Ogbeni Kadiri,
I know you to be an honest and sincere person. So, will you please stop this tittle-tattle?
It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You indicated "through the dots after the word starvation "and deliberately, ingeniously "jumped over certain words", these certain words being: 'starvation of Biafra's soldiers' – in order to supress that important piece of my text (information) so that you could go ahead and attack what you imputed I was saying, by that deliberate omission - what I was not saying, your words, not mine that "the Nigerian government deployed starvation as a weapon of war against non-combatant in Biafra"
You know these famous lines by Robert Burns (Scotland's national poet) that "the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry"
Ostensibly, the original intention of the Federal government was not genocidal. As you yourself made clear and these are your words, not mine: "there was nothing wrong if the federal government declared that it would not allow food to be given to Biafran soldiers in order to minimize their capacity to resist defeat."
That apparently, was your Federal Government's intention but in effect it resulted in some TWO MILLION BIAFRANS (mostly civilians) STARVING TO DEATH.
That's why I say that your argument is weak, to believe that such a policy could succeed in only targeting combatants and that's why let me repeat, I wryly observed that " In the light of what actually happened your argument is weak utterly lacking in foresight, and in reality boils down to this: that two million Biafrans starved to death because the Biafran soldiers ate up all the food that was intended for the rest of Biafra's civilian population. Is that what you are saying?"
I ask the question because you have already told us that there was plenty of food in Biafra and there was consequently really no starvation. Again your words: "In Biafra where huge parties were being thrown to entertain friends and cows were being slaughtered to Christen new born babies, it is absurd, if not lunatic, to talk of starvation."
And then I gave you the example of superfluity in Emperor Haile Selassie's Palace and pictures of the Emperor feeding choice meats to the Palace lions as not argument enough to suggest that there was no famine in Ethiopia, 1970-1979
Sincerely
Cornelius
On Saturday, 5 December 2015 22:54:18 UTC+1, ogunlakaiye wrote:
I have not misquoted you since I indicate through the dots after the word starvation that I jumped over certain words which did not in anyway distort the information you were trying to convey. Your stand was that the Nigerian government deployed starvation as a weapon of war against non-combatant in Biafra. If your sentence in question had stopped at, 'as a weapon of war after 'starvation of Biafra's soldiers' your rationale thesis would have been correct. But the elongation after 'as a weapon of war' reads, 'to bring down the people of Biafra to their knees, through starvation' and supports your idea that the federal government deployed starvation as a weapon of war against civilian Biafrans which is not true. You did not need to mix up, not giving food to Biafran soldiers with 'to bring down the people of Biafra to their knees, through starvation which is the information you have conveyed. That is my honest way of reading your thesis....
May I advise you to read my submission properly before responding instead of in bits on the same submission.
S.Kadiri
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 09:21:30 -0800
From: cornelius...@gmail.com
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - The Igbo QuestionPS.
Ogbeni Kadiri:
In the name of honesty
even in the mistaken belief (other tricks of the trade) that there is no difference between what I said and what you think is the essence of what I said, please quote me accurately the next time or don't quote me at all.
I wrote that "You yourself have provided us with the rationale behind the policy which aimed at using starvation "of Biafra's soldiers" as a weapon of war to bring the people of Biafra to their knees, through starvation"
I did not merely write as you misquoted (by omitting my centre of gravity ),"You yourself have provided us with the rationale behind the policy which aimed at using starvation... as a weapon of war to bring the people of Biafra to their knees"
Yrs,
Cornelius
On Friday, 4 December 2015 10:51:36 UTC+1, ogunlakaiye wrote:You seem to me, a times, to be like a bat that can neither be classified a bird nor a mouse. First you began your piece by referring to the Peoples' uprising in Iran that toppled the age long Anglo/American installed puppet King, Shar of Iran. Beset with the marrows of bat you then conflate the Iranian revolution with the Biafran hoodlums and ideological prostitutes fanning the embers of ethno-fascism in Nigeria. I am shocked!!
In your characteristic mix-up and muddle-up, you wrote, "You yourself have provided us with the rationale behind the policy which aimed at using starvation... as a weapon of war to bring the people of Biafra to their knees." I have never at any point in time and space said there was a policy, on the part of the federal government of Nigeria, which aimed at using starvation as a weapon of war to bring the people of Biafra to their knees. There was no such policy that aimed at using starvation against civilians in Biafra. This is what Achebe wrote on that issue, "A statement credited to Chief Obafemi Awolowo and echoed by his cohorts is the most callous and unfortunate: All is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don't see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight harder." (page 233, There Was a Country by Chinua Achebe). Any normal person reading what Achebe wrote would easily discern that he was not sure if Awolowo made the statement therefore the expression, statement credited to Chief Obafemi Awolowo." Even if it was true that Awolowo had advocated for the use of starvation as a weapon of war, it was distinctively clear in the alleged statement to whom the weapon should be deployed. Utilizing the head not only as hat shelf and applying simple gumption, one will understand that enemies which Awolowo was alleged to have cautioned against being fed fat in order for them not to fight harder were Biafran soldiers and not unarmed civilians. Barely a year after the war had started in 1968, Achebe noted, " Gowon ... decided to open up land routes for a 'supervised transport of relief. To the consternation of Gowon, Ojukwu opted out of land routes in favour of increased airlifts of food from São Tomé by international relief agencies (page 211)." But the international relief agencies derive their operating rights from governments voluntarily signing the Geneva Convention and are compelled to a strict adherence to legality no matter how pressing the humanitarian considerations might be. Therefore, Ojukwu actually committed war crime by preventing international relief agencies from transporting relief supplies to non-combatant civilians in Biafra through Nigeria's land corridor even when it was obvious that it would be cheaper and more effective than airlifting from São Tomé. No one else but Ojukwu was responsible for the wellbeing, including food security, of the people in the territory under his control and he should be blamed for those who died of starvation under his watch.It would appear as if you have problem in comprehending a simple statement that in wars, opposing combatants exchange gun shots and bombs and not bread and butter. To say one cannot sneeze and close the mouth simultaneously cannot wisely be misconstrued to mean providing a rationale for self-asphyxiators when it is self-evident that sneezing and closing the mouth at the same time would result to self-asphyxiation. You may not think it was absurd and crazy to throw parties and slaughter cows to Christen new-born babies while there was starvation in Biafra, but I do. While the self-styled Diala (Herren Folk) Igbo were feasting and partying, the Osu (expendable slaves) Igbo were starving to death. The Osu Igbo were chasing lizards to kill for meat and Diala Igbo were killing cows for meat and that is not ridiculous to you in your up-side-down world as Fela had put it. After excerpting from Ahiara Declaration where Ojukwu lamented on the effect of blockade of his rebel held territory, you poured salt on injured flesh by asking what I would say if Israel were to blockade Palestinian, as Nigeria did to Ojukwu's Biafra? To begin with, when the Berlin wall fell in 1989, the backers of Israel, Western World, rejoiced. Yet, Israel picked the blocks from Berlin and added new ones to build the longest and highest wall against the Palestinians without dissenting voice from anywhere being heard. Gaza is the biggest open prison or concentration camp in the world today. The condition of the Palestinians in Gaza strip was so horrible that a man with the heart of a snake and conscience of hyena like former Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan (now President) organized humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. The ship, named Mavi Marmara sailed towards Gaza with Crews from Western Europe, including Sweden. But on 31st of May 2010, Israel's combined naval and air force attacked the aid ship, Mavi Marmara, whereby 9 civilian crews were killed and 55 were seriously injured. Israel accused the Captain of the ship and its Crew of breaching the blockade of Gaza. When the matter was eventually taken up at the UN Security Council, it was decided that Israel has the right to inspect all cargos sailing into Gaza so as to ensure that no weapons were smuggled to the Palestinians with whom Israel is in a state of war. The UN Security Council considered the action of the sponsors of Mavi Marmara as a breach of legal blockade of Gaza by Israel. In view of the aforesaid, your question about what I would say if Israel were to blockade Palestinian as Nigeria did to Biafra is superfluous because there exists blockade of Gaza and the only condition for civilians in Gaza strip to get basic amenities of life is that all traffic by land, air or sea must first pass through Israel for inspection before going further to Gaza. If the Gaza strip's leader should object to that condition, civilians in Gaza would starve to death just as it happened in Biafra when Ojukwu stubbornly rejected pre-inspection of all traffic into Biafra by the Nigerian government in 1968.S. Kadiri
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:02:38 -0800
From: cornelius...@gmail.com
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - The Igbo QuestionOgbeni Kadiri,
Someone is quoted as saying that "Igbo youth are mobilising and arming for secession" - Of course it is not merely getting weapons that make such youths and effective fighting force. They have to be trained to fight. When a civilian population takes to arms (as when Imam Khomeini once said "The people are the army and the army is the people – when SAVAK was tired of gunning down their own Iranian people, then it was all over. In the case of Biafra – the Igbos were "the other people"
You yourself have provided us with the rationale behind the policy which aimed at using starvation "of Biafra's soldiers" as a weapon of war to bring the people of Biafra to their knees, through starvation. Undeniably your words:
"I have never heard or read of any war where opposing combatants bombarded each order with bread, butter and gem. In view of this, there was nothing wrong if the federal government declared that it would not allow food to be given to Biafran soldiers in order to minimize their capacity to resist defeat. Food to civilians in a war affected area is regulated under international law. Nigeria was a signatory to that international law but not Biafra and since that international law recognized the sovereignty of Nigeria over Biafra, Nigeria had the right to inspect all planes flying into Biafra with relief supplies to civilians in order to ascertain that weapons were not smuggled to the rebels. When Gowon offered to allow relief supplies through a land corridor from Port Harcourt to the rebel held territory under international Red Cross, there was no latent or obvious military advantage for his side as Biafra was effectively surrounded militarily and land locked"
In bold black letter you quote the Biafran Leader condemning some of his elite countrymen in the midst of the imposed famine:
"…. BUT HERE (Biafra) EVEN WHILE WE ARE ENGAGED IN A WAR OF NATIONAL SURVIVAL, EVEN WHILE THE LIFE OF OUR NATION HANGS IN THE BALANCE, WE SEE SOME PUBLIC SERVANTS, WHO THROW HUGE PARTIES TO ENTERTAIN THEIR FRIENDS; WHO KILL COWS TO CHRISTEN THEIR BABIES."
It's illogical to conclude that just because some public servants were throwing huge parties to entertain their friends and killing cows to christen their babies - (your words), that
" it is absurd, if not lunatic, to talk of starvation." – the illogicality: because some peoples' stomachs were not affected by the famine means that millions were not affected by the famine/ starvation which is a historical fact and that it is therefore (your own ridiculous conclusion): "absurd, if not lunatic, to talk of starvation."
People were looking for lizards to eat as meat - are you aware of that?
What do you see HERE?
If Israel adopted such a policy towards the Palestinians what would Ogbeni Kadiri say?
Let's pay close attention to what else Gen. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu said on 01 June 1969.
"For two years we have been subjected to a total blockade. We all know how bitter, bloody and protracted the First and Second World Wars were. At no stage in those wars did the white belligerents carry out a total blockade of their fellow whites. In each case where a blockade was imposed, allowance was made for certain basic necessities of life in the interest of women, children and other non-combatants. Ours is the only example in recent history where a whole people have been so treated. What is it that makes our case different? Do we not have women, children and other non-combatants? Does the fact that they are black women, black children and black non-combatants make such a world of difference?" (Excerpted from the Ahiara Declaration)
If Israel adopted such a policy towards the Palestinians what would you say?
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 00:35:13 UTC+1, ogunlakaiye wrote:In an address at Ibadan on Graduation Day, 1st July 1966, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ibadan, Dr. Kenneth O. Dike, said among other things that 'the worst pedlars of tribalism in this country are the educated Nigerians.' It is irony of fate that 49 years after Dr. Dike's observation, some Nigerian intellectuals far from being the agents of unity and progress are the greatest exploiters of parochial and ethnic sentiments. These intellectuals continue to impress upon Nigerians that the ethnic origin of the President or any official matters to the country and not the competence and ability of the office holder to produce amenities required of his/her office for all citizens. Although, Nigerian intellectuals would like us to believe that the holder of an office, appointed or elected, is doing so on behalf of his/her ethnic group, what Nigerians have experienced is that the ethnic group of any office holder, are equally denied of basic needs of life as all other ethnic groups in the country. Evidently, Nigerian intellectuals are fictional academics producing imaginary developments.
I would have associated myself with the view expressed below that there is no Igbo Question but Nigerian Question in Nigeria if it had been framed as there is no Igbo Problem but Nigerian Problem. The problem in Nigeria is that we tend to blame the incompetence of an official person on his/her ethnic group and not the officer. In situations where th
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment