went on in the name of the Jihad. In fact the Jihad leaders seemed to lose control of their movement, and the Jihad became in many areas merely a secular war of pillage, quests for power, and slave raids.
On a related note, the notion that the Sokoto Caliphate was not an empire or that the leaders of the jihad were not empire builders or imperialists because early 19th century Hausaland was a feudal and not capitalist context is inaccurate and relies on a very restrictive and narrow Leninist definition of imperialism. Abu seems to forget that Lenin was not defining or describing imperialism as a generic concept or practice but was specifically describing what some call the third wave of empire or post-industrial revolution empires/imperialism in Africa and parts of Asia. Before the modern wave, there were ancient and medieval empires and imperialists—in EVERY continent of the world. The Romans built an empire, so did the Greeks, the Persians, the Phoenicians, Tsarist Russia, the Mongols, the Han of China, etc. These folks were imperialists in non-capitalist contexts. Closer home, the leaders of ancient Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Bornu, Oyo, Asante, etc were imperialists—also in non-capitalist contexts. They built vast empires encompassing diverse peoples and geographies. The Sokoto Caliphate was among a later generation of African empires of the 18th and 19th centuries (Zulu, Lunda, Fante, and Dahomey are other examples). The people who built the caliphate, like the folks who built its contemporary empires in other parts of Africa were imperialists. In fact in the case of the caliphate, the leaders' political and administrative practices in regard to their subdued tributary states and vassals were eerily similar to the practice of Indirect Rule instituted by British imperialists later.
There is perhaps no greater evidence that the Caliphate was an empire and that the founders were imperialists than the writings of the Caliphate/Jihad leaders themselves. It is generally agreed that Dan Fodio was a fairly apolitical, studious cleric and occupied himself mostly with theological and intellectual issues, but his son, Mohammed Bello, was an avowed, unabashed imperialist, who espoused overtly imperialist ideas and claims in his writings. His Infakul Maisur is in some spots an imperial manifesto, proclaiming manifest destiny over many areas of what are today Northern Nigeria and the Middle Belt—even areas that were not and would never be conquered or influenced by the caliphate. His recorded conversations with European visitors to his palace and his communication with other Europeans clearly indicate that Mohammed Bello saw the Caliphate as an imperial realm and wanted to extend it as far south as he could and to impose tributary obligations and indirect control on as many people as he could.
On a final note, I think the problem we have is that because imperialism (or empire) is today a bad word, we assume that it has always been so. This is not true. Empire building (and imperialism) was a coveted vocation and most states aspired to become empires. Most statesmen for long periods of history aspired to become imperialists even though their aspiration may not have occurred to them in those exact terms. Imperialism was the ultimate mark of greatness for a state, the highpoint of state prestige, and it was a rare indicator of personal greatness as a state builder to be known as an imperialist. This remained the case until Europeans in the late stage of empire gave imperialism a very bad name with the massacres, genocides, and unbridled atrocities that occurred in the name of empire and imperialism. This is why the pushback against designating certain imperial practices as imperialism started. It is a lesson on how the conceptual anxieties of the present can intrude into our understanding of historical events and phenomena. But as scholars and intellectuals we should resist allowing our ideological unease to inform and inflect our conceptual deployments.
Today, we cringe when the word "imperialism" in the generic sense is applied to practices and histories that were imperialist, especially when those histories were made by non-European actors. This should not be the case.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadepoju@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan Fodio is celebrated as a hero because he won a military campaign which he imposed on victim states in order to pursue a politico-religious vision.
All the rest of his valorisation is a consequence of that.
Hitler is vilified as a villain because he lost the war he initiated.
He lost partly or even largely because he overeached himself.
If he had contented himself with overrunning Eastern Europe and massacring Jews, if he has not attacked France and Britain or the Soviet Union, or his ally Japan had not attacked the US, most likely he would be celebrated today in history as the great man who freed Germany from the strictures of the Treaty of Versailles, laid the foundations for modern Germany by boosting her industrial production in his emphasis on producing advanced military equipment and cheap vehicles for the average person, spearheaded innovative and devastating military strategies, inspired German nationalism, etc etc. His racism and Jew massacre would be noted as an unfortunate aberration.
Alexander 'the Great' , Napoleon Bonaparte , Queen Victoria, the Roman Empire, all these are examples of imperialists, people who wage war to impose their rule on others without provocation, amassing large territories under their control.
Today they are all heroes because the developments they initiated are celebrated while the human cost paid for their victories is minimised in general historical memory.
thanks
toyin
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Abdullahi Azare <barauab@gmail.com> wrote:
Is shame for you just write on something you don't know or you have little about is better to keep off than to write a lie against someone this hero sheikh usman bn fodio is a well-known in Yoruba among sofa's that is the Islamic scholars in Yoruba land to pabricate a story like this is tarnishing your image becouse even those whomever would read know you are just writing rubbish and I challenge you on this.
On Sep 8, 2012 3:40 PM, "Emeagwali, Gloria (History)" <emeagwali@mail.ccsu.edu> wrote:
>
> To conflate Boko Haram with Uthman dan Fodio is counter-productive
> and misleading. To link the group with Maitatsine may be closer to reality .
>
> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
> www.africahistory.net<http://www.africahistory.net/>
> www.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali<http://www.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali>
> www.vimeo.com/user5946750/videos<http://www.vimeo.com/user5946750/videos>
>
> ________________________________
> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU [toyinvincentadepoju@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 4:22 PM
> To: usaafricadialogue; Mwananchi; wolesoyinkasociety; Jos ANA Discussion List; nigerianauthors; mbariliterarysociety; writerswithoutborders@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - BOKO HARAM : THE EDUCATIONAL IMPERATIVE : INTEGRATING WESTERN AND ISLAMIC CIVILISATION AND EDUCATION
>
> The Nigerian Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram has initiated a war and waged it for years against the Nigerian government, Christians and Muslims it considers its enemies in the Muslim dominated Northern Nigeria.
>
> The group describes the goal of this war as that of compelling the government to make the country an Islamic state and to drive Christians out of Northern Nigeria.
>
> The group has carried out spectacular large scale murders, possibly in the thousands, of Christians and government agents, and targeted or killed individual Muslims, in pursuit of its goal.
>
> The group, whose popular name name Boko Haram, means Western education is forbidden, also bombs schools.
>
> The current situation can be described as one of confusion within Northern Nigeria and the rest of Nigeria since there seems to be no harmony of perspectives on how to manage this crisis.
>
> The ideological vision of Boko Haram, its similarity to the less virulent but also violent Maitasine uprising in the North some years ago, and the relationship between ideology and violence as a means of enforcing a perspective of Islam on a populace demonstrated by Uthman Dan Fodio<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usman_dan_Fodio>, the father of contemporary Islamic civilisation in Northern Nigeria, implies that the central issues at stake in this struggle against Western civilisation need to be addressed at the level of ideology and practice.
>
> Failure to do this implies that such uprising could recur as they have in the past, in various forms, from Dan Fodio to the present.
>
>
> Uthman Dan Fodio initiated a jihad - in this case, an effort at Islamisation through violence- as a means of imposing his preferred form of Islam on the Northern Nigerian Muslim Hausa population.
>
> Boko Haram, like Maitasine in the past, is also engaged in a violent jihad to impose its form of Islam on the Northern Nigerian population, Muslim and non-Muslim.
>
> The jihad initiated by Uthman Dan Fodio eventually tried to push into the rest of what is now Nigeria until it was stopped in the South-West.
>
> Boko Haram has also initiated a similar jihad, but so far, has been unable to penetrate significantly beyond the North.
>
> This recurrence of efforts to impose an ideological orientation through violence, as in the jihad of Uthman Dan Fodio and his successors and the later examples of Boko Haram and Maitsine suggest that such developments may be expected to continue as a continuity can be traced from from the time of Dan Fodio to the present.
>
> What is the challenge here?
>
> How best may Islam in Northern Nigeria be accommodated to the overwhelming presence of Western civilisation, the civilisation Boko Haram is fighting against?
>
> The sheer paradox and possibly even frustration experienced by these Islamic terrorists in their fight against Western civilisation is that the central tools of that fight are derived from the secular culture of the West, the guns, bombs and communications technologies developed after the West had defeated the suffocating hold of the Christian church, a hold that was a deterrent to bold scientific and technological development.
>
> While recognising this paradox, the delusions of fanatics like Boko Haram should not blind us to the real issues that such fanatical behaviour might led one to dismiss as backward and deluded.
>
> People of religious faith might want something more not evident for them in the overwhelmimg dominance of Western civilisation.
>
> It is stated that some Muslims in Northern Nigeria are uneasy with Western education although that does imply support of the violence of Boko Haram or Maitasine.
>
> How should such uneasiness be addressed?
>
> Can Islamic civilisation and education replace Western education successfully in today's world?
>
> Is it possible to harmonise both?
>
> If so, what are the essential qualities of both forms of civilisation and education that need to be harmonised for best results?
>
> Addressing these issues implies that a central question is addressed without resorting to extreme solutions that support completely one position or another, for or against Western or Islamic education.
>
>
> Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju
> Compcros<http://danteadinkra.wix.com/compcros>
> Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems
> "Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"
>
>
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
>
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english east lansing, mi 48824-1036 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english east lansing, mi 48824-1036 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english east lansing, mi 48824-1036 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment